User talk:DB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please place your comments under the appropriate category.

[edit] Positive Comments

[edit] Archive

Praise Archive

[edit] Hayden/Steamboat

No problem Dbinder; the website plays tricks on me also. Sox23 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] focus/hub thanks

Hey, just wanted to drop you a thank you note for modifying the airline template to separate out the secondary hub/focus city field.. —Cliffb 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive Criticism

[edit] Archive

Criticism Archive

[edit] Layout suggestion

Rather than using sections to break your talk page up into sections, could you consider using subpages. You could make each topic subpage a template that you would transclude into this page. That would let me use the + tab to add a new conversation. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. DB (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bmi

Re this edit - bmi (airline) is a stable article, and the MOS is a guideline, lets not stir up trouble where the article is fine as it is. Thanks/wangi 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. I didn't really think it needed to be changed in the first place, but I figured the editor who came in to change it in the first place would come back and cause his/her own trouble DB (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've switched it back, stable's good :) /wangi 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a guideline. The article is also impossible to read as-is. You can't tell where one sentence ends and the next one starts. There is a discussion about this on the article's Talk page; let's use it.--chris.lawson 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's really difficult. Those little dots called periods don't make it entirely clear if the sentence is actually ending. DB (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprovoked Attacks

[edit] 787 Infobox (Continued)

I see that you chose to ignore my request and haven't brought this new addition up with wp:air at all. That really would be the most polite of your options, especially if anonymous users are going to claim that I'm "vandalizing" the article that I and several other users have been cooperating on for quite some time. We just had a survey as well as an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft that has arrived at not using infoboxes for aircraft information. If you worked with us, rather than parallel to us, we might be able to improve the article in a more effective manner. There really are a dozen or so reasons why tables in general are unwanted, particularly at the top of the page; they're in the survey linked from the talk page as well as on the talk page itself. Thank you in advance for cooperating with the project. -eric ✈ 00:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narita

It is just common sense that this is NOT a hub. They offer very little in the way of connections from NRT. Where is the Vietnam flight oritionating from. Use your head man, Narita is far far far from a hub for united.

Read this one. NRT may have been at one time, but it is not anymore. A hub is define loosely as more than 50 departures a day. NRT is not a hub Hubs

[edit] Codeshares

Hi. Hope you also sent to the similar "alert" to the other editor who also insistly revert the article. Fairness should be important even in the Cyberspace, right? And then I would be great if you also join the discussion about the topic. Thank you. KGF 23:10 08 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Fairness should be important for anyone according to the US education, shouldn't it? Hope you surely warn the exact same alert to the other editor, who broke the three-revert rule. By the way, would you revert the following sentence? Otherwise, it qualifies as a revert by you, Mr. Fairness. It should be 'valid' or you check it out by yourself.

• JALWays (Bangkok, Denpasar, Guam, Honolulu, Saipan)

Thank you.KGF 00:35 08 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilized Discussions

[edit] Archive

See Civilized Discussions archive

[edit] Halifax Stanfield International Airport

Hi - I noticed you reverted my page move this afternoon. FYI the airport was officially renamed to Halifax/Robert L. Stanfield International Airport at 2pm AST by Prime Minister Harper in a renaming ceremony at the main terminal. I did follow the naming convention for the Toronto Pearson International Airport page, so I'm curious as to why it was reverted? We're in the process of replacing links to the old HIA article. Plasma east 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The official name of the airport may have changed, but Wikipedia policy is to use common names in article titles. I doubt that people will start referring to the airport as "Halifax Stanfield International". The article itself should certainly have the new name, but the title should be by common use. However, if there is a consensus to move it to the new title, then that would be fine. Just put up a move request and see what others have to say. DB (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey DB if your going to accuse me of something have some proof. I'm not sure why because some user chose to register to post on the Halifax airport means that you feel the right to accuse another user. If you so strongly believe in the Halifax airport being called by its old name, fine. My life is not going change because of it and neither is yours, so relax. However I don't see how someone from the States can really know what a small airport in Canada is being called by locals. Here in Canada we don't accuse people of things without some proof.379hfx 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not that small, but that's beside the point. Where an editor is from is irrelevant. Being from Canada doesn't give you special privileges over the article; see WP:OWN. Finally suspicion is not the same as an accusation. Since I believe that you too may be a sockpuppet, then that would imply you're both being controlled by a third editor. DB (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Airlines destinations

Why do you feel that "Continental flies to the most destinations of any US airline in Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom" "needs a citation"? Seems a bit silly considering that nearly every article about an US airline that flies to these countries has a destination list associated with it. Now I realize that these are not definitive lists but that hardly seems a justification for requiring a specific external citation. --BetaCentauri _(talk) 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many charter airlines whose destination lists are not on Wikipedia. Without a source, there's no confirmation that Continental really does serve the most in those countries. If it were changed to the most scheduled destinations, that should be alright. DB (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory at least, you can charter for any route. The only real question is how much you're willing to pay. So I'd assume nobody cares about charter vs. scheduled. --BetaCentauri _(talk) 07:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But there are also charter carriers with regular sets of destinations. But as I mentioned, just change it to the most scheduled destinations and I don't think it would be disputed. DB (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. You know, I've never understood the concept of a "charter" airline offering "regular" destinations. They fly wherever they get paid enough to and have someone willing to fly there, right? --BetaCentauri _(talk) 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, but there are also "scheduled charters", such as North American Airlines and Monarch Airlines (the former necessitated a change in the Delta Air Lines article from saying that Delta is the only US carrier to fly to Africa to Delta is the only major US carrier). DB (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Opinion re LIM

Hi. I am just following the directions stated here. Did I misinterpret it? Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what the current guideline states, so no, you didn't misinterpret it. However, I think part of it should be changed. I just described the proposed change on the project talk page. DB (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locations in Airline Club Section

Please see... WP:AIRLINES#Airport clubs I have discussed as to the reason why I believe locations shall be included. I do remember a while back that a good amount of Wikipedians agreed to have them in instead of having a seperate page for the club, or the locations.--Golich17 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to locate it... that is if it still is existant. If I find it, i'll be sure to show you it. If I am unable to locate it, I would hope we can reach some sort of new agreement.--Golich17 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the clubs shouldn't have separate pages, but a list of locations seems pretty clearly to just be a directory. The link I added was directly to the locations page, so it's only one click to find that list. DB (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous Notifications

[edit] Archive

See Miscellaneous archive

[edit] Arbitration

Greetings! You are being contacted to be notified that a Request for Arbitration has opened and you were listed as an involved party. You can find the discussion and make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport. Thank you for your cooperation. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Airlines Class of Travel

I am in the process of cleaning up the classes. I will be doing it within the next couple of days. I will be making it similar to Northwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines.--Golich17 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Needed

Since you help me out usually, I have a question. If you have been viewing the editing of the Singapore Airlines and US Airways page, do you believe the reverts I have been making are correct? For what it's worth, select editors re-revert my edits back to the original, complex, hard to understand version. I'm all for simplicity yet consistency, and they're holding me back from making the proper edits to the article.--Golich17 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited User talk:Sox23 (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).

While you do sometimes provide a summary, you commonly either rely on WP:AES or don't bother. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually I include one. When adding to a user's talk page, I don't. The comments on the page speak for themselves. DB (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You really should include talk pages. Until I check the diff, I don't know what you are doing. Personally, I figure that some anti-vandal bots use the same red-flags that I do — including the blank edit summary. If a bot reverts your edit, don't say I didn't warn you. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind. DB (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Request

Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.

Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks! .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airport names

Based on a discssion I've been having at Talk:East Midlands Airport#Nottingham East Midlands/East Midlands and seeing your edit, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Names of airports to see if some consensus can be reached. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vienna Airport Move

The article has been moved again. In case you want to move it back, I tried but didn't succeed, since I don't know how to. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was initially moved by blanking and redirecting (i.e. incorrectly). DB (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scusi?

smettila bello, i am so sorry but British Airways will be starting service from Cardiff to JFK durring this summer bello, if you do not trust my sources...va Napoli! i am an executive for British Airways currently based out of Milan Malpensa bello —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.27.4 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

That's interesting, considering your IP address is from Brooklyn. DB (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

bello i told you i am based in Milan Malpensa, hint based. Does not mean that I am not in Brooklyn right now, i travel a lot. I am an executive you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.27.4 (talk)

• Well I guess you're telekinetic. I mean, you can operate your computer in New York all the way from Italy. You could make a lot of money with that talent. DB (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

did you not read my message? i travel! i am in brooklyn right now bello. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.27.4 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• Oh, sorry, I guess I misread that. DB (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

then can you stop deleting my revisions bello? because, i will make sure you will not get to fly on that Cardiff-JFK flight and as i recall, it has been put on British Airway's page before, so please stop deleting it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.27.4 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• OK. Before, you were so ridiculous that it was actually funny. Now it's just irritating. DB (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i am very sorry but i will not be blocked for giving information that is truthful. do you work for British Airways, no so i dont think you should be accusing me of giving false information bello. (68.192.27.4 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

plus, you barely know anything about airliners. Once you tell me the reason why British Airways is building a new Terminal 5 at Heathrow, then you can challenge my sources, and do not cheat!

• What? DB (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

you have no authority to be threatning to block me about saying information about a company i work for. you do not even know anything about airliners bello. that is all i basically said, if that was so hard to comprehend. (68.192.27.4 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

• Actually, I take it back. I am enjoying this. DB (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

guess what...IM BACK!

[edit] WikiProject Aviation Newsletter Delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)