Archives: 2007: Jun-Dec. 2008: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2009: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2010: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2011: Jan-Jun. Jul-Dec. 2012: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2013: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2014: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec. 2015: Jan-Jun, Jul-Dec.

I noticed you undid recent changes in the Puerto Rico's article. I posted a related question in the talk page. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it back to December. HkCaGu (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and your contributions. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please explain to me the difference between AI 127 HYD-DEL-ORD (where ORD is listed on the HYD page and v/v) and CA 983 SZX-PEK-LAX. I didn't understand your edit summary.

Both of these routes involve domestic hub stops, but they are also same plane, same flight number. WP:Airports/page content #7 seems to refer more to 'direct' flights with plane changes. Also, with the great deal that has been made out of this new direct SZX-LAX service (see pics here), it appears this route is much more significant than a simple flight that goes through the hub. The same 77W starts in SZX and goes to LAX via PEK, it's not like an A320 to PEK and then the true longhaul flight. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A flyer from Chicago to HYD does not have to clear immigration and customs until HYD, and vice versa, although AI can sell HYD-DEL domestically with passengers skipping immigration and customs. This is the valid exception as such a special plane the domestic flight uses. However, China is strict in dividing domestic and international that SZX-PEK is a domestic flight. The plane, even if continuing on with the flight number, must move from one terminal to another while passengers go through checkpoints and train ride. This breaks the continuity. And SZX-PEK can also be served by B744s so B773s are not exceptional. Even if you have same plane service, there had been plenty of previous discussion on WT:AIRPORT and the consensus was that thru-PVG tag-ons should be excluded. Please read through the archives there and understand all the very different perspectives on this issue. (There's also UA/NW/DL through NRT, AC's YYZ-YVR-SYD, AC's YYZ-YUL-Europe, and so on.) HkCaGu (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. However, I noted that SZX-PEK is operated by 77W because that same plane/registration continues to LAX, as is the case on every SZX-LAX routing. Also, what is the point of calling this route a direct service and having an inauguration ceremony, if pax have to disembark at PEK and walk over to the int'l terminal? Do pax continuing to LAX get to stay onboard as the plane taxis from the domestic to the int'l gate (which I've never heard of btw)? - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other routes like this already through PEK, PVG, and even WUH popping up in recent 2-3 years. This is part of China's modern "fakeness" (false/exaggerated claims) culture. But in all cases, China clearly separates domestic and international and border inspections are carried at the gateway so everyone has to be off the plane. HkCaGu (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take your word for it. Surprised they would hold a big ceremony and all, if pax still have to disembark and walk to another terminal. It's like they're taking another flight. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through some PEK transit myself, although not SZX-LAX. One other method they can run SZX-LAX with the same plane (although after the inauguration, same plane isn't always anymore) is to park one in a remote location and use buses. This way the plane may not have to move but passengers have to change terminal. Either way, it's ridiculous to say it's "direct". HkCaGu (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed HYD from AI since SFO-DEL-HYD uses 2 different flight numbers (AI174 and AI126) per Air India timetables. AI174 operates SFO-DEL-BLR but it is not the same plane. as you mentioned in your message above, HYD on AI originates in ORD not SFO. Thanks! 166.177.185.141 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I used the wrong city to look up. Yes, BLR is definitely a plane change. Thanks! HkCaGu (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here kitty!!!!

Jwebb0628 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your revert here [1] makes bad internal link now (red link) (like here: [2]), instead of the good (blue) link.--Trec'hlid mitonet (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's quite complicated. Is there a better way to handle the template? HkCaGu (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kosrae International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuuk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to keep an eye on this article, if you haven't already. The long-term Indian Statistics Vandal seems to have returned. Regards, 172.56.42.144 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently airport names are a mess. Some use US state codes, some use Canadian province codes and some use country codes. You said it's irrelevant because you're probably American and know that the code is a for a US state. Wikipedia is for all readers, some might not know that. Some consistency helps avoid confusion. Szqecs (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If subdivisions like states are to be used, the same should be used for other countries as well such as Costa Rica. I'm not sure that is a good idea. Szqecs (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how city articles are named. Different standards are used for small cities, large cities, in small countries and in large countries. Airport city listings should follow this logic and be as reasonable. They are links to airports, so of the minority of readers is in doubt, they can click, but the display should not be burdensome for most readers. HkCaGu (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4201:3033:4083:36B1:1D9E:B08 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.90 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, Jonathan Yip! HkCaGu (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i am unable or unwilling to confirm or deny your allegation regarding my identity! Cheers! --66.87.118.90 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just noticed that you have removed my Ho Chi Minh City edits from both pages. Even though the flight does switch aircraft, it still retains the flight number 179/180 throughout both flights. It is worth mentioning that direct flights are allowed to change aircraft at stop overs and still be considered a direct flight, not a connecting flight. Just to let you know. MacftraxMC (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, must be same flight number and aircraft. HkCaGu (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i've recently unblocked after 3 years in Wikipedia and i can start editing again. I hope that i will not repeat my mistake again. I want to join Wikiproject Aviation, can you please tell the rules and how to join? Thanks! Thoriq Ahmad Rahmat (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no procedures to join. Just edit. Look at project pages carefully and proceed carefully. For example, WP:AIRPORT. Also see discussion pages for past consensus, for example, WT:AIRPORT. HkCaGu (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look? A user continues to add Newark as a destination from Ho Chi Minh City on United Airlines (there is a change of aircraft required at HKG from 738 to 777). I have left a message at his talk page with the link to the project page. I added a hidden note regarding this but it keeps getting removed. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be watching for the next few hours. HkCaGu (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Duyan197281 (the user who has been making the edit) has been blocked and today the account Andyan200305 (after I messaged Duyan197281) was created making the same edit and it was blocked too by User:Nakon as both were obvious socks. However, I would keep an eye out a while longer in case similar accounts are created. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected until 4 July 2016 (users continue to insist that there is not an aircraft change from SGN to EWR eventhough there is according to united.com where it says Change planes....equipment changes to a Boeing 777-200). I am sick and tired of this! 97.85.118.142 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the above IP to stop changing dates in New Zealand articles from dmy to mdy (the American format). I will back you in any attempt to get the IP blocked. Akld guy (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried AIV once. I need someone else to try from another angle. HkCaGu (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrewgprout. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not remove citation needed templates - please provide RS that the constituent former LAN airlines are still effecively separate entities. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every Latin American airport has every carrier listed separately as "LATAM XXX" and "Avianca XXX". Your lack of ability to understand is amazing! HkCaGu (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All LATAM subsidiaries have their own articles, each one "is" an airline, and their infoboxes have no "ceased" fields. How can you continue to disrupt LAX article? HkCaGu (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please do not be rude to me - I do not appreciate your derisive comments. I have asked for you to provide a proper reference and you unilaterally removed this request - as I have said on the article talk page it is up to you to provide a reference to support the existence of LATAM subbrands within the new LATAM brand and an argument that the significant enough to be separately defined within Wikipedia. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this to the article's talk page regarding this. TravelLover37 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --12.17.169.154 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HkCaGu,

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction for the guidelines for listing the cargo destinations in the route tables. After looking at some of the cargo airline timetables, I have gone ahead and removed the flights that were inbound-only or destinations that simply did not even connect directly to LAX, per WP:Airports. 172.56.42.23 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at cargo schedules, which are often too much for me to be able to inspect. HkCaGu (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HkCaGu,

I have restarted the discussion about the long-going "Orlando airports" issue at WT:Airports. Your thoughts and opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated! The discussion is here. Regards—172.58.40.42 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have different opinions on whether to include his Chinese name (or as you put it, the name his mother gave him) into the article. Although you've reverted my edits three times without ever providing a single reference (save for the discussion on Talk: Michelle Kwan, which is both non-abiding and inconclusive), I now decide to pause the editing war before we discuss it thoroughly here.

In your latest revert, you called my reference "insufficient". Now please tell me how can a Wikipedia talk page (which is the only "reference" you've provided to date) be more "sufficient" than an independent news outlet?

--Sandycx (Talk) 04:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiency means a Chinese name is justified to be included. No one is doubting the validity of Adrian's Chinese name. You cannot compare your source with a talk page and say the source is more valid. And 倪家駿 being the Chinese article name (I did that move!) does not mean it should be included here in English. If you looked at Talk:Michelle Kwan, I had argued for inclusion because she is widely known by it. Many similar famous people also have their Chinese names included. However, someone raised a valid point that we cannot find a place where she officially calls herself 關穎珊. We only have her family using that names, and organizations interacting with her calling her by that name. This is unlike Michael Chang who had his book translated into Chinese and whose family foundation hosts a bilingual website. I agreed to that point, nobody disagreed, and the article was not disturbed subsequently, so that is a consensus. Adrian, being less widely known at this point, is therefore covered by this consensus. If you want this overturned, you should at least open a discussion at his article's talk page. HkCaGu (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Chinese social media site Sina Weibo, I did find Nathan's page here, using the simplified Chinese form of his name. If you're redirected to the log in page, you can view its Google snapshot here. The site claims that it has verified that the owner is indeed Nathan Adrian himself, using the yellow 【V微博认证】 sign on top left. Do you consider this reference sufficient?

--Sandycx (Talk) 17:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find! This should bring it over the barrier of any opposition. (But if there is, I hope I don't have to explain the linguistics all over again.) I'm not familiar with Weibo enough, but the cache link you have seems good for a reference. I've done some Googling and the Weibo account's existence is verifiable, but the cache link would be a better proof of his own use of his name. HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a references: [3]

This may be a better list: Special:Contributions/Aviation_black_ops

Hi. There's been a spate of pointless sock-puppetry on your user talk, so I've temporarily semi-protected it. Please let me know if you'd like this lifted, otherwise it will expire of its own accord in a couple of weeks. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added Chengdu to Garuda Indonesia beginning in January 2017 but someone reverted me because they told me that it was allowed. Can you take a look? 97.85.118.142 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed on your user page that you have lived in Hong Kong and have traveled throughout China. Do you speak Chinese, and if so, would you be willing to tell me what these two articles say (here and here)? This is for the Ying'an Airlines article. I tried using Google Translate, but I don't feel their translations are the most accurate. Thanks for your time. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 19:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact terminology, but here's the essential summary:

Letter from CAAC to Yunnan Ying'an Airlines:

Your company's temporary permit was valid until 2015-12-04. As of that date, your company had not submitted a complete application, therefore:

1. According to the law, an executive agency can revoke a permit if any of these conditions are met: when a permit expires and is not extended, and the company has not applied for extension, the permit to operate is automatically invalidated. We have therefore decided to cancel your temporary permit, and your company should turn over the temporary permit within 10 days of reception of this notice.

2. As your temporary permit is now invalidated, you cannot operate transportation or use tickets and codes and logos.

3. If you are not satisfied, you can appeal to the CAAC for administrative review within 60 days, or initiate legal action at the court within 6 months.

Notice by Airpp.net:

Regarding Ying'an passenger ticket refund

We received from Ying'an that it had suspended all flights as of 2015-12-01, and had organized no continuing ticket sales efforts, and no plans to resume as of 2016-01-08, so now all sales outlets should initiate refund procedures which should be completed by 2016-01-20 17:00. After that time unrefunded tickets cannot be processed, and any legal dispute would be between agents and passengers. All agents please take seriously this process. HkCaGu (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All customers should go through this process for refund. Any late requests will be your responsibility.

Thank you so much! I will be cleaning up the article soon to incorporate this information. It looks like they still haven't resumed operations, and I can't find a reason... ch-aviation lists them as "Restarting". Anyways thanks again. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 02:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please see the consensus because the sources say otherwise? (121.219.102.91 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Okay I read through the talk page, I can't find a clear consensus though. I noticed one user brought up the Japanese Wikipedia article equivalent on Tsukimi and it is indeed true that the Japanese Wikipedia article (月見) discusses the Chinese and Vietnamese, Mid-Autumn Festival and Korean, Chuseok festival. As for the inclusion of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, their inclusion is justified because the related festivals celebrated in those countries are linked to the legend that is associated with the Mid-Autumn Festival. That legend is of the Buddhist legend of the rabbit, fox and monkey. In China the legend has developed Chinese cultural overtones, while in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Laos the legend retains its original Buddhist overtones. Either way the festival in China and Vietnam and its related festivals in southern Asia relate around the legend of the Moon rabbit and for the latter the Buddha's ascendance to heaven too. Most importantly they also revolve around the full moon and are all derived from Buddhist beliefs. I still can't find a reason why Korea or Japan can't be included because the sources support their inclusion. Despite that, I have removed the information regarding both festivals from the article. (121.219.102.91 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi HkCaGu, I invite you to contribute to this RfC on the Airlines and destinations tables on airport articles. True, we had an earlier discussion, but this RfC debates whether the tables should exist at all – and I am seeking a diversity of editors to contribute in order to establish true consensus. Thanks for your time. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should all stop edit warring now, or else we may both be blocked. However, why do you think having a weather climate chart on that page is not encyclopedic? I hope you reply soon. Thank you. Blue46gt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is the consensus on what should be included in airport articles. As you can see projectwide, climate data do not appear in airport articles, despite many airports being climate stations. And as you can see Wikipedia-wide, climate tables only appear in geographic locations' articles to illustrate a place (city, town, etc.) Climate data are not encyclopedic to the exact location if those articles are airports or institutions (e.g. Hong Kong Observatory, a harbor, or University of Southern California [downtown L.A. climate station], Mission Dolores [downtown San Francisco climate station] or Oakland Museum). And to make it worse, the present HKG airport only has 18 years of history and does not even qualify to provide official climate data. HkCaGu (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So sorry for the mess I've done last week. I was about to edit the Indonesia AirAsia X's destination based on my experience flying with them last year.

I coincidentally lives in Surabaya, so I'm always keeps updating what airlines flew to my airport and their destinations. Here is the reference so you might want to edit the page:

Terence7399 (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://m.detik.com/travel/read/2012/10/19/150927/2067254/1382/airasia-buka-rute-baru-surabaya-johor-bahru

It's in Indonesian, but I assure you it's from a large online media and it's official. Thank you. Terence7399 (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said this in the edit summary: An article in 2012 has no meaning, especially when I cannot find such route now in any air travel search engine. I can only conclude that the route is gone. HkCaGu (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You gave an "only" warning to this user for vandalism, and I guess that this is the same person in new guise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like the same ISP and city! HkCaGu (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HkCaGu: did you or someone else reported the issue to admin? I remember there was a range block before for the socks Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.254.158.227, but it was expired? Matthew_hk tc 09:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had done an ANI, but I think that temp block expired. HkCaGu (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete my edited pages. The resources of these page are from <http://www.hko.gov.hk/cis/climat_c.htm>

Samsonsosay (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being vigilant about random vandals, like that guy who always removes "有限"! Citobun (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mea culpa, I thought it meant the locations being deserved by the airport... sorry--Gabriel HM (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that you can simply add detail you know is right but can not reference goes against every piece of Wikipedia etiquite. And I know you know this and I simply do not understand why you insist you have the right to do such. Plus calling my actions vandal like are not appreciated, it would be nicer if you acted with better good faith. Andrewgprout (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User talk:4.16.40.187, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Waggie (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]