User talk:The Banner/Airport vandal

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Archives

Archive 2011, Archive 2012, Archive 2013, Archive 2014, Archive 2015, Archive 2016, Archive 2017, Archive 2018, Archive 2019, Archive 2020, Archive 2021, Archive 2022, Archive 2023

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hi. Can you tell me the reason why you reverted my edit, I'm just restoring the Kingdom of Italy in the infobox instead of Fascist Italy. For example, in the Operation Barbarossa infobox, we used the Kingdom of Romania instead of the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism in its period. I believed this should apply also for Italy. Thanks. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is inaccurate. The Banner talk 12:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it inaccurate? The Kingdom of Romania was also under Fascist period, but we aren't using the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism as a redirecting link when it comes in Template:Infobox military conflict. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? Maybe Romania needs a correction. The Banner talk 20:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that the Kingdom of Romania under Fascism should be the one to use instead of just the Kingdom of Romania only? TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you do not have any better arguments then pointing at another article? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The Banner talk 22:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually meant that every infobox in World War II battles involving Italy should changed to Kingdom of Italy instead of Fascist Italy. This is the same method applied when we are using the Kingdom of Romania in infoboxes. TheManwhoNeverWasEverBefore (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. You reverted the previous page edit by Saturnpilot on the Albuquerque International Sunport due to not having a reliable source. I’m not too familiar with how Wikipedia handles primary sources or how to edit a page, but all I can say is that I’m part of the airport team at ABQ for United, and I can confirm that there is indeed a Dulles flight starting on May 23, 2025. You can now book this itinerary on the United app or at United.com[1]Photograph of this edit, United’s employee intranet, and my SIDA badge, covering any sensitive information. I can provide photos supporting this personal account, as well as a text message from company management confirming this with me hours before it was announced by that tweet. Thank you, and I hope you have a good rest of your day. Personal text from United Airlines management confirming this Empressofsynths (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we need are independent, reliable sources, per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. The Banner talk 13:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo The Banner, I see you reverted changes on airports, among them this one with the comment "no evidence that their aoc is revoked at all". As you sound very sure, I assume you did a quick check on that. I am aware it is not the task to find sources of edits by others - they should provide that. However, that is not how this edit comment sounded like. Anyways, the most basic search query for a claim like this 'Air Dilijans aoc' would reveal the confirmation the edit was correct. For a bit more background than the industry-behind-the-paywall news there's this. That took a different search query, but I did find that easily. Labrang (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quick check failed to come up with any result. But later an article was provided that had a passing mention of the revocation of its AOC. That was enough for me.

But seeing the amount of vandalism on airport articles, it is better to err on the safe side. The Banner talk 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me adding that article. Destination tables both for airports and airlines are overrated anyways. They should be dropped in my view - or loosen the rules. The whole issue is that rules demand secondary/"independent" sources for adding destinations (non-airline, non-airport) - which is typically not that hard for adding destinations, as airlines often boast those via press releases. But dropping them is a completely different affair. Often destinations are silently dropped and typically that can only be deduced from the airport or airline schedules. Catch-22. It also makes confirming difficult, while everyone can tell a destination is dropped. This is where the wikipedia community shoots itself in the foot. Anyways - have a nice day. Labrang (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a bit. Usually European and American airlines announce well in advance that they are dropping connections and that is easy to find. Other continents are harder. `Googles focus on the western world and other scripts have something to do with that. But at least we have to throw in the effort. Every source is a positive. But as a compromise to the real, rather difficult, world, it is okay to explain in the edit summary why a connection is removed.The Banner talk 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]