User talk:VenFlyer98

This is VenFlyer98's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The Vault

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I don’t know what the deal is, but BDL-IAH does not resume until March 2025 per United schedules. Your source is incorrect, just because it’s published on the internet does not mean it is right. It is outdated and inaccurate, please stop adding incorrect info. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch11: You need a reliable, secondary source. The airline’s schedule is a primary source that is WP:OR, and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT states “The consensus among the participants in a 2023 request for comment (RfC) was summarized as follows: airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE.” You can’t use primary sources (airline’s websites) as a source. Thank you. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong wrong wrong. So you are letting articles show wrong outdated info? I don’t get it. How can you keep saying that BDL-IAH starts in September when that is simply not true? Are you for real? What a joke this has become Tofutwitch11 (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every single airport article has the AIRLINE SCHEDULES listed as a source for the destinations table. JFK- every source for the timetable is literally the airline schedules. So with your mindset I should be OK to remove the entire airlines and destinations page on every airport unless there is a source that isn’t from the airline or the airport (that would be too accurate or primary) to source the info from. Right? Tofutwitch11 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stop adding wrong information to the protect Tofutwitch11 (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch: Again, please see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. There was a big RfC at WP:AIRPORTS and the consensus was, when adding any information to destination tables on airport articles, you need a reliable, secondary source that supports your information which you have been failing to provide. The only reliable source for BDL-IAH shows the date. If it’s wrong, then please find a RELIABLE SECONDARY source that supports a different date. If you cannot, then leave the information alone. This is Wikipedia policy, please see WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then we should be deleting the entire destinations page for every airport, right? Because they all list the AIRLINE TIMETABLES as a source. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch11: This has been discussed before at WP:AIRPORTS and I’m not disagreeing with you about it, but that’s a much bigger issue for a different time. When it comes to adding information, however, you need a reliable, secondary source. VenFlyer98 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree about the tables, but arguing that you need a news article when nothing is more accurate than the primary source (airline) is ridiculous. It’s openly putting false information on the project. Airline schedules change constantly, and assuming there is a news article to report them all is insane. Yet even more insane is ignoring obvious truths to post a lie just because you have what you consider a “reputable source”, though outdated, clearly. Following “policy” (as you interpret) in a way that makes you publish inaccurate information is a waste. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch: It’s not about it being a “news article,” it’s about it being a reliable source. Booking engines (like Google Flights) do not meet WP:RS. If you add it again, I’ll probably just throw a “citation needed” or “better citation needed” since you seem to rather want to edit war than find a reliable source. Waste of energy on my end at this point. VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve provided 2 different sources for BDL-IAH. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch: Ok, that’s great, but they aren’t reliable sources. How many times can I say booking engines like Google Flights and FlightsFrom are not reliable? They are WP:OR. That makes them not reliable. You’ve been on Wikipedia for 15+ years at this point, you should understand Wikipedia policy. Seeing as you’d rather call my edits vandalism, you refuse to understand policy but I’m done at this point. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, this is ridiculous. You are out here putting obviously false information on Wikipedia, citing an outtdated and wrong source. When all the other tables are cited via airline timetables - what is wrong with this? Or why don’t you delete the whole table? Tofutwitch11 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really care about the accuracy of Wikipedia why are you sitting here debating me when it is glaringly obvious that the flights are not resuming September 25? Do you think United really would have this route NOT be bookable if it was starting in 2 months? And the many sources that you say are not reputable (yet they aren’t from United, and are reputable) that show March 30? FlightsFrom literally states on the website that flights start “03302025”. …. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch11: Of course I know when flights are beginning, but for Wikipedia, you need reliable sources that state this. You are not providing reliable sources. I really don’t understand what is so hard about understanding that and finding a reliable source. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting the information for the September start is wrong and your source is out dated? Tofutwitch11 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofutwitch11: and there is no reliable source that states such. Unless you find one, add it. You keep adding sources that are not WP:RS and edit warring with me. That’s vandalism. Why is this so hard to understand? VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding accurate information isn’t vandalism. Every airline / destination page is sourced to airline timetables. That being said, I found another source, FlightsFrom, that literally states the route starts 2025-0330. And yet you continue to revert my changes with your out dated source? No, that is vandalism. It is clear also that my source is correct, when cross referencing with the airline. Are you trying to make Wikipedia worse? spreading false info? Tofutwitch11 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I’m saying is your sources are NOT reliable. Reliable sources are required on Wikipedia to be used as sources. You refuse to understand that and I’m starting to think we may be dipping into a competence issue here. Not sure how many times I can explain it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a competence issue. So what happens September 25 when the flights don’t start? We just leave the wrong information because there is no newer source? And how can you say that FlightsFrom is any different than your source? Also, again, if every airlines/destinations table uses airline website / timetables as a citation, how is this different? Still found another source… and you debate it. Imagine believing in the integrity of Wikipedia and then obviously publishing false info using an old source. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However you want to cite it is up to you, but Avelo DAB-BDL starts November 8th. The only reason I'm even addressing this is you Level 3'd me for not citing, yet reverted it each time to your post and source which yields, at least regarding this city pair, incorrect information. Even after correcting with secondary sources to verify the date (DB News-Journal, WFTV), you again reverted it to November 7th. JSprague24 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsprague24: All good, it was my bad. Think I just got confused. It’s all fixed now, my mistake. As I said on your talk page, just remember to try and not use bare URLs. As for the level 3, that was due to the original edit in addition to past edits you made unsourced. You’ve been making edits for several years, so you should be familiar with the policy regarding that. Anyway, as I said it was my bad. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Jsprague24 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⚠️@VenFlyer98 If You Do It, Or If You Disobey me, I'll Block You For Watch You Did! You Blocking Me Because I Was Try To Replace Change To New Planes, Not Old, As Been 23.1 Years Ago, In You Don't Understand, YOU KNOW WHAT???? I HAD NO CHOICE, BUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BLOCK IT, AND YET, YOU JUST BLOCK IT ME BECAUSE WATCH YOU DID, IN THAT IT SO UNACCEPTABLE SO PREPARE YOURSELF. JUST YOU WAIT IN SEE!!! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOU ANYWAY!!!!!!! Holoanimetiktok (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Holoanimetiktok: Uhhh…ok then. Just don’t WP:PA. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Holoanimetiktok (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Holoanimetiktok: I mean, don’t threaten me or anything like that. I don’t even really understand what you’re saying, but hey, you do you. VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know i know, but i'll stop that, and then, i'm calm down, In You apology accepted! I believe you!:) Holoanimetiktok (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a quick question for you. Why do you remove a route when it doesn't have a reliable source just to add it back with a better source. Shouldn't you just get the route and add the source? Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanlovestravel: Hi, the source you used was a Twitter link which violates WP:UGC. Additionally, you didn’t include the start dates. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that, appreciate the reply. I was referring to an incident in March on the TPA page with Breeze. You send me a threatening message that was kind of rude for a route that was real, I just didn't have a source yet because I was new to actually editing on the platform. It's no big deal, I was just curious why you wouldn't just add a source to the existing route I wrote, instead of deleting what I wrote. No problem if you don't remember. Thanks! Ryanlovestravel (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanlovestravel: Oh, that in March was because you added unsourced content. That message is pre-written by Twinkle and I used a level 3 warning since that wasn’t the first time you added unsourced content. Regardless if I reverted or just added the source, I would’ve sent that message anyway since you added unsourced content. Thanks! VenFlyer98 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’m not flaming like some of the other users that have posted on your page. I understand that you are upholding Wikipedia’s policies. However, surely there must be some balance between enforcement of policy and removing verifiably accurate information. I noticed that many people choose to add a “citation needed” flag instead of removing an edit outright. In the case of BHM, I understand that the airline itself isn’t considered a “reliable source”. I made an edit because AA mainline has resumed BHM-DFW. This is verifiable outside of the airline by looking at AAL2859 on flightaware for an example. It is presently operating and scheduled to continue. Essentially none of the routes on the BHM page have any sources. Yet they are operating and allowed to remain on the page. The fact that some DFW flights are being operated by mainline isn’t the kind of thing that is going to get a news story. But that doesn’t make it any less verifiable (via flight tracking). Respectfully, why is it that the majority of the routes on the BHM page have no sources all, or other statements have been tagged with “citation needed”, but this edit was outright removed? AA mainline is operating at BHM and that can be verified, but nothing has been published by a news or industry site as it’s not “newsworthy”. Is there not a way to display AA mainline on the page to reflected actual current operations? StanleyJohaansen (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StanleyJohaansen: Hi, first of all, thank you for your kindness in your message! A lot of people can be very defensive about their edits being reverted (as you can see by other messages here), so I appreciate the kindness! Regarding the topic at hand, yes it's a tough situation especially when an airline switches between mainline and regional operations on the route since those changes aren't usually noted anywhere by sources that would meet WP:RS. I do agree though, adding a "citation needed" tag would probably be best since it's clear the route is flying. Don't even think it's seasonal since checking AA's website shows a 319 on the route throughout the entire winter including next summer (as far as their schedules currently go). Think a CN tag is the best bet at this point.

Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

That was very reasonable of you. Thank you for your diligence. Best wishes. StanleyJohaansen (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Full summary at Talk:Nashville International Airport)

So I know it has been a few weeks since the whole discussion about whether BNA should have maps. But I now have a new idea: Only one map, the international map. Less clutter, less maintenance, still informative. I brought this to you because the talk page only received attention by 2 editors, neither of which regularly edit this article. By the way, the RfC that you suggested sadly did not get the attention for a full consensus, with only one legitimate comment from LoneOmega on my talk page, but he did like the idea of maps.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you consider my proposal thoroughly. King airaglub (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@King airaglub:

Hi,

I did see the talk page the other day. While I still recommend an RfC, I’d say doing it over at a place like WP:AIRPORTS would be much better for visibility than your own talk page. However, even with your new proposal I’m in agreement with what The Banner said. I think it’s just repeated information from the table. I’m also not a fan of just a map for international destinations and feel it should be all or nothing. An international map would provide no additional information that isn’t already shown by the table. Just my two cents. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]