This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hullo,
I am writing regarding your response to me adding the one line on the fleet tab for the 737 MAX where I stated they were grounded. The reason I didn't bother to add a citation is because I linked it to the Boeing_737_MAX_groundings page where there are hundreds of citations and describe it in more detail.
If you were unhappy with that and wanted citations, I would understand, and you'd have been free to add them. However, I don't understand why you chose to remove my edit as it is no doubt correct? I feel this is a relatively major incident and warrants mention, so I cannot think why the the crash and subsequent groundings is not mentioned under the fleet section, and I cannot figure out at all why you would remove it. There is no mention of fleet grounding at all on the entire page, so I decided to rectify it.
That is why I thought I'd say it was a minor edit, as it really seemed like a no-brainer to me to add it in. I look forward to a respponse on this, as I may easily have done something not customary, that seemed dodgey to you.
Linking to another Wikipedia article is not sourcing. Besides this, read WP:BURDEN regardign the addition of references.--JetstreamerTalk 13:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Viva Aerobus fleet
Seriosly what do you want? It seems to me that your unprofessional attitude only keeps this page outdated. There is NEVER a statement of each plane that is arriving at an airline and when the quarterly report mentions that there are already 31 aircraft, it does not seem valid. Your childish attitude will not allow anyone to improve the page. Even in the article it is mentioned that, during this month, the Company will be integrating two new aircraft. I tried to support the improvement of the article.--Vmzp85 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY is crystal clear: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. " What you did here [1] is original research, the only information directly supported was the number of aircraft in the fleet. The number of each aircraft type was not included in the source you added.--JetstreamerTalk 13:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Jetstreamer,
WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ethiopian Airlines
Wow! You really got me every time. So you legit haven't heard of ET302 and JT610?? They are Boeing 737 MAX planes which the FAAbanned them 2 months ago, i was just editing that they are banned. So i guess you are a bot. The source that i belive is the news and an aviation youtuber.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImDollarsWiki (talk • contribs)
Have you heard about WP:VERIFY, a basic policy here? Separately, you should sign your posts.--JetstreamerTalk 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Barnstars for you
The Reviewer's Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATHSLOPU 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from VandalismPATHSLOPU 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
KLM rowspan
Greetings! You reverted my edits earlier today, I disagree with that, but I don't want to start an edit war by clicking “Undo” myself, therefore I've started a discussion at the talk page. Michael! (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Tap Air Portugal
I'm aware I left the notes section blank, because I knew other people would add notes. I didn't have any notes except for how one Boeing 727-200 crashed of as flight 425 and I was unsure about that. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
The Half Barnstar
Thank you for cooperating amicably with the 3rd opinion process. It was one of the most pleasant 3rd opinions I've mediated.Digdeepertalk 01:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I'm really sorry for not Referencing the aeroflot article. Thanks for letting me know. Have a good day;) Hurricane Ducker (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
Mr Jetstreamer, i would never use information from invalid sources. I have been working with Aegean for many years and I happen to live in Athens and I visit Athens Airport very often and I have visited the Public Lounge. All the information you need is on the official website of the company. Please do not just intervene to intervene. Thanks in advance! Spyrospedia (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Read WP:VERIFY. Here in Wikipedia we use sources. Where you live or what company you work for do not count as a source.--JetstreamerTalk 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Use of Planespotters.net as a source
Hi Jetstreamer. I saw that you removed the citation of Planespotters.net I added to List of Boeing 737 operators. In case there is consensus in the Wikipedia airline community that Planespotters.net is not a reliable source and should therefore be removed, the article contains an additional citation of the site, which you may also want to remove. (And as a funny coincidence, a site search for Planespotters.net currently returns 737 results for me.) --Kimsey0 (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kimsey0: Hello. Yes, there is consensus on not using planespotters as a source as it is not reliable. In the case of your edit the removal was harmless as the other source supported what planespotters intended to. I'm not fond of removing the other planespotters entries, but I'll be happy to mark them as unreliable in the article. Cheers.--JetstreamerTalk 16:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: OK. In any case, feel free to mark new, unsourced (or poorly sourced) content that isn't apparently false with Template:Citation needed. It may be easier and faster for other editors to add sources than to have to undo rollbacks. --Kimsey0 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm Gokul. I do edits to CJB airport page. I do edits only after proper understanding and correct knowledge. But you look at sources. Eg. I revised the runway Length at Cjb which is true one. A aai staff presented me a pic of details at Cjb airport. How can I share my pic in wiki as source? There are many wrong infos added to many wiki pages. I used to correct them and also add proper ones. But you change my editings. Please don't misunderstand me. I do only genuine editings. No wrong informations. Please I request you to revert other anonymous edits which are 90% wrong.... Gokul Bas (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You need to understand that the changes you made to the article were not supported by any source included there, thus violating WP:VERIFY, a basic policy. You might want to upload the image you refer to, but you should bear in mind two things: 1) images are not generally considered reliable sources and 2) do not make copyright infringements when uploading images either to Wikipedia or to Commons.--JetstreamerTalk 16:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You need to provide sources for your changes. I have warned you once again at your talk because you keep adding unsourced claims to the article.--JetstreamerTalk 22:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Woohooo
Hey, Jetstreamer. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!Mjs1991 (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mjs1991: What a surprise! Thank you very much.--JetstreamerTalk 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
TAP Air Portugal fleet
Hi Jetstreamer, how are you?
You removed my edit on TAP Air Portugal. How come?
TAP air Portugal includes TAP Express aircraft as part of their mainline operations.
TAP recently received their 100th aircraft - please see the link here for the article from TAP's own website.
TAP Express has its own article.--JetstreamerTalk 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Air Albania
Hello, I had edited the webpage based on a source, and you still reverted my edit, so, what is the reason for reverting my edit?
Note: If you check the 2nd time I did the edit again, after the destinations info, I had a link, which was the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator1234 (talk • contribs)
Adding loose links anywhere is not sourcing but I must accept that you did provide a reference.--JetstreamerTalk 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
So I got this source: [1], which shows the new destinations, and also the Airline's website: [2], so can you please check them and tell me how to put them properly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator1234 (talk • contribs)
Yes, of course. WP:CITE is a good start on how to cite sources in articles. Please feel free to ask me anything you want.--JetstreamerTalk 13:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
So... you reverted my edit, right? I do not mind if you revert my edit. (I NEVER vandalise.)
P.S Did I get the spelling right?
Rng0286 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did revert you. I never said it was vandalism.--JetstreamerTalk 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Which one of them is the official one?--JetstreamerTalk 12:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Jetstreamer,
Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I did try to find articles regarding of terminations of those three routes, but to no avail. But if you try to search flight tickets on MAS website, you wouldn't find any tickets to those three destinations in the meantime. Also MH routes on flightconnections and MH routes on flightradar24
It may sound ridiculous but I even make a call to Malaysia Airlines (I'm a Malaysian though) and they told me that MH is not flying to those three destinations anymore.
For MH520 to Hangzhou, this website shows that MH has terminated this route in October last year (the departure and arrival times are really weird though), somemore you can't find any flight data regarding this route.
For MH354 to Tianjin, you wouldn't find any flight information on Google, the only one being the source itself, which is almost impossible for an in-service route. And also no flight data for this route
With all these evidences, it's quite certain that MH has stopped flying to these three airports, that's all I can say ;) Bfyhdch (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not that I do no believe you, but we need sources to support what you claim. At least for one of this terminated destinations the entry has a supporting source saying the airline will start flying there!--JetstreamerTalk 16:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ya, the supporting source did say that the airline will start flying there, but it doesn't mean that the airline will not terminate the route at anytime too! Well, I think I've tried my best to prove that these routes have been terminated, but seems like it's still insufficient. Then I'll just leave it there haha Bfyhdch (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Giving Aeroflot's fleet a new article
Hey Jetstreamer, I was wondering if we can create a new article named Aeroflot fleet. All of the data under Retired and History and Recent Developments will be exported to this article, while the Current fleet and the lead will remain in both articles. I would like Aeroflot to have a section devoted to its fleet that has the same format as Vietnam Airlines while an article more in-depth to the airliner's fleet like Singapore Airlines fleet. :) - Josephua (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I also plan to also create a new article named History of Aeroflot, in which all the information under the History section would be exported under the article, leaving a summary of 5 paragraphs in the history section of the main article to shorten the article up. There will be see also templates under the section titles of the main article that will link to the newly-created articles. - Josephua (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Josephua: Not a bad idea, but if I was you I'd start a discussion either at the article's talk page or at WT:AIRLINE before making any moves.--JetstreamerTalk 10:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think people will see the talk pages in WT:AIRLINE or the article discussion, as I see most of them go unanswered. The only discussions that are noted usually deals with edit warring. :/ - Josephua (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I will probably go with it, until my edit gets reversed. - Josephua (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, the citations became broken for both articles so I undid all the changes. Can you do them instead? - Josephua (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Jetstreamer,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 818 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Your repeated removal of citations from the Turkish Airlines page's fleet section without a clear explanation, followed by your message on my talk page citing basic policies which have no clear correlation with the issue at hand were unconstructive edits.
Even though I attempted a constructive discussion in response, you only left a six-word reply saying the relevant parts were Original Research. You then did not respond to the next message where I asked for your proposed solution.
In fact, there is no Original Research involved in the issue at hand as the figures are valid and very obvious routine calculations, which do not constitute original research. More information on this policy can be found at WP:CALC. I have also explained this in the edit summary reverting to the article's edit with those citations included. -Junk2711 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You did not include the source above in the article. You can proceed with the change using this source.--JetstreamerTalk 23:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies
Hi there, my apologies about the Turkish Airlines edit. I was going to change it back but I couldn't get around to doing it, I should of left Izmir as a sec hub as I did with my original edit on the page. Darth Tomotron(talk) 00:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
GAR request for Kenya Airways
Hi! I see you are a frequent editor of Kenya Airways, which is tagged for GA Reassessment. Can you please help reorganize the "history" section into sub-sections so it is easier to navigate? Thank you so much! --Nemoschool (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nemoschool: Yes, I will as soon as I have some time.--JetstreamerTalk 22:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out! --Nemoschool (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding my edit in SpiceJet page
Apologies mate, I forgot to add references as I was running short on time, now I made sure that I added references to my previous edits, and will soon add the reference for SpiceJet page as I get a reliable reference link. ✌ Imchirag14 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Surinam airways
Yes. I didn’t see that the box listed that it was terminated and thought I was removing misleading information. In any event, the source is wrong; the cited website does not report that Surinam airways flew there. I apologise for my rudeness.194.230.147.229 (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't you worry. I added a source for the termination.--JetstreamerTalk 13:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Change
When SalamAir started ops to Srilanka and I added it in the destination list. How can you just remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3913:D7B3:E475:617C:25ED:5753 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Listen boss I don't want to argue... it's been already in the. Ews that Salam Air started ops IN the Dammam and Colombo. Why is it that you want to remove?
What kind of nonsense is this.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AOM2809 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The article is now protected to stop the addition of unsourced content.--JetstreamerTalk 10:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
I have added a reference linking the page where it shows SAA had suspended all flight to Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighting38 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
sorry to correct your previous "correction", but Tokyo-Narita was only opened in May 1978, i.e., over one year after Air Siam ceased
operations.
217.225.141.114 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Azimuth Airlines for B Quality
Seeing you are an expert on airline articles, I ask of you if you are available that you can check Azimuth Airlines to see if it is good enough to become a B quality article. Thanks. - 祝好，Josephua(聊天) 23:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Sudan Airways Flight 139
Did you read the sources I added to this page before reverting? This article from 2018 clearly indicates that that there was a survivor of the crash and that he is still alive. The only source I could find indicating that there were no survivors was this one, except that article is from July 9th, 2003, and says that the survivor was a girl, when all of the other sources say that the survivor was a boy. Compare that to this article from July 14th, 2003, which shows that the boy was still alive at the time. So, it seems to me that the Sydney Morning Herald article contains incorrect information. Even the first source used on the page to back up the sentence "All 117 people aboard died" indicates that there were only 116 fatalities and that there was a survivor. --Oneforfortytwo (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in my edit to the page on the Aeroflot Flight 593 disaster.
The Wikipedia guidelines on citation (to which you kindly referred me) tell me that Wikipedia "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations"[1]
My addition certainly wasn't a quotation; and seemed unlikely to be challenged, as the book itself provides evidence of the statement. Nevertheless, as a casual Wikipedia contributor, I defer to your judgment as to the value of the edit.
Hello there fellow Wikipedians. It's been a long time since I do not call for help of any kind. This time I need to know if there is any template to link to an article in a language other than English. Thanks in advance for the reply!--JetstreamerTalk 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The template above is more designed for marking sources as from a certain language. I think you're trying to link to another article, when that article is more complete than the En-wiki article (I'm not actually sure if/how we link to articles that are of similar detail). You want to grab the appropriate language template out of Template:Expand. The template handles most of the fiddly bits. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
These have somewhat different uses Jetstreamer. If you clarify a little on what use-case you're considering, I'll attempt clarify. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Nosebagbear! I want to link to Jaime Barylko in the Spanish Wikipedia from an article in the English Wikipedia.--JetstreamerTalk 23:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Vandal
This person has been vandalizing airport pages. --Hmdwgf (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Would you please leave proofed content with sources as it is! Thanks. I am referring to [3]. --Chtrede (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chtrede:This [4] is sourcing. This [5] is not; no url has been provided. Learn to cite and then leave messages at my talk over my reversions.--JetstreamerTalk 15:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, excuse my language, but this is bullshit. A source does not have to be an online source. There was and is a live besides the WWW. A source is predominantly literature and if this is not available one could use an online source. Maybe read Wikipedia:Citing sources again. --Chtrede (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Your "source" was neither a book nor a magazine, so nobody could find what you claimed. I'm perfecly aware of Wikipedia:Citing sources, thanks.--JetstreamerTalk 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
A Press Agency of an independent country can be trusted as well as a freely available press release of the Airline itself. --Chtrede (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It still could not be accessed for checking as it had no ISSN o similar. You can continue discussing the matter, but someone else did the right thing and added a source including a url from which anyone can check the claims.--JetstreamerTalk 15:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing of airline entries.
I strongly suggest you to stop vandalizing various airline pages with false information. Go get a hobby instead.
Thanks for the interest in my edit. My previous reply to you on this page appears to have been deleted, so apologies if I'm repeating myself.
I am familiar with Wikipedia's policy for inline citations[1]. I note in particular that it states "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."
In this instance, my addition doesn't constitute 'any material challenged or likely to be challenged' (except by your good self), nor is it a quotation. Moreover, the addition is self-referring: any skeptical reader can go and find the book 'Airframe' by Michael Crichton (with the publication date I gave) and verify the information for himself. To add an inline citation to the same book seems redundant; and to delete my addition for not having such a citation seems (if you'll forgive me saying so) more obsessed with form than with information.
Linking to a Wikipedia article is not sourcing. Otherwise, WP:CIRCULAR applies and Wikipedia is not a reliable source.--JetstreamerTalk 00:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jetstreamer. Offlate, there are too many people wanting to change an airport designation as international to Indian airports. While we do not have any standard on this at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, how do we clearly define an international airport? Do we just go by the declaration of the government? For eg, Tirupati Airport and Surat Airport. Are these international or merely customs airports? Would like your inputs on this. — LeoFrank Talk 15:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir currently all Boeing 737max have been grounded every body in the world knows that it is grounded then what's the problem if we add or doesn't add reliable source
And could you please tell me what will happen if I didn't add a reliable source
Please explain Ktdk (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is me again. Sorry to disturb you a bit. Unfortunately, I found Air Seychelles second A320neo was found from planespotters.net and I found to be reliable. Did you check this already? Regards. Sarah Carvalho (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That source is not reliable. Even if it was, you did not add a proper citation.--JetstreamerTalk 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism on Juanda International Airport Without A Valid References!
There Is A recent Vandalism that is Done by : User : 36.82.96.161 , Without A Valid References , While Edit The Juanda International Airport Page . Meandkancil2020 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I see no vandalism there but the addition of airlines serving the airport.--JetstreamerTalk 00:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
East African Airways
I'm curious as to why you removed my addition of Malin Sorsbie as first GM?
From the bio attached to the cover of one his books, Dragonfly: He became "an Imperial Airways pilot in 1935. During World War II he opened up new long-distance routes ferrying across the Atlantic and in the Middle East and Africa. He became Overseas Operations Director of B.O.A.C., and after the war successfully opened Northolt for B.E.A. pending the completion of Heathrow, built up East African Airways, and finally accepted the chairmanship of the Munitalp Foundation, working on scientific and conservation development in East Africa. [He} was awarded the O.B.E. in 1942, the C.B.E. in 1956 and was knighted in 1965."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdoniach (talk • contribs)
I actually welcome all new editors who create an account. Sure some start out as vandals or spammers, and some get blocked for it, but some actually reform and become contributing editors after a bad start. Perhaps some quit spamming or vandalizing when they get my welcome message. It is possible. It never hurts to be polite and friendly, in fact WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE require it. Sure some don't end up deserving the courtesy, but there is no downside to at least offering it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You're right about being polite but this particular user has just one edit in which they added spam links and nonsenses to an article. Not your fault in welcoming them, that's for sure.--JetstreamerTalk 01:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
do you have problems of comprehension? if Avianca Peru stopped flying and cancelled the route between Peru and Ezeiza, is valid information and must be there in the article. If we put other airlines that cancelled routes or open it, this case is valid too. This is an enciclopedia, not your personal facebook page.--190.247.141.10 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Hello, Jetstreamer. You have new messages at Tinhog's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have replied to your msg left on my page. The info added was properly referenced.--Tinhog (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see it properly referenced. Unsourced statements were marked as such.--JetstreamerTalk 14:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Please, kindly clarify why you claim that. There is a pre-citation (#40) in the heading to the official report, cited on the official website of the Investigative authority (The Cuban Civil Aeronautical Institute, national equivalent of the FAA/NTSB). I even specified the page where that section is reflected! --Tinhog (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding message you sent on Qantas 747 edit that i did on 6/8/20
hi, so i got a message saying that do not edit the qfa 744 section right? according to planespotters, it says that they have 2 744 still registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartinez207 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Planespotters is not reliable.--JetstreamerTalk 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
List of British disasters page
You do realise that most of the entries on the List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll page you removed my entries from are unsourced? You've removed my two entries with the justification that I have not provided a reliable reference, but going by that logic the majority of the cases on that list should be completely removed, since most just provide the wiki page and do not even provide any reference. Lax editing, you're enforcing your own rules in a haphazard manner. AmSam13 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Unsourced content already included in articles is not an endorsement for the addition of more unsourced material. Linking to another article is not sourcing.--JetstreamerTalk 12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Jetstreamer,
Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
As you said planespotter is not reliable but why have removed the statement Largest operator I've provided with reference Ktdk (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding "disruptive Editing" in Royal Air Maroc fleet
So there is a news article from The Explorer blog stating that they are gonna sell All there E190, 12 737 & 4 787. the 737 and 787 variants being affected is unknown. This is my first time doing that type of edit where more than 1 variants has 1 specific note and why is planespotters not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartinez207 (talk • contribs)
You already were told not to add unsourced claims into articles a month ago. The news article you mention was not added to the article. Planespotters is not reliable because it is partly based on unnoficial sources. You may want to read WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY regarding this.--JetstreamerTalk 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok Then.....
So why isnt planespotters Reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartinez207 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Administración Nacional de Aviación Civil logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Administración Nacional de Aviación Civil logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I tried to get a handle on the edits after yours, asked others (admins whatsmore) to have a look and got ignored - thanks. JarrahTree 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently working off the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content#Table_format section, it does seem to be open ended on whether to use states or not. Hence why I had re-applied the states on the Qantas destination list.
I've also researched across the other articles that has states that it seems to be restricted to the "origin country" airline, e.g the USA at this stage. The project talk seems to be too quiet, so I'm not sure whether to get rid of the "states" on the American carrier destination lists at this stage, if the states were to be "disposed" from all airline destination lists.
Coastie43 (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Gran Canaria airport
Hello,
Why you changed the information that i worte in the page of Gran Canaria airport? Do you work in the airport too?
Is dificult write all the new information of the airport and you delete it. Can you say me why you delete it, please?
I won't restore any unsourced information. Read WP:VERIFY. Cheers.--JetstreamerTalk 00:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Read www.aena.es if you need any information, is a spanish airport and the website is the oficial web of the airport. If you dont know to use the oficial website is not our problem. Regards and leave the information you put it because is wrong, so bad to you and the people who read it. Adios mi niño. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2E02:2A8E:1F00:95BC:40CE:189B:897F (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
If you do not know how Wikipedia works it is better that you familiarise with the policies before attempting to make further changes.--JetstreamerTalk 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Editing Airline Pages
Hello Jetstreamer,
If I have to be honest I fully disagree to your comments, I give sources to all of my edits with a trusted and only edited source which is Planespotters.net in which where only the authorized editors are allowed to edit, not like Wikipedia. I always give sources to them as I edit a lot the fleet sheet and I give trust on them as they are the most reliable source which is updated always by the editors.
Tom9ek (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Tom9ek
Take the matter to WT:AIRLINE. Currently, planespotters is not considered reliable by the project.--JetstreamerTalk 00:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Referencing
Rather than reverting an edit, you can either ask for a reference personally or add a 'citation needed' comment or you can check by yourself whether the information is true and add a reference by yourself. That way you contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Deleting the work of others is only acceptable in case of false information, but not in case of a missing reference. Because the lack of a reference does not automatically mean that the information is false. In the end, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a beacon of information. So, reference or not; what counts is whether the information is true. I have now added a reference, but next time, please deal with this in a different way than you did now. Hhl95 18:29 (UTC+2), 18 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hhl95:(talk page stalker) Sorry to jump in here but you are quite wrong in your claims here. The policy WP:PROVEIT states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution and also Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. If you add unsourced text to articles it is perfectly appropriate, and supported by policy, for another editor to just remove it. Wikipedia does not publish things that are WP:THETRUTH, it publishes things that are verifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course the burden lies with the first editor, but that doesn't mean that other editors can't do it either. My point still stands that there are other and more constructive ways to make sure there will be a reference rather than just removing the information. We're not policemen; we're building (constructing) an encyclopedia as a community. So let's be constructive, also when other users make mistakes or forget something, like a reference for example. Hhl95 00:24 (UTC+2), 21 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I did, and you may want to read it better yourself. I quote: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." So I am totally defending Wikipedia policy here. Hhl95 02:11 (UTC+2), 28 October 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Turkish Airlines
If you know, I have already removed TK from ESB as hub cause TK fleet from ESB per FR24 were all operating by AnadoluJet. ScienticGuy (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a note and apologize for reverting you [7]. It was strictly an accidental "finger problem", as I was actually trying to send you a "thanks" for that edit! - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Virgin Australia as a Flag Carrier of Australia
I've noticed that you've reverted several attempts by other members to remove Virgin Australia as a flag/national carrier of Australia.
While it is true that the article cited calls Virgin Australia a national carrier, the article itself then goes on to explain that it's only in a strict legal sense for the purposes of "accessing flight routes". That is where the case for national carrier starts and ends.
I would like to point out that the flag carrier article itself states that "Today, it is any international airline with a strong connection to its home country or that represents its home country internationally, regardless of whether it is government-owned." for good reason; this is the common meaning of "flag/national carrier" which 99% of people will think of.
If you ask any Australian, the only airline that one thinks of when one thinks of the carrier of Australia is Qantas because it is
a) Previously government owned
b) Mandated to be at least 51% Australian owned
c) Has a long history, unlike Virgin Australia which was established in 2000 as opposed to 1920 for Qantas
d) It is the one and only national carrier in the minds of actual Australians
There are several reasons why Virgin Australia would not be considered as a flag/national carrier by anyone other than a lawyer
a) As previously mentioned, has a very short history in Australia.
b) Almost completely foreign owned
c) Couldn't even muster a bailout or loan from the Australian government when it went into administration, which would absolutely not be the case if it was considered the common meaning of "national/flag carrier" given the political implications of letting the "national/flag carrier" go into administration.
tl;dr Virgin Australia fulfils almost no criteria of the common meaning of "flag/national" carrier. It is only technically a national carrier for regulatory purposes.
May I please request that you stop reverting attempts to delist Virgin Australia as a flag carrier of Australia
I fully understand your reasons but WP:VNT applies. I believe this is a matter to be raised at the article's talk.--JetstreamerTalk 15:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
KLM
Why have you deleted an edit because you claim the Parliament of the United Kingdom records are 'Original Research'? At least click the to read it. I can see that from the comments below you are far more concerned with deleting reliable information on Wikipedia in favour of ensuring this website is fan fiction created by you. You are a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3EDE:4200:A0FB:C773:D1E5:5214 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You added original research. The source does not say the destination was served by KLM. Cool off and then we can continue this discussion.--JetstreamerTalk 21:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Goair
Hello, Goair have opened booking of Coimbatore to Bengaluru, Chennai and Mumbai flights. Why you both are adamant and not understanding? You both have time to delete all updates but don't have time to check in airline website. Total nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugun.cjb (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Mugun.cjb, You still don't seem to understand WP:VERIFY. Back to the same behaviour as you were up to in March this year. Read points 10 and 11 [here]. — LeoFrank Talk 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Jetstreamer,
Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
How to place add with the truth?
How to change facts that are not true in wikepidia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segundaopinion (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no such thing as truth here as WP:VNT applies.--JetstreamerTalk 23:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Irony thy name is Wikipedia. A editor named Factfanatic1 created this debacle[8]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeap. After reading the link one question remains: Who killed Viasa?--JetstreamerTalk 14:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Darth Tomotron 
Done: [2]. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
