User talk:NcSchu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Oops... apologies... Saw your name on the membership list after I posted. Wexcan (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem Steel again

I would take this to the Bethlehem Steel talk page, but I believe this would be better done in a direct manner. User:Urbanarcheology has been on the offensive one again ([1] and [2]). I've notified the administration who has warned him and temporarily blocked his IP account. Because of this user's continued abusive nature towards anyone who opposes his opinions, I believe it would be best for the Bethlehem Steel article if he were simply cut out. I believe continuing to let him weigh in will only lead to stalemate as he attempts to control the article in his own way. I think you and I can come to a much better agreement that not only fits Wikipedia rules, but also is unbiased in promoting ones own pictures and the like.

I know it may not be the most ideal solution to cut out a contributor, but I honestly would have difficulty in really considering Urbanarcheology much of a contributor in the first place. The359 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm taking less and less interest in this article. I originally added it to my watchlist because I currently live near the compound. I really do not wish for this fiasco to continue to go on (and have less and less desire to routinely visit this article) and I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake to start neglecting other editors, however uncivil and unresponsive they may be. I am very busy and am not able to dedicate as much time as usual to editing, however when I have more time I do intend to get some books and use them to add information the article. But I think in terms of the article itself User:Urbanarcheology has been acting much more in accordance with Wikipedia policies and now when I go to the page I see a much better formatted article. He has been reported and has been warned (though he keeps blanking his talk page) about the incident with your talk page, but the article is just as much "his" as it is "yours" or "mine" and therefore I feel we would be just as guilty of claiming "ownership" of the page as he had been doing when he wasn't allowing any compromises or agreements. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Virgin America logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Virgin America logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America

You may wanna do some updates on the fleet count on the page Virgin America fleet, which I made.

--Limaindia (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

LHR T5

Thanks, sorry about the revert - I think the problem is the terminal is officially open just that British Airways are not using it for services until the end of the month! MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda International and the Shuttle

This is the reliable sourcethat you were asking about: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm. Kevin Rutherford 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So I read on about your edits and found this: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/4411/faq-b.htm Kevin Rutherford 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Modified Airliner Photos

Hi. Sorry to waste your talk page thingy, but is this Nick from MAP? You've uploaded the Virgin logos! They're cool, but I reckon you should have done them a bit bigger + transparent PNGs. Just a thought. Thanks. Amistry.mistry (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC logo

MSNBC has not changed their on-air logo to match their online logo. --Mhking (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem Steel in SF

Why did you remove the link that was recently added about the history of Bethlehem Steel? As far as I'm concerned it only adds to the discussion and the history, describing an important era, and something that is not adequately covered in the article. Are you stifling freedom of intellectual expression? For this reason, I'm re-adding the link. If you have any objections, please take it up with me. --haeber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeber (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it was a suspicious edit, and it violates WP guidelines. The website doesn't seem to be sponsored by any academic institute or organization that would give it notability. It clearly is a blog/personal website regardless of the content. And anyone that starts trying to lecture people on things like 'stifling freedom of intellectual expression' gives me even greater reason to have the link removed given that this is the number one defense by people that post bad external links. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're so easy to jump on the article when it is sourced, referenced, includes images and well-researched, factual information. What more could you ask for? Let the readers decide. Are you the God of knowledge? Would it be better if I slapped a .edu on the end of that domain. Would you be okay with it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.137.214 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm "so quick" because it's such an obvious violation. I suggest if you are the same person as User:Haeber that you log in when editing, otherwise it looks like you're trying to have sock puppets. I would prefer if the link wasn't just some person's blog. Don't try to throw out labels because it only makes your position seem more hostile. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Virgin Blue Logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Virgin Blue Logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in Richard Branson article

I found the original sentence a little peculiar and was tussling with it. The sentence before you and I modified it was: "The previous record was set by two Frenchmen at 6 hours". Did Branson see his effort as part of a rivalry with France? Or was it just the source of this information that did? Why, earlier in the section, are other record-breakers named and linked, and these not? All small issues, to be sure.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also wondering why the Frenchmen weren't listed by name, but I had 0 motivation to investigate. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree removing the sentence "BBc's Top Gear program failed to break the record refering to Branson as "Beardy Branson" when contacted by the british coast gaurd." You give an interesting reason, that failed attempts aren't always worth mentioning. But this started me thinking. If my cat tries to jump on the sink and fails, that's not Wiki-worthy. If Branson tries to jump on a sink and fails, that's not Wiki-worthy. But if Evel Knieval fails to do a stunt, that is Wiki-worthy. (As I just found out.) Food for thought. 67.180.48.127 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Top Gear attempt is good for the Top Gear page and was a rather enjoyable episode, but it's not worth mentioning on Branson's page. NcSchu_(Talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Continental Airlines

I saw that you took out the possibility of Warsaw service. I was wondering why this was taken out, if it is a serious and reference possibility, and why you would not do that to Delta Air Lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane nerd (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the DAL service possibility, but I checked out the reference and saw that nothing was said about CO on Wikipedia. I would also prefer it if both references stayed rather than both went. Lastly, this info is relevant, at lesat to me, as seen by the fact that it goes into the destinations section of an airline article and possible routes are often mentioned. THNX! Plane nerd (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

VX fleet AfD

I was unaware that other such pages existed. When I find those pages, I will nominate those for AfD, as well. Thanks for the heads up. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha no problem; I'm trying to see what should be done about the SQ and AA fleet pages, as it hinges on whether or not historic fleet information is really that important. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, what's your take on it the other fleet pages? It seems that there is at least one other person that agrees that they ought to be merged back into the main article. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them back into the main pages, then? Those few pages are the exception (I kinda merged the EK, TG, and AA ones, at any rate, and no one's objected to those). So that makes the SQ one the exception, and I don't see what's so special about SQ that allows them to have a separate fleet page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then any suggestions or assistance regarding the SQ fleet page? I've put a merger proposal, but there are no responses; I'll AfD it if the VS and VX AfDs go through, though. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that the Singapore Airlines fleet has already gone through two AfDs and survived both. Attempting an AfD on an article just because it is "an exception" or a direct result of other AfDs appears to be a direct reflection of an WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ALLORNOTHING argument, which is frowned upon in AfD discussions.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And let me point out that the text is redundant to what's in the article, therefore giving the fleet page article little substance (registrations are irrelevant per WP:AIRLINES and the information in the table can be found in other sources). There is no basis for the existence of that page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain why is the text "redundant"? As mentioned in one of the edit summaries, wikipedia is about collecting information from verifiable sources and presenting them in a way which would make sense to the reader. It is therefore absolutely normal and essential to expect to find information here appearing in another source. Your argument to remove this article is simply not any different from the past two AfDs.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

I've received a complaint about you not being nice to people. Your recent edit summaries lend credence to the complaint. Please try to play nice. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed your comment on my talk page, and yes I was purposely being ironic with the edit comment. But I do find your comments to be rather baseless. I'm becoming more and more curious as to the reported 'complaint' you reference, especially because when I look at my contributions as you so helpfully direct me, I see only a small handful (and a small animal's handful at that) of edit comments approaching being rude. I use my edit comments to list what I change, and if prudent, list why I choose to change the things I change. I'm not being rude to anyone, as the comments are being widely directed to those interested in my thoughts, if you will, while I edit. If one or more users take them personally, then that really isn't 'my problem'. Your comment was rather blunt and unhelpful, if I do say so myself, and yes that was directed at you. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heathrow accidents

Why is the Virgin accident non-notable? It closed the airport for half a day, caused damage to the runway, and procedural recommendations were made as a result of it as far as I remember. The report should be available on the AAIB website if you want a read. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, its omission leaves a big gap in the timespan between accidents. An accident does not necesarily need to result in major loss of life for it to be notable (BA038). Are we really saying there were no major accidents at LHR between 1972 and 2008? Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've brought the entry up on the talk page of the Heathrow article. Am willing to see if there is consensus as to (non-)notability. I've also posted a link to where the report can be accessed there. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arboretum box

No progress that I know of... I'm primarily active on Wikiversity these days though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I'm assuming that wasn't really meant for me - please be a bit more careful with who you warn and what for. Please also remember to sign your posts, and don't template the regulars. Thanks, Waggers (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Continental Airlines & SkyTeam

You are correct, Continental is still in the SkyTeam until they can receive regulatory approval from the government to join the Star Alliance which can take about a year. United and Continental both note that this could fail should the government not give them the regulatory approval.--Golich17 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Air India

Whatever Information i get about Air India is true because quite a lot of my friends are Pilots in Air India. I know many Senior Pilots in Air India who Command Boeing 747s so you can make it out that how Senior they must be. No matter what happens i will put all Information on Air India on Wikipedia so long as they are right. Air India is India's Flag Carrier,not United States of America's. I know more about Air India than even you know.I live in India,I live in the City where Air India has its Head Quarters,its obvious that i know more than you do. --Rhp 26 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's called original research, and unless you can cite information, I'm afraid then it will be removed. I suggest you read up on various Wikipedia guidelines before you continue editing, as it may help. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Go to the Air India Website and Checkout their Fleet. Check out the "Timeline" and you will find where i got the data of the retired fleet.

are you the owner of Wikipedia????? using the word "Vandalism" and accusing others of "Vandalism" is so common in Americans even though they are the ones who always start it. Dude you can't stop me from doing anything,NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REVERT THE EDIT I HAVE DONE I WILL BRING IT BACK AGAIN. IF YOU BLOCK ME FROM WIKIPEDIA I WILL MAKE ANOTHER ACCOUNT AND START IT AGAIN......... Ohh God y do Americans act so STUPID,even though they look like one..........hmmmmmmm hahahahahaha --Rhp 26 (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard the phrase, "when you're in a hole, stop digging"? Start acting civil; you certainly aren't putting yourself in a very good position by acting immature. Every editor on this encyclopedia has the right to challenge another person's edit. Yours were going against certain WP:AIRLINES guidelines that were created to standardize certain parts of airline articles. This is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that doesn't mean you can do anything you wish without effects. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Myrtle Beach Direct

Apparently according to the Myrtle Beach website, JetBlue is doing the flights now. Don't know why JetBlue would need this service, as they could do it on their own, unless MBDA is paying them a fortune for it? Maranomerau (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dates

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. No problem at all, it's a legitimate question you ask. WP:MOSDATE had previously asserted that only full dates be linked in articles (e.g. 1 April 1974), however, the style guide changed recently so that all dates be delinked, unless specifically necessary to the article (i.e. a page about calendars, time or a sequence of events). I only found out about this last week following a WP:FAC I was involved with. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Journalistic Errors

NcSchu, First, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. As can be seen, I have provided all relevant source information in regard to the Bob Herbert's Journalistic Error. I have provided the full video and a transcript of the Olbermann show. It is quite entertaining, well if you like that sort of stuff...

Nonethless, as you watch the video, Herbert's basis for his conclussion is that "why did the ad contain pictures of buildings or monuments that had nothign to do with either Obama, Hilton, or Spears.

If accurate, he would have had a point of why McCain was showing those images. Nontheless, the actual image was of the Victory column where Obama gave his speech. In other words, there were no subliminal images as Herbert based his argument.

This is also a significant event as a journalist with his credentials just accused a person who is running for president of running a racist ad.

Thanks,

Big—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtothebone (talk • contribs) 2008-08-06

Nothing you have provided in terms of references proves its notability or relevance, all you have stated is your opinion and original research on the behalf of you and others. Journalists can be wrong, and he isn't the first person to accuse this ad or this candidate or this election to contain racism/racist remarks. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias in section entitled 'Journalistic errors'

Hi Nschu, I was likewise disturbed by the bias and rant-like nature of the section as written by BigontheBone. I have twice edited it now to provide a more neutral tone. BigontheBone removed my previous edit and replaced it with another politically motivated rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspasia36 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I still find the whole section completely unnecessary due to the irrelevance of his comments, I much prefer your editing of it, you've made it neutral and informative rather than it was before. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop removing sourced and current information. It is a violation of wikipedia terms. Your original complaint was that the information did not contain sources. All source information has been provided. It is obvious that your objection is based upon political bias.

Bigtothebone (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone a tabloid or a blog. His opinion is apparently controversial to you and only you and it is of no importance to this encyclopedia. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel Article

Thanks again for the assist. I had sourced the wrong transcript accidently and had to find the correct one. It took a few minutes and you saw the wrong one in between my edits. FSF-Rapier (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)--FSF-Rapier (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if my edit comment was a bit rude, but it did seem odd to me that a June 6 or 9 or whatever transcript was sourced for a comment made in July! No problem though, I seem to suck at finding transcripts on these media website for some reason. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Newark Cargo

I’m not going to add back in the cargo section to Newark Liberty International Airport. I added after another user added cargo destinations a few weeks ago and it was removed because it was clearly inaccurate. I thought users would appreciate a cargo list because many other article also have a cargo destinations...I was wrong and I accept that.

I followed all your directions that you gave me…Your first undo asked me to state my source and I did that in my next edit. You then undid because source was not good enough, I was willing to completely drop the issue but I took it to talk under your advice. I left details on how I got the information in case another editor wanted continue my work with another, better source or something along those lines. (talk) Spikydan1 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Hubs

Fair enough...I'll leave it...could you add a "base" citation to it so people will realize that? 68.52.36.127 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that's necessary given it states this in the lead. But, if you wish: Virgin America | About Us. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FoxNews Article

Okay, I've already been through this with Gamaliel! How many administrators do I have to talk to? Did you even read what I wrote? You ask: "why is it so important for you to include this, i don't think any network publishes the political affiliation of their commentators, what's so special about Fox News for not doing so either?" My whole point is that FOXNews DOES make this information know, thus seperating itself from the other cable news channels. FSF-Rapier (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, it must have been the way it was worded. I'm not an administrator. However the information also wasn't sourced and was a pretty bold statement to be making anyway. Issues like including this information shouldn't be brought up with one or two people but should be on the article's talk page. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You made the issue personal when you asked why it was so important to me, so I brought the discussion here. It also seemed appropriate when you were completely reversing the meaning of what I was trying to get across. I had this discussion with Admin Gamaliel who simply stated that the information belonged in the body of the article as opposed to the introduction. Since it has been cleared by an Admin already I am going to restore it, if you want to continue deleting it we can have it out on the article's talk page.FSF-Rapier (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't provide a source, it can and should be removed regardless of what an administrator said. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MRC, MMfA, FAIR, et.al.

Agreed. I won't put any positional descriptors in where they don't exist, and I will ruthlessly remove them where they do. As I put on the MSNBC Talk page, I think citing those organizations on what any reasonable person would expect their positions to be is ridiculous. Perhaps in a few days an accomodation can be reached on the MSNBC page as you have suggested.--Textmatters (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Since I seem to be looking at your edits as much as anyone's these days, I thought I would drop by and say hi. Nice to meet you. Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

That MSNBC website is cited more than a half a dozen other times in the Olbermann article, including the first two footnotes. This particular edition clearly shows Palin being lampooned in two of the show's segments. Did you open your eyes when you downloaded it? Your objection is the equivalent of someone claiming that documentary footage of General Douglas MacArthur saying "I shall return" isn't a valid source; that it needs to be found in some historian's book. Cheers Badmintonhist (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The website only proves that the show exists and other concrete things. The point of a reference in this section is to prove that "Much of the program features harsh criticism of prominent Republicans and rightward leaning figures, including [...] Governor Sarah Palin" (bold added for effect to show the main words in that sentence that require a reliable secondary source). That source only proved that one or two such instances of criticism that exists and it doesn't prove the criticism's relevance in the section or whether it's important to note. The source is also not a stable webpage and changes probably every day. This isn't as simple as quoting somebody, and you seem to be too involved with exaggerating the situation and comparing it to completely different situations. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My Dear Ncshu: There is any amount of either plagiarized or "originally researched" material in the Olbermann and Olbermann related Wikipedia articles that you might more profitably concern yourself with. Incidentally, that little baseball card collection factoid that you were upset about being deleted was unreferenced until you looked it up (and I actually added it). Why did you feel an obligation to do that while simply eliminating a more obvious and significant fact that I was adding to the article? Anyone familiar with Countdown's shows over the past two weeks knows that Olbermann has been hammering Palin on a nightly basis (anyone familiar with the show, in fact, would know that he was going to do this as soon as she was named McCain's running mate). That hammering includes an ongoing offer to contribute 100 dollars to the Alaska Special Olympics for every supposed "lie" that Palin tells through election day. At present count there are actually eight clips or more on that website featuring Countdown's "criticisms" of Palin who was only named as McCain's running mate three weeks ago. I referenced only four (not "three") because I thought that using all of them would be overkill. If you really think that video clip after video clip of Olbermann trashing Palin on his show is not evidence that he now devotes much of his air-time to criticizing Palin, then you should also delete the statement that he is criticizing McCain which is completely unreferenced. I dare say you didn't because you realize that his attacks on McCain are "common knowledge". So are his attacks on Palin, for anyone who is paying attention, that is. Cheers. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's 'Ncshu'? Is it really that hard to spell my user name correctly? I must not be that dear. I couldn't care less about 'anyone familiar with Countdown's shows over the past two weeks', as that's original research. I also don't care whether he's criticized Palin a few times. Wikipedia is not based on truth, it is based on verifiable information. Information such as this bold statement need secondary sources, something you have not provided despite multiple requests to do so. You have not provided any source, none whatsoever, that proves these criticisms are relevant to mention and take up a significant portion of airtime. Other problems in this article aren't an excuse for me to ignore the one you keep trying to add. McCain/Bush have been in the public scene for years; Palin has been in it for less than a month. I really don't see how they can all be grouped together. Remove the McCain mention, then, I only have time to monitor current changes. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate offices

I'm not quite sure exactly which section it belongs in (so I do not mind if the information is moved to an existing section or another section), but I feel the information is important - Company head offices should be described, although usually the descriptions aren't as lengthy when companies own entire buildings. The only reason why the Virgin America one is more lengthy is because VA takes a section of a leased office building. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be more deserving of a second tier heading in the History section. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for the format help on the mediation request. That was giving me fits. I'm sorry this has escalated into such a heated debate and hope that we can work it out in the very near future. I apologize if it at any point in all of this if I have said anything that might be considered offensive and I hope that the informal mediation works out for everybody so we can resolve this in a way that both of us can feel comfortable with it. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm really not a bad person when you get to know me, I swear! I just like debating, it's sort of a habit, which can sometimes lead to bad things here (I mean, part of me agrees with you about the LAX thing given VX's limited amount of destinations in the first place, if you'll see the original couple of discussions about this; it's just I happen to think that because of the sources we have it seems to say that VX wants to concentrate a little bit more on the LAX market). Yeah, a little coding got weird, I think because of the text User:MilborneOne added. NcSchu_(Talk) 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I have no doubt you are in fact a good person and I am a fan of being able to debate and then leave the debate and be civil in everything else. I too enjoy debating and the topic at hand so I understand how that works as well. I think what you say about the LA Times makes sense. Believe it or not I hadn't looked at it that way so I'll go read it again and I also hadn't considered the fact that an email would indeed be possibly fall under original research. So I'll read the article again and maybe the mediation volunteers have an idea we don't if that doesn't solve it and it might. Appreciate the welcome as well. Now I have direct access to all of the guideline articles which will come in handy for future edits. 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

London Heathrow Airport

Nice catch. I've issued the IP user with a van-3 warning. As far as I know, they are made up airports. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The computer screwed it up---get off it

See section title. 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Request Filed

Hi. Please be informed that an arbitration request has been filed for Virgin America regarding the LAX focus city dispute in which you have been included as an involved party. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Eding the article. Many thanks

Thank you for your contribution in my artcle. Really I did not know I could insert my article in the talk page for discussion and editing before saving it. Nexttime I will do it for sure.

In the meantime I would like to thank you very much for your help

George Leonardos (Gleonardos (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

My problem

The issue I have is that you immediately disparage me and then disparage my ideas with nothing but things like you have a bad argument and no real constructive rebuttal and when you do give a real rebuttal it is the same one I have already responded to six ways from sunday and you just ignore all of my rationale and anyone who agrees with me and just keep spitting out your same point over and over with no real intent to compromise every time the outcome of the debate tends to shift from your original opinnion. I've tried to run with every third party attempt at help we've gotten and tried to go down every wiki path for resolution and you just keep complaining and complaining. With regard to the most recent suggestion which did agree to we both know that what we call the list isn't the real issue and I don't care how it is labled either, it is whether we only list the most obvious SFO or whether include LAX as well. I really am getting tired of dealing with this issue and so when I say I'll leave it if we don't have a sure fire plan for resolution by Monday I mean that not as an attack on you personally but just as statement that I'm not willing dedicate my time to it anymore if we can't collectively make any true and tangible progress. Also, I don't care if you edit the article of George L but we both know it is strictly against wikipedia policy for George L himself to write it so that is what I had reverted and am trying to stop. It's your seemingly allowing him to continue that and not take any action on it that I take issue with and I'm sure you can see how I would be suspicious of you for going into my edit history considering our current debate and starting other debates with me elsewhere as well. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, had the original survey that you weren't going to accept which wp:dispute resolution says is ok not gone my way I would have accepted it. I'm not going to throw a fit if it doesn't. The last thrid party advice though which I was also willing to accept, just happened to go my way and you immediately threw a fit and disparaged my in your response. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the policy that I believe Gleonardos is violating. He should be contributing on the talk page if he feels the need but others should do the editing and doing himself is "strongly discouraged." 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of us have an opinion here and that is how repuatble we think the hub guide is from USAToday, whether not the LATimes article is saying that LAX is ready for title now or could be in the future, and whether or not it matters that the airline itself, my source, gives LAX a title or not. In terms of Gleonardos, I just ask that he follow protocol and put his proposed text on the talk page and let others review and enter it rather than doing it himself. The page I cited says that I am well in my rights to do that and that him doing it himself is a legitimate reason for concern. You also flip out when your view does not prevail so you aren't an angel either may I remind you. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done dealing with you. You just want to argue. Nothing I say about anything will get a favorable response from you. Forget it. I'll work on my projects and as long as I don't hear from anyone else with a problem and continue to get thanks for my work elsewhere then I won't consider anything that I'm doing to be a problem. Goodbye. 45Factoid44 (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to just delete every negative comment off of your talk page, I'll say this here. While I may have caused you to leave Wikipedia you felt less about me than I about you. If you didn't want to argue, then you shouldn't argue. I would have nothing to argue about if you didn't feel the need to respond to every comment that was made on Talk:Virgin America. The fact that you dislike me for arguing, in addition to being completely a ridiculous argument in hindsight, is also representative of somebody that dislikes being questioned. For consensus to occur, questioning reasons is part of the process. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

good one

Thanks for the laugh. IT WASN'T ME!!!  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

VX Case

My apologies. However, sir, I would like to point out to you that all of your responses are in excess of 40 words and do not abide the regulation either. I will work on this though none-the-less. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Where do i disscuss new thiongs in the airlines section on wikipedia? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irunongames (talk • contribs) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Each Wikiproject, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines has a talk page where you can discuss things to change site wide about how airline articles are formatted and written or on things to add to the main project page as you were trying to do. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't see it. I thought the bar with all that other stuff replaced it. Irunongames (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem; we can always use more help in WP:Airlines so I didn't want to scare you away or anything. It's just that when giving recommended guidelines such as recommended references, it's a good idea for the WikiProject to agree on which ones to add first. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits and grammar

I noticed you have made edits to the Branson page, including one that I appended over with updated info, and another where I removed an unnecessary paragraph break you inserted in a short single topic paragraph.
It did not go unnoticed that in the first case you had a redundant comma, and one does not refer to a sail 'breaking' (it is made of fabric).
I in no way wish to demean all the good work you may do, and I certainly do not wish you to feel insulted. I'm sure we're both looking to produce the same best end product.
Your User Page refers to your "grammar", and while this encourages understanding, it does little to get back the time it takes to amend errors.
Please make every consideration when editing a page lest you use or insert bad syntax in others' good grammar.
Please feel free to contact me, or remove this entry. (A copy is archived with wiki community)
Incidentally, I'll likely add more soon to that topic, including some personal pics. I'll have no objection to your graphical input.
Respectfully, ssaco. 11/3/08

I think you're looking at other people's edits as I never touched the sailing wording since I have no knowledge of the subject. The only two edits I've done after yours are this one and this one. In hindsight the comma usage in the first was unnecessary. My insertion of a paragraph was only for Wiki-coding purposes. As it looked like the statement beginning with 'After 2 days [...]' was meant to be written in another paragraph but perhaps added by an editor unfamilar with Wiki-coding (and adding a full line break between paragraphs) I thought I would help out. I'd ask you to assume good faith next time. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

VX

I genuinely think there is no harm in listing the cities that the airline might service if the airline itself has provided the list. There's got to be more accuracy to it than just Joe Blow speculation or it wouldn't be an FAQ answer on the airline's website. I know for a fact that some of the individual airports on this list already make mention of their place on it in their articles on here. We need to either to have it or not have it. While I am for, it doesn't really matter to me as much as consistency does. Your thoughts? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:CRYSTAL. A lot of things might be 'official' but that certainly isn't the criteria for including something on wikipedia. The list is simply an ugly list of a few dozen cities without giving any kind of useful assessment of the airline's future strategy. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard brandson

Hi,

I dont understand why you undid my contribution to Richard Bransons page. Could you please do your best to explain what was wrong with it.

Looking forward to your reply, Ben xx Sato1212 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sato1212 (talk • contribs)

Because you seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Uncyclopedia and adding things about Branson's beard all over his article when it's not relevant whatsoever. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is a very valid point! Sato1212 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

British Airways

Thanks for your grammatical and other corrections. I think that we have now arrived at a mutually factual and suitable coverage of this aspect of BA's operations! RuthAS (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I am curious though, doesn't BA still have flights from a few airports in Scotland? NcSchu_(Talk) 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)