This user may have left Wikipedia. Jasepl has not edited Wikipedia since 4 December 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Your point is taken about WP not being a travel guide and is fine but I am not so sure about removing the tax information. That is a clarification of how much the tax is and as such is relevant article detail in the context of the airport operation and revenue gained from it by the government. Most governments seem to be hiding these taxes in air ticket prices now, for that reason possibly Indonesian airports are starting to stand out now. Having now looked around see how this is being dealt with in other airport articles I note that Soekarno–Hatta International Airport article is also detailing them. Really I think it is in context. Do you have any knowledge of a WP guideline on this? That would possibly assist. If it has been rendered down to a solution elsewhere then it should probably come out of CGK as well. I thought it was in DPS (Bali as well but I need to check. Get back to me and let me know your thoughts. Felix 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sensible suggestion Trafford, I did take a quick look there when Jasepl raised the issue but could not find a guideline or discussion. I hoped that as Jasepl raised it then Jasepl might know of one. I am just relying on theidea that it is useful information and that other airports that still have similar 'taxes' also seem to be listing the detail of charges. Personally I think this info is 'encyclopaedic' but I have an open mind on it. After Jasepl raised the issue I linked the article to the departure appropriate WP article that covers 'departure taxes'. If this discussion is going to continue we should probably take it over to the article's discussion page. Felix 11:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically, the rationale is the same one behind not listing flight timings or frequencies, or bus schedules and fares. Saying there is an airport tax (and linking to the tax authority/airport site) is all we should be doing, just like we only say Garuda fly to X, Y, Z without elaborating on frequencies, timings or fares. It is because these are fluid and subject to frequent change. Besides, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor is it a "Right to Information" source. I know there is a policy around it somewhere, with specific examples. Let me look for it and get back to you. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as I mentioned earlier as long as you are sure about it then excise the excise but please double check on it first. If you do it on the Lombok airport article then you might want to deal with the others as well. Maybe it should be raised on the AP discussion page so it does not start up any unfortunate incidents as I think there maybe more than a handful of airports listing the charges.I think in the case of the Indonesian airports it is collected by the airport operator but on behalf of whom?? I am not sure maybe- PT. Angkasa Pura 1 (PERSERO) for Selaparang airport Lombok, PT.Angkasa Pura II (Persero) for CGK, or for Directorate General of Civil Aviation of Indonesia Felix 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I checked the weekly domestic schedule of AI from BOM to MAA. All the flights on this sector are IC code flights (IC 971, IC 672, IC 174, IC 571). There is no mention of any AI coded flights which is why I removed MAA from AI operated by IC row. Pls check this: [1]
Okay. But you also removed Ahmedabad from the Indian Airlines entry, which has the following flights: IC 614, 685 and AI 631, 635, 191, 131 (operated by Indian Airlines). Besides, it would help if you provided a comment with your edit! Jasepl (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed Ahmedabad is because there is only 1 flight from AMD to BOM and that flight is actually on AMD-BOM-KWI, and this flight operates out of the International terminal from both AMD and BOM. ****Abhishek191288 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)****[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tbilisi International Airport. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JodyBtalk14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KLM service to Xiamen
A user continues to add Xiamen on KLM destinations to begin in mid-2011. However, I continue to remove it since no exact and full date is announced by KLM but he continues to add it. Can you watch it. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullying other editors
What I don't understand. First you are mocking other nationalities [2] and then suddenly you seem to understand "Pakistani", quote: "Again, swearing, abusiveness, personal attacks and so forth are NOT acceptable and will NOT be tolerated."
Only one element of your long message left at Investor123 talk page, which is not helpful at all. You should disengage, ASAP. Stepopen (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I do not understand Pakistani, but, given said user's history of swearing in English too, I presume that what that user wrote amounted to swearing. And the user has been told that it was a presumption on my part (a highly probably one, I think). Of course, the actual swearing (assuming that is what it was) , is of no consequence, whilst responding by saying "I don't understand" is a huge deal. Impeccable logic. How can one argue against that?
This is your last warning; the next time you add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop. You are tagging dozens of IP's under extremely circumstantial evidence. This is extremely Bitey and disruptive. You are also making personal attacks against editors, as well as racial insults. Thank you, Alpha Quadranttalk18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don't know why you are not happy for this page. Every information is in there if you are not sure. Some of the airports are delete as they don't serve there. So be aware to that. Thanks (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But you need to provide a source and/or an comment. This is to support what you are doing (how can anyone be sure what you have done unless you explain, and if it is correct unless there is a source). Thanks, jasepl (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarise yourself with the policy on copyright violations; such violations are a serious matter, with legal implications. Your image was removed from the commons by a specialised reviewer, and, therefore, cannot be used in the Madurai Airport article. jasepl (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what that site is. And I did not classify any image as a copy-vio, so please take this discussion to the appropriate forum. I cannot help you with that, unfortunately. jasepl (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks. I reactive my photos [File:Kingfisher at madurai airport.jpg] (the photos was taken by me). No one have copyrights permission other than me. So please don't remove it. Sundar amu (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inviation **please reply**
Hello User::Jasepl,
You and a number of others, are invited by User:Sp33dyphil to help him cleanup and significantly improve the articles that he’d edited and will edit. The articles involved are airline alliances, such as SkyTeam, Oneworld and Star Alliance. He will be improving and expanding shoe and clothes manufacturing companies, namely Puma AG, Addidas and Nike, Inc.. Airline articles will also be edited, along with Australian rules football and related clubs.
You do not need to know these subjects; but you could help
copyedit the articles, as well as improving the English in the involved further.
format the references by inserting citation templates. Please go to WP:CITET, or go to his contributions page to see how he has been carrying out this job.
add appropriate and relevant pictures and media deemed necessary.
merge and tighten paragraphs. Since there are numerous one- and two-sentence paragraphs, merging these together helps editors afterwards add information.
wikification.
*****Please disregard the following section if you are busy. Only concentrate on the jobs above.*****
If you have time, you could further help by:
adding pictures/media of the involved subjects to Wiki Commons.
Absolutely. Right or wrong, like it or not (and I don't like in many instances), but let's just leave it the way it's been for a long time now, until we can all come to a consensus. jasepl (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read "maintain status quo"? We agreed that we should use the real airport name, not the airline-chosen name, so please respect this decision ;-) Slasher-fun (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic I know, but I said okay, let's keep things the way they have been until the issue is sorted. FYI, I agree with your view, that we should say simply "Bergamo", "Beauvais" etc, but still feel we wait until a collective decision has been arrived at. jasepl (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well we waited a few days and it seemed no one had something else to say, so I counted the votes, and the decision is now included in WP:Airports. We're not gonna wait forever for somebody else to say something... Slasher-fun (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK we establish a full list first, I didn't understand that sorry :-) Slasher-fun (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just curious, as to why you removed my edit regarding ground transport at AUH airport? Did I not add enough information, or too much? I was there last week, so I have first hand knowledge of the situation. Maybe I should have researched the web for an official reference?
Thanks
signol Signol (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - the reason for removing that information, is basically that we don't list prices, schedules, routes etc (the premise being that Wikipedia is not a travel guide). If needed, one can say something like "a bus service connects the airport to the city centre" and then provide a link to the operator/company's site. Something on those lines. Thanks, jasepl (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know - but we should change that. LCCs typically have bases, whilst network carriers have hubs. Might seem like a small difference, but that's the way the community has decided on classification. jasepl (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - that was because changes to frequencies and timings are not regarded as significant to be mentioned in airport articles. jasepl (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malpensa Airport
I'm not sure why you undid my edit regarding Lufthansa destinations, they are all marketed and operated by Lufthansa using Lufthansa codes, in fact I considered the edit with "Lufthansa Regional" whatever that is as the work of a vandal!Speed74 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case. Take a look at any other airport article (Roissy or Frankfurt, for example). You will see that flights operated by subsidiaries, franchisees etc are listed separately. The project guideline is that we list the operating carrier and only the operating carrier. It wasn't collateral damage! Hope this clears things up. jasepl (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My personal advice is this - changing format so often (ohconfucious or something did not so long ago) will just create inconsistency since ALL airline destinations articles will not be changed every time. Oh well, I'll just leave it I guess ^_^. 109.88.47.130 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal preferences aside, the end result is the same, except the number of characters used is reduced (; instead of three ' ), and that results in the page size going down (which is always a good thing). As for all of the continents and countries being de-linked, that's the norm and they shouldn't have been linked in the first place. jasepl (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merpati Selaparang (Lombok) to Kuala Lumpur
Hi Jasepl, I have recently reverted part of your recent edit to Selaparang as I believed your delete of Merpati AMI-KUL MZ830 and KUL-AMI MZ831 was in error.
The situation is a little confusing, the service is allegedly still active. It has however not been available for internet bookings for quite a while now, direct booking with Merpati or an authorised TA was has been required. It was available for net bookings sometime previously but Merpati seemed to have some issue with international destination internet bookings. DPS-KOE (Kupang) was also the same until recently.
I note than when checking today bookings can now be done for DPS-KOE on the Merpati website. Certainly confusing. If they have now started doing international bookings on their website again it is odd that they are not doing AMI-KUL MZ830 and KUL-AMI MZ831 as well. I put a note on the page similar to the one on the DPS article re booking through Merpati direct or an authorised TA. I am now going to remove that note from the DPS article as Merpati appear to be doing internet booking now on that route.
I tried a test (net) booking for DPS-KOE and it progressed through to passenger name stage.
I am finding the Merpati flights AMI-KUL MZ830 and KUL-AMI MZ831 but now I am also finding that Merpati are listing their AMI-SUB and SUB AMI services as via DPS on their website.
Being somewhat confused about this apparent state of 'flux' with Merpati I have self-reverted my undo of your own edit and I am trying to seek some clarification from Merpati.
Do let me know if you have any info that conflicts or adds to this. Not that I ever doubted it before but this confirms to me that Merpati are a rather 'odd' airline. Cheers, Felix (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O okay. Is there no other way to validate that? It does seem odd though, because most flights on Merpati can be booked on their website. The KUL flight doesn't even show in schedules or the GDS. jasepl (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get through to Merpati today but had no success. I enquired with Lombok's largest TA (Bidy Tour) and they replied "merpati will be: mataram - kualalumpur via surabaya (transit 1hr in surabaya) no change flight. That was in response to my asking if Merpati were still operating AMI-KUL MZ830 and KUL-AMI MZ831. I will try and get to the bottom of it. I notice Merpati have also apparently dropped AMI-CGK, it now apparently 'Hubing' through DPS and appearing as AMI-DPS-CGK. Maybe they just put all the destinations in a hat and tipped them on the floor.
Whilst writing this I tried their website again and got this result, somewhat confirming the advice from the TA:
MZ 6607 Mataram, Lombok Denpasar, Bali 25/12/2010 16:45 17:15
MZ 617 Denpasar, Bali Surabaya 25/12/2010 17:55 17:45
and
MZ 6607 Mataram, Lombok Denpasar, Bali 25/12/2010 16:45 17:15
MZ 603 Denpasar, Bali Surabaya 25/12/2010 19:10 19:00
So I guess that tells the story, the MZ830 flight number is the AMI-(SUB)-KUL service, or at least it was before. I think it is safe to go with the assumption that AMI-KUL is still available as the AMI-SUB sector is findable and the TA says they can currently book it. Also Merpati did not list it on-line before either. All kind of weird though as they are now listing DPS-KOE as bookable online indicating that they have 'got over' what ever it was that was holding them back from online international destination bookings. I will go back to my on again off again re-edit of the Selaparang article and reinstate AMI-KUL. Do let me know if you turn up info to the contrary.
I have recently seen Merpati promoting AMI-KUL on their website but then when I check a booking it came up with the unavailable message, like I mentioned before..crazy airline. They often send along a mechanic with a tool box, reassuring in a way, but then again in another way, not. Felix (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is not about my 'personal preferences', it is about what YOU want to be on the article. "San José de Costa Rica" is NOT a common name for Costa Rica's capital. Plus, TACA PERU operates all its flights under the code of TACA Airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoperuvien (talk • contribs) 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your PoV at the right place, because several editors have undone your edits, which you do make selectively. There is no denying either. Also, conveniently blanking your talk page (which you have every right to do, but that's besides the point) doesn't make others' input change. And please sign your comments. jasepl (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLR copyvio
Yes, I did notice that. I don't remember who added this section, but I do remember making some edits to this section with my own words. As of now since most of it comes under copyright violation, wouldn't it be better to improve the section rather than just deleting it? I do agree that it violates copyright issues, but the section deserves to be there. So instead of just blanking the section, I'd appreciate if you could add some appropriate tag so that in the course of time the section is improved. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda trying to reframe these sentences. And what about airport city? Do we include a small para on that and maybe have a separate article for the same once it is operational. One more thing, where exactly do we place the "current scenario" section? Would it be better if it is placed after ground transportation? Lastly, I feel it is better to re-name the "ground transportation" section to "connectivity" as the airport does have charter air links from various parts of the city. It is nice that we are working together to improve an article. If you do remember, I had kinda attacked you over the "Air India" issue which is now placed as "AI operated by IC". I sincerely apologise for the same. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take a look again and I'll see if I can suggest something. I do feel that a lot of the material (copied from elsewhere or not) simply doesn't need to be there, because it's not really noteworthy. Eg: all airports have duty free shops, there's no need to elaborate on that, unless it's a distinctly spectacular selection. And HMS Host now manage food services at hundreds of airports, so a big paragraph on that is really not necessary.
I do not just add flights at Ben Gurion Airport.
Year ago ARKIA AIRLINES began to run flights to Barcelona and it was still on television.
On SUN DOR Airport's website says the company begins to operate flights to Wroclaw.
I'm not sure what television has to do with anything. No matter - the fact remains that you have been adding flights without providing a valid source or even an explanation. You can add all the fligfhts you want, so long as you provide a source that shows the flight is operational. Simple as that. jasepl (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I was looking at the edit made by an IP (a habitual vandal, I might add) just before yours, and didn't realise that you had changed it to a redirect. All fixed now. Sorry about that.
By the way, the typical procedure followed is to merge the content into the main article, and then delete the dedicated destinations article. Any chance you could do that? Thanks, jasepl (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content had already been merged into the article (by the IP address), I simply made the redirect, as the IP requested on the wikiproject page. There's no reason to delete the destinations article, though.. a redirect is fine. (see Wikipedia:Redirect) Mlm42 (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the IP (Special:Contributions/119.155.33.80) does not look like a "habitual vandal" to me; it appears to you believe he is the same as the IP User_talk:119.155.58.245. Whether he is or not, both IP addresses appear to be making edits in good faith, and it further appears that you are being unhelpful by discouraging him so much - calling him a vandal appears out of line.
For example, one of your edit wars involved Air Arabia Maroc destinations. The IP was trying to add Basel as a destination, replacing Mulhouse. You reverted him twice, and the IP address Special:Contributions/180.215.196.42 also reverted him twice more (the IP 116.71.5.86 then accussed you of using the IP 180.215.196.42 as a sockpuppet..). The article currently has Mulhouse as a destination. Now, call me crazy, but the source cited in the article does not list Mulhouse as a destination.. it lists Basel. I know the airport is EuroAirport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg, which is in neither Basel, Mulhouse, nor Freiburg, but it's closest to Mulhouse. Nevertheless, the reliable source says "Basel". So the IP address has a solid case for using Basel instead of Mulhouse. Maybe a compromise like "Basel / Mulhouse" could be used instead (it is, after all, operated jointly by France and Switzerland).
That is but one example (one that has been discussed to death in the past, and put to rest by everyone else). However, this editor is a self-admitted IP avatar of User:Inspector123, and uses any of several hundreds of IPs to edit (granted the large number is not by said editor's design), many of those IPs have been blocked for edit warring, vandalism, abuse, personal attacks, swearing and the like. I could provide more detail should you wish, but hopefully we don't need to go down that path, and the editor will realise that what is being asked of them is what is asked of all of us: to comply with established guidelines and procedure, and, should they disagree with any of them, then discuss a proposed change at the right forum, instead of basically declaring "eff off". jasepl (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the puppetmaster's (not necessarily the most appropriate word, but I couldn't think of another one!) talk page will shed a little bit of light on the history. jasepl (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit war. The history I see from glancing at Inspector123's talk page is that you two have disagreed on many things. I think using "vandal" (which sounds like a personal attack, to me) to describe Inspector123, as well as the possible IP addresses which he may or may not use, is not the answer; we should evaluate individual edits on their own merit, try to keep a cool head, and don't forget to assume good faith.
Could you point me to the discussion which established the use of "Mulhouse" as the destination name, in the case I discussed above? You should be providing and link to these "established guidelines" either in your edit summaries, or on the talk page; especially since it contradicts the cited sources. Otherwise your edits look just as disruptive as the edits you are trying to revert. Mlm42 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you still haven't given me any links, I assume the established guidelines you were referring to is this discussion? I don't think this discussion should be considered complete.. I think there are NPOV and Original Research issues, which I have raised there. Mlm42 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! My mistake (I assumed people tended to lump VCP as a Sao Paulo airport, that's why I made the change). Sorry about that! jasepl (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Jasepl, it is a common mistake. Nowadays we avoid to refer CPQ as an airport related to SAO because it has built up a traffic on its own right, particularly with Azul Brazilian Airlines. By the way, welcome back. (Brunoptsem (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
George F. L. Charles / Vigie
Hi Jasepl,
Why are you using "Vigie" here? I always use "George F. L. Charles", because it's simply the name of the airport, and Vigie is, according to our article, a "former" name. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And concerning this; is there any consensus on naming these airports that way suddenly? On an other article, I saw you changing "Bergamo" in "Milan-Orio al Serio" recently... Belgian man (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salut! There is some consensus, at WP:Airports. Regards Vigie, it is still the more commonly used name and is simply shorter in the table. Kind of like writing Buenos Aires-Ezeiza (even though the "new" name is Ministro Pistarini. There's no hard and fast rule, but we do tend to use the more common name where possible, at least in the tables. The Airport article itself of course bears the full name. jasepl (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention on giving you any explanation of why I've changed the names of the destinations, in any case you are the one that should give explanation for "innovative"' non-existing destinations like "Oviedo", "Arrecife", "Santa Cruz de La Palma "or" Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, where neither the airport operator, airlines or the AIP called them that way, or even more ambiguous names as "Madrid" (which has four airports open to commercial civil traffic) or directly you put the names invented by Ryanair (as Paris-Beauvais or Oslo-Rygge) when the AIP and civil aviation organizations, if not the airports themselves commercially, are called differently. You say that in your opinion or non-sense consensus should be listed as "destination cities", so, since when Beauvais is part of Paris, Treviso part of Venice, Moss of Oslo and Bergamo part of Milan?.
I will continue again and again making changes, especially in Spanish airports that I know firsthand, because the opposite of doing this is:
1) Lying, because you make up destinations that airlines do not fly.
2) lying, because you confuse readers with destinations that do not really exist.
3) Be a primary source, cause you make up places that do not exist.
Finally, if you want to know where I get the names, common sense, and the AIS / AIP Eurocontrol. Can't you get in?. Then maybe you do not have enough aeronautical knowledge.
Perfectly valid points. However, this is not the place for this discussion. A link was provided to you on your talk page by two or three different editors, pointing you to the discussion. Please contribute there. Wikipedia is about collaboration. I haven't decided to use one term or another all on my own, and neither should you. We need consensus. Thanks, jasepl (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jasepl refers to this discussion, and I don't believe consensus has been reached on the issue. I am glad that jasepl has stated that we need consensus, but I am discouraged by the fact he is making the changes on the articles without consensus being reached (see the message below). Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I checked online and the reference that was given for the resumption of UL flights to COK was the only site confirming the date as Feb 1 for the same. All other sources only say that UL is planning and there is no confirmation of the date. UL's website too does not have any info on the same. Hence I have removed this claim from the respective articles. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop changing the destination names
Jasepl, I've noticed recent edits of yours ([4], [5], [6], [7], all on different pages, all edits today), where you change names of destinations. Others revert your edit, and you sometimes engage in an edit war. Please stop making these changes, since consensus has not been established (which is probably why you are being reverted!). We should be trying harder to establish consensus on this matter. Please continue the discussion here. Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9W at VTZ
Sir, In the recent update of 9W schedules, there is no termination of the present routes out of VTZ. Most of these routes are now shown with validity upto 2012. I am not changing the same, but I request you to have a look at the recent updated schedule. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jasepl, A good day to you. This user: Dixiechick80 is adding too much of wrong info into TRV article claiming that he/she knows better because he/she works with the airport. The user adds: T3 in the article, expo aviation cargo, EK cargo (with wrong destination). Please do something as soon as you come back and stop him/her from vandalising the article. Thanks, have a good day. Abhishek191288 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are references required to be kept on the Airlines and Destionations lists long term. In the above airports listed Felipealvarez (talk) says the references need to be there all the time or he will put [citation needed] if they are removed. No other airport pages except the above listed have any references. What do you think> Jamie2k9 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wind Jet To Malaga
Hello. a few months ago you said Wind jet don't go to Malaga, well it says on Aena that Wind Jet go to Malaga on a seasonal basis. --MKY661 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying!!!
Hi. I have been checking malaga on aena for a few months. All airlines leave from correct piers, except one. Here is how it should be
Pier B - Flights to non european destinations & flights to UK and Ireland
Pier C - Flights to non schengen european destinations & flights to UK and Ireland
Pier D - Flights to schengen destinations
For some reason every tuesday for the last few months, Bulgarioa Air flights to Sofia have been leaving from B (with C on the occasion). Bulgaria is Non-Schengen so i don't know why this is happening. They operate every tuesday if you want to take a look. --MKY661 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is related to a holding company that does not have destinations, it is also a duplication of Air India destinations which correctly relates to the airline
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chandigarh Airport , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Trinidade 15:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MexicanaClick destinations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
