Archive of User talk:Zyxw: January through December 2008:
Cape Field at Fort Glenn
Hi Zyxw -- I note you added to the article Cape Field at Fort Glenn. It certainly needed to be extended from the minimal stub that I had started the article with. But, I am concerned that the way you reference the new material, saying that the article now "includes" text from two sources that you provide. I appreciate that you do include the two sources as references. But if it includes text from another source, that text should be put in quotation marks or block quotes. I am not sure what to do now. I would rather not revert it back to the way it previously was. Could you edit the material to put into quotes the material that is the same as in the source? Or reword the information? Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I updated the Cape Field at Fort Glenn article to place quotes around text taken directly from the NHL summary. I also merged the two sets of references and restored the text regarding it being "a public domain work of the United States Government", and therefore acceptable include in a Wikipedia article. Since the NHL link is currently not working, I added a link to a cached version that can be found on Google. -- Zyxw (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my request and for identifying clearly which text passages came from which of 2 sources (or that they duplicate both those sources). Thank you for adding in the link to the Google cache version of the NHL summary webpage, as that helps right now in our discussion. As you may have surmised because they lack author and date and otherwise, both the NL writeup and the NHL summary webpage for the site are not original, primary sources. (In fact, they are both based on a more fundamental document, the NRHP inventory/nomination document for the site, which is typically 10-20 pages long and is written by a historian. For most National Historic Landmarks, that document is available on-line at the National Park Service. I am putting in a request now to get a hard copy of that document sent to me, so that I can improve this article.) doncram (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored a third reference which your editing had inadvertently deleted. As you may or may not be aware, the NRHP infobox appearing on this page is similar to infoboxes now appearing in many other NRHP articles in wikipedia, that are all based on one download on 1/23/2007 from the NRIS database. FYI, the download was performed by user Elkman, not myself. Please note that it is not appropriate to delete this source. doncram (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also re-edited the referencing to remove use of the "USGovernment" template. This is justified because every passage copied from a U.S. government source is now put in quotes and specifically referenced. It is then not necessary to raise doubt on the rest of the article. Since this is currently such a short article with so little original wording written by any wikipedia editors, that may seem superfluous to you. But my effort on fixing up the references in this article are intended to allow a longer article to grow, including use of other sources, which is fully referenced and not ever requiring that template. It is very painful, after an article has grown without keeping track of each statement's source, to go back and track down every source in order to remove that kind of generic disclaimer. doncram (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first encounter with the "USGovernment" template and its disclaimer, although I have seen some similar ones. As you may gather, I strongly dislike use of such general disclaimers and the kind of article-writing for which such disclaimers may be needed. To give you some background, there are approximately 1,600 wikipedia articles on National Historic Landmark sites, indexed in List of National Historic Landmarks by state, and there are several thousand articles on other National Register of Historic Places. As far as I can tell, none of these articles employ this "USGovernment" template and disclaimer. I have gone and checked the category "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government" and am happy to notice no NHL or other NRHP articles listed there now, after this article is removed. It is the general practice, instead, to fully reference the sources used in an article and to avoid having to put in such a general disclaimer. It is my personal feeling that the disclaimer is tantamount to declaring "This is plagiarized", and I strongly want to avoid necessity of its use. You do not have to agree with the intensity of my feelings on this, but please understand that use of this USGovernment template on historic site articles is likely to be highly unappreciated by me and by others. I do understand you could have different views. I wouldn't mind further exchanging viewpoints on this if you like, but again, I trust you will agree that use of the disclaimer is unnecessary in this case. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
White Plains
Thanks for finding all that FAA information for HPN, I wasn't even sure where to start looking for more to make it notable or any of the other issues. Travellingcari (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiMapia
I've put them all back I think. There may be 2 or 3 that I converted the infobox at the same time and didn't restore the map link. You were right, the majority were airports, edited/created by you last. I usually just use the infobox link to look and make sure that the coordinates were typed correctly and if I want to see the place better I use Google Earth. That's how I found the military airports in the US that have leading 0. GeoHack can use the "1:" but I've not used it very often. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:FAA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
Hi -- "05:23, 6 March 2008 Zyxw (Talk | contribs) (6,317 bytes) (removed "line-height:1.4em;" from prior edit since it makes the lines too compressed -- use Template:Navbox defaults instead)" - except these defaults seem to space the lines a little too far apart. How about 1.5em? Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that using "line-height:1.4em;" makes the text look crowded and I don't think using "line-height:1.5em;" is going to change that. However, my main concern with any such change in Template:United States topic is that there are thousands of other templates based on Template:Navbox which use the default line height. One of the reasons for using Navbox is to maintain some level of consistency, particularly for those articles containing multiple navigation boxes. Therefore, if the line height is changed, it should be changed at that level. I see you made such a request at Template talk:Navbox #Suggestions for default groupstyle/liststyle, groupNstyle/listNstyle and an admin denied it on March 2, stating the correct place for such changes is in MediaWiki:Common.css. I also see you then posted your suggestion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css #Extra CSS for Navboxes. I think you should wait for it to be resolved there instead of adding "line-height:1.4em;" to individual templates. -- Zyxw (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re your recent addition of 1000+ WikiMapia links to Wikipedia articles: why are you trying to reverse the work done on WP:GEO after a clear consensus to stop using templates that exist only to link to external map services? All the Geolinks templates have stayed neutral after the clensing, so what makes WikiMapia so special that it should be the only templated service in Wikipedia articles? Yes, it has information Wikipedia articles mostly don't have, but so do all the 100 map services available through the coordinates link. --Para (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry it took me this long to reply. I held off because your concerns about promoting one particular site over others caused me to think about designing a template that could replace Template:WikiMapia and all the other direct links to mapping sites. As you have already noticed, the result of that was Template:HybridMapLink. I haven't announced it anywhere since I've been testing it and updating the documentation. I'll post about it at WT:GEO and WT:EL shortly. In the meantime, here are some responses to your original comments:
• "what makes WikiMapia so special that it should be the only templated service in Wikipedia articles? Yes, it has information Wikipedia articles mostly don't have, but so do all the 100 map services available through the coordinates link."
I wanted a direct (one-click) link to interactive satellite imagery with an overlaid map. The need for hybrid mode reduces the selection from "100" services to 5 primary sources (Google Maps, Live Search Maps, MapQuest, Multimap, Yahoo! Maps) and 3 secondary sources using the Google Maps API (AcmeMapper, GeoNames, WikiMapia). I chose WikiMapia because it was the only one I could find that allows adding outlines around items of interest, with notations that include a link to the Wikipedia article. I did not create the template; I simply started using it for those reasons.
• "recent addition of 1000+ WikiMapia links to Wikipedia articles"
While I may have added 1000+ links, I wouldn't characterize them as recent. Most of those links are in airport articles created or updated over the course of eleven months from 6-Feb-2007 through 8-Jan-2008.
• "why are you trying to reverse the work done on WP:GEO"
I support the work of the Geographical coordinates WikiProject regarding improvements to Template:GeoTemplate (a.k.a. GeoHack) and have even contributed corrections to that template. However, for some people it can be a bit overwhelming. There are others who don't have a problem with it, but also want a direct link that goes from an article to a map in a single click. We do have the globe icon link for WikiMiniAtlas, which is nice but still a work in progress: it is slow, the satellite imagery is incomplete and it does not provide a way to specify a zoom level from within the article.
• "clear consensus to stop using templates that exist only to link to external map services"
Regardless of whether or not there was a consensus (the subject of some debate at Wikipedia talk:External links, one of the primary concerns seemed to be that placing external links in the article involved a choice between promoting one service (i.e. Template:WikiMapia) or having a large collection of links to different services (i.e. versions of Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale dated 3-Sep-2007 or earlier). Hopefully Template:HybridMapLink or something similar can address those concerns while still allowing a direct link to an external map service (until such time as WikiMiniAtlas improves or another solution is found).
I wish you had discussed it with people before putting so much work into creating a new template. I think it's a very bad idea to start multiple concurrent systems for the same purpose. If there really are enough Wikipedia readers who want "any map link", we should build on what we have and not start from scratch. A toolserver tool could for example be created that fetches the GeoHack page of an article and redirects to one of the first links. Then coordinates and scales and zoom sizes would only have to be entered once. But before starting any work on such a thing or spreading other templates around, please discuss the random link idea on GEO and EL. --Para (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting of destinations in airport articles
EIELEF here: please, why are you modifiing the pages i've created?. It was a hard work, and the standard format isn't good. I know in an airport with 100 destinations, it would be long. But in most argentinean airports theere is only one airline and one destination. Putting the name of the airport isn't that bad idea.
Please, do not change argentinean airports pages. I know LOTS of it (i live here, i'm a pilot here, and i've in almost all of those airports).
Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eielef (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. However, the guidelines at Wikipedia: Disambiguation #Page naming conventions state that: Term ABC (disambiguation)" is not the mandatory name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic for the title "Term ABC". It is acceptable, on the other hand, to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC". Therefore, I moved the page back to its original location, causing Skyhaven Airport (disambiguation) to become a redirect to Skyhaven Airport. -- Zyxw (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I figured that since only one of the Skyhaven airports listed had a wikipedia entry it might be the "primary topic for..." Then again, I don't know anything about any of those airports. Anyway, however you want to do it is obviously fine. Lordjeff06 (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CLL logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CLL logo.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:ABE logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Hello, thanks for your note on my talk page. As far as I can remember, those two 2006 proposals that you cited were the only discussion locations for the in/of landform by country debate. I've also gone through the Wikipedia archive of my personal contributions and can't find that I made any other edits elsewhere regarding the matter. So, as you asked, to my knowledge these are the only two discussion points on the topic. All the best, Kurieeto (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Boscobel Airport from a redirect to an article about the Wisconsin airport and placed hatnotes at the top of each page (i.e. For the airport serving Ocho Rios, Jamaica, see Boscobel Aerodrome). I think that should be enough since there are only two airports and the names are not exactly the same. -- Zyxw (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question on airport naming conventions
Airport naming conventions are a bit nebulous to me, so I wanted your opinion. Abbeville Airport in Abbeville, France (ICAO: LFOI) needs to be added to the Abbeville Airport disambiguation page. Is "Abbeville Airport, France" the correct name? - Canglesea (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the list of Michigan airports pages, I've noticed some major descrepencies concerning enplanements. For instance, for 2006 you have Flint listed at 1,000,000 commercial passengers, yet for 2007 you have it listed at 532,680 commercial passengers. It did not drop that much, and I'm wondering if we're counting two different things, here, such as landings? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be three issues here: enplanements vs. total passengers, the years involved, and which edits I made.
Enplanements is a count of passengers boarding aircraft departing the airport. Total passengers is a count which also includes arrivals and therefore is approximately double the number of boardings. Although some airports and some U.S. states publish total passenger data, the Federal Aviation Administration only publishes passenger boardings (see Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) and All-Cargo Data). Using federally published data allows for a more accurate comparison between airports in different states (see List of airports in the United States).
I started adding enplanements to the U.S. airport lists in mid-2007, using the 2005 FAA data. Later that year the FAA published 2006 enplanements and I started updating each state list. I have not added 2007 enplanements to any of the lists (the preliminary 2007 data was just published by the FAA earlier this month).
The first time passenger data was added to List of airports in Michigan was April 2007, when a different editor added total passenger counts for 2006 as published by the Michigan Department of Transportation (Flint had 1,061,389). In May 2007, I added a column for 2005 enplanements as listed by the FAA (Flint had 553,468). Then in February 2008 I replaced those two sets of data with a single column for 2006 enplanements as published by the FAA (Flint had 532,680). To see the change of usage at Flint, compare the 553,468 enplanements in 2005 to the 532,680 enplanements in 2006.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SLC airport logo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:SLC airport logo.png. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Dmwiki (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article was tagged as a stub, but I have expanded it with a list of publications and an admin has already declined the speedy deletion. -- Zyxw (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:75th-logo-bhm.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:75th-logo-bhm.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've uploaded Image:SBN logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:CRP logo.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:LZKZ logo.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:MRA logo.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Malloryairport logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Malloryairport logo.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help, it looks brilliant. I can't wait to start rollong it out, let me know when it's ready. Regards EP09:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing, could you switch the default mode to the navbox, it is transcluded many times for every instance of the current squad. Thanks again EP10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, have you made any progress on the Footy navbox? I'm itching to start using it in mainspace. Regards EP12:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of List of private-use airports in California
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. (This note is provided and intended as a courtesy since you created the article.) Ikluft (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a copy of comments I just posted on the article's talk page:
1725 is a very high number of transclusions. Anyone who vandalises that template will have their vandalism posted over 1725 articles simultaneously, and you need quite a bit of knowledge to work out how to revert this kind of vandalism. There are several active vandals who know this and are exploiting it, so having this template unprotected poses a big risk. The fact that the edit history is short means that the template doesn't need to be edited frequently, so protection doesn't cause much inconvenience. If you want to do some work on the template I can lower the protection temporarily for you. Hut 8.509:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response and the offer to unprotect Template:WAD temporarily so I could make changes. There are some changes I had in mind (including correcting a bug in the code that displays two periods instead of one), but I will post an {{editprotected}} request on the template's talk page. My reason for making the request is because I feel it should be left unprotected at this time. There is an active community of people contributing to airport articles and if any vandalism did occur it would be noticed and reverted. In terms of airport templates, I understand protecting {{Infobox Airport}} with 7,905 links which placed it at 697 on the Most Linked Templates list. But the protection of so many lower usage templates over the past few months only discourages non-admins such as myself from contributing to template development. -- Zyxw (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism probably will be reverted rather quickly (RC patrollers would probably get it in ten minutes or so) but by then it's too late. The number of people who will read the 1725 articles in that period (and see the vandalism) is huge, and editors manning Wikipedia's email system have reported a very large number of complaints as a result of serial template vandalism, even though the templates concerned may only have a few hundred transclusions. I'm sorry this is inconvenient for you but it is a necessary step to prevent template vandalism. Hut 8.511:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment that "editors manning Wikipedia's email system have reported a very large number of complaints as a result of serial template vandalism, even though the templates concerned may only have a few hundred transclusions", I'd appreciate it if could point me to the page(s) where this was discussed. Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you with this again - but as the original creator of the article it's appropriate to give you the courtesy notice. I saw you had no objection to the prod. But another editor deprodded it. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.Ikluft (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This [1] is blatant canvassing. And now that I've checked a little further into your contribs I see this is not the only instance. Please don't try to stack the deck in your favor in this manner. I am trying to find some consensus on the larger issues regarding air transport in Alaska in the interest of not having one contentious AfD after another on the subject, the conversation is hereBeeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your allegation of "blantant canvassing" regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service. The so-called "canvassing" was actually a "friendly notice" I left on the talk pages of five users who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service (nominated after you added a speedy deletion request to the article), which resulted in six votes to keep and none to delete. If you read Wikipedia:Canvassing, it says: "under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions ... neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion ... for example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". My message met all the criteria and was worded similarly the suggested {{Please see}} template. Finally, note while I voted to keep the article, one of the people I notified is leaning toward deleting it while another suggested merging it into a larger article about airlines in Alaska. -- Zyxw (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EAS Updates, Alsek
I'm grateful for the thanks from perhaps the only other person on the planet who can appreciate writing up the EAS table for all the subsidized routes in the country (with all its many links and amendments from DOT orders). I only discovered the very existence of EAS thanks to this very article a couple years ago. Once I saw that all the links were broken because the DOT migrated its docket system, I thought I might as well update everything, adding the actual dollar amounts as well. I'm sure you're quite right regarding Alsek's destinations; I looked over the main table much more thoroughly than I did the Alaska one.
Thank you for authoring the table in the first place and everything else you're doing on Wikipedia; it's certainly a tremendous service. Also, I think you're entirely correct regarding "friendly notices" above. All that being said, I do still wonder what the best way is to handle the little airlines of Alaska (or any other part of the world for that matter). I think some of their notabilities as companies are certainly tenuous, but I also think they are at least noteworthy within the context of scheduled air service being inherently notable, and at worst could be merged into something like List of airlines in Alaska. As you wrote, "Any airline which offers scheduled commercial service is notable." I'm inclined to agree, but I know others do not, so I do think putting the tiniest airlines into list articles may be a good middle ground. What do you think?
You are selectively promoting general airport reference web sites
You may have used some web sites to initially compile the Alaska airport list and you may continue to use them to compile your list but what you are doing now is unethical by allowing only those sites (for example AirNav, Great Circle Mapper, etc.) to continue to be listed on the site and blacklisting all other similar sites. You are, in effect, promoting them while not allowing other similar sites with the exact information, if not more, from the same sources from participating as references.
Specifically, I added AirportGuide.com to the reference list because Airport Guide has the same FAA data but presents it in a list along with the IATA IDs that AirNav does not have. You say that you use AirNav but not Airport Guide so AirNav is allowed to stay and Airport Guide is not. If you owned Wikipedia then you are in your right but as everyone is aware, this is an open source site that many can contribute to. You are telling the world that AirNav, et al, is THE site and in turn you are driving traffic to them for their set of US-only data that comes straight from the FAA like everyone else. Maybe you didn't think that you were increasing traffic to their site which in turn allows higher revenue for their Google Ads. You also probably didn't know that Airport Guide was selling as a commercial product in the late 1990s when AirNav was just starting out and the web sites started around the same time.
Not to be disrespectful but again, I say what you are doing is unethical. You should allow any site that meets the criteria or take them all off. This is a community site, not yours.
I have found several errors across the airport pages without looking that hard and I have corrected them. I used Airport Guide to do it, not the others, but you come along and think you are the only one that updates information and that the sites you use are the only ones.
I'm just asking you to be fair and keep this in the spirit of what it is supposed to be, a community encyclopedia. If you don't want to allow Airport Guide that's fine but in all fairness, keep your opinions of a useful reference site to yourself, use your favorite sites to update the list , and remove all airport reference sites from the list so as not to cause undo hardships on sites you personally don't use. —Comment added by N8080 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi mate, I was just wondering if you have made any progress on the football navbox/current squad template. The lunacy of the transfer window is only a month away and I would love it if we could get some of the main leagues set up with the new templates in order to save tens of thousands of edits. Let me know whats going on, take care. (btw I changed my username) King of the NorthEast00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zyxw, the UserZyxw1 on zh-wp is now renamed to User:Zyxw, you can unify them now. And really very sorry for the long delay.--Wing (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you helped edit {{Infobox church/sandbox}} a while back. I've been updating it recently to try and finally complete it, but have introduced an error somewhere – "}}{{" now appears on the left side of the screen. I can't figure out where the error is. Can you help? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is to say thank you for your work on User:Zyxw/Fs2, and to apologise for nicking it, rolling it out and ironing out the glitches before the start of the January 2009 transfer window. I really hope you dont mind what I have done with it since you stopped contributing here in October. King of the NorthEast00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
