DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Danners430

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

No wanksocks sockpuppets

Airline official website = fake news?

[edit]

Please explain why airline official website = fake news. Is it because no 3rd parties like news agency report then it is fake even they provide websites?

if is true, are you public admit that your action is selective blindness? ANG99 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaking unreliable sources for "fake news" - the two are not the same. You added airline booking engines as sources - they're not reliable because they can't be verified, as in other editors in just a few short days won't be able to access the links you added because of how booking engines work.
As for FR24 - no it's not reliable to verify regularly scheduled routes. It's reliable for live flight info yes - but it's WP:SYNTH to use that information to say that regularly scheduled flights are operating. It was discussed at WP:RSN and that was the consensus. Danners430 tweaks made 16:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1: You admit that anyone amend the mistake is wrong, but you are happy to keep out date information to mislead client. This mean you are no problem to provide wrong information but you have a problem to update information even with reliable resource. But just because the news do not report mean those news are fake news.
Number 2: If you think airport infomation, airline information or FR24 is not reliable and not every news agnecy will report the update. Please kindly provide other reliable source that can provide update information. Otherwise I prefer you to keep quiet as you already told the world that "YOU LOVE LEAVE WRONG AND UPDATE INFORMATION" by action. ANG99 (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we’re really doing this…
1. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy, and has been for years. That isn’t changing now. See also WP:VNT.
2. You don’t get to tell others to keep quiet. I also don’t “think” FR24 is unreliable - it was agreed as such (for routes specifically) by community consensus in a noticeboard discussion. As for airport and airline information - I specifically said booking engines. There’s a difference. Danners430 tweaks made 05:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with @Danners430 here. FR24 was deemed unreliable by community consensus at the WP:RSN, see WP:FR24. Also, you can't make WP:INCIVIL comments such as Otherwise I prefer you to keep quiet.... (Forgive me if I was not invited into this conversation) HypnoBlader (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Congratulations on making 26 thousand edits. Here, have a kitten =)

HypnoBlader (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi–Noida airport renaming

[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport article with the edit summary "Both still serve the city of Delhi." Noida International Airport is located in a different state (Uttar Pradesh) and serves the city of Noida and western Uttar Pradesh rather than Delhi itself. The airport is located approximately 80 km from Delhi. Linking it with Delhi may be misleading, as readers who are unfamiliar with the region could incorrectly assume that the airport is located in Delhi or primarily serves Delhi. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is the agreed-upon consensus - you put the city served, not "region", as the destination. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Danners430 tweaks made 16:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to WP. My understanding of the guideline is that destinations should use the actual city served and avoid associating airports with nearby major cities when the airport serves a different city (e.g., "Beauvais", not "Paris–Beauvais"; "Rygge", not "Oslo–Rygge").
Based on that wording, I believe "Noida" would be more consistent with the guideline than "Delhi–Noida", as the airport is located in and primarily serves Noida rather than Delhi itself. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That may be - however given it appears to have been accepted for quite some time, I'd suggest discussing it at the WikiProject talk page first to see if anyone objects Danners430 tweaks made 16:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Added topic in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT talk page. UrbanGridIndia (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled Go Fly page

[edit]

Good morning to you.

While reviewing defunct British airlines, I opened the Go Fly page. I made some minor corrections.

Unfortunately, the infobox doesn't want to obey. I don't know what happened.

Can you please take a look and fix it?

Thanks! Settignano (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is in the image parameter. You've got full formatting for a thumb image, but infoboxes simply expect an image name and file extension, nothing more - eg. |image=my_image.jpg Danners430 tweaks made 11:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you... it was a my stupid mistake when inserting the image.... Settignano (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Airport edits

[edit]

To answer your question without starting an edit war, the CN tags are unnecessary as the sources listed next to the individual route numbers confirm those busses do indeed serve the destinations the tags are placed against. But also, I think my edit improved the section considerably by removing unencyclopedic content (eg. Convenient bus stops in Adelaide CBD and multiple instances of "popular" destinations, which WOULD need a citation if kept (popular according to who, or what metric?)

Is the issue the positioning of the in text citations, or do you dispute that the Adelaide Metro route information they link to is not a reliable source? Dfadden (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read these sources before making the rv, so I don't know if they do verify the rest of the sentence. But if they do, then yes their positioning is a problem, as they're positioned to only verify the existence of the route and nothing more. I can only assume that's why the tags were added in the first place. Danners430 tweaks made 12:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you did not check the sources, it seems you are too hasty to revert. Just like the burden was on me to check the sourcing was appropriate before removing the tags, the burden is on you to check the before reverting. I am trying to work with you on a lot of these airport articles. Ill move the positions of the refs, but can you at least do me the courtesy of checking the what the sources say yourself before reverting my work on an assumption alone? Thats not exactly a collaborative approach to editing Dfadden (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree with you here - you removed Citation Needed tags from paragraphs which contained text without sources. If those sources do indeed support other text, then they are placed wrong - when you removed the CN tags, the text which was tagged was, by definition, unsourced as there was no citation next to it. That and that alone is the reason it was reverted - that text, without citations, is unsourced, and should be tagged as such. Danners430 tweaks made 13:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree, but I still think you are being obstructively pedantic. WP:CITEFOOT only requires an inline citation to be close to the information it supports. Most reasonable people would consider within the same sentence is close, especially as those sources (if you bothered to read them) confirm BOTH the existence of those routes AND the destinations they serve - perfectly acceptable for a university paper, so i dont know why you have a problem with it. In any case, I have moved the citations to a position more to your liking as I couldn't be stuffed engaging in an edit war with you over something so petty. Dfadden (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice I deliberately held off from further reverts specifically because we were discussing, so it never got to an edit war. However you may call it pedantry, I call it a basic principle of Wikipedia, having a source that verifies content. The text had no citation, so a citation needed tag was placed. Danners430 tweaks made 13:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice and I thank you for that at least. There is nothing more I can say here that will lead to a constructive outcome, so let's leave it at that. Dfadden (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

help request with 2026-06-18 reversal

[edit]

Hey there, saw the reversal from the yul page.


I'll Go straight to the point. Reason in used inline code is that there's currently no template, and i do not know how to create that template.


Idk if you know how that template works, but I'll call a shot, if you know how that works, i would appreciate some pointers. Filyx20 (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The best option is to go to the template itself - Template:rint, and see if the change you're wanting to make is supported by the documentation. I've no idea how the template works either, but someone on the template talk page is more than likely able to help Danners430 tweaks made 11:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aight thanks regardless. Have a great day. Filyx20 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 787 Dreamliner

[edit]

Keep an eye. I'm not going 3RR but TA already has. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]