User talk:Danners430: Difference between revisions

Line 54: Line 54:

:I do hope not… it’s on my watchlist anyway, and my face is getting reacquainted with my palm. [[User talk:Danners430|Danners430]] [[Special:Contributions/Danners430|tweaks made]] 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. I have explained politely so hopefully the editor will find some sources and add them to both articles. [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 20:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

My core principles

For goodness sake, use a summary!

<sum>:1

This user believes that every edit should have a summary.

COI Declarations

Other

Humour

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

Just FYI, I went through a bunch of the now-blocked IP’s references and a majority of them are just plain rubbish – self-published blogs and vague press release based articles that don’t confirm any firm start dates. I looks like this editor’s pattern is to either use personal knowledge then try to back up with whatever sources he can google to (vaguely) support it, or of course is just plain lying by putting in unsupported dates. I have reverted a lot but the ones which seem genuine and do quote a start date I have left in place. Six months though is a great result. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised tbh – I haven’t been looking too closely lately, instead only dealing with obvious nonsense, as work has been hell…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP – not the same one but a long time abuser – currently edit warring at Birmingham Airport and Manchester Airport. Have RPP’d both and reported IP to AIV. I’m not going 3RR on this though unless they’re blocked and/or the page is protected. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I’m sorry for removing my message from Trainsfan13’s talk pages, it know it’s against the policy to delete talk page messages and I know that was wrong for what a I did. The reason why I did it is because I didn’t want to have anymore discussions with him anymore because he causes so much drama against users for a long time and yet he refuses to admit he isn’t wrong. I didn’t mean any harm, all I was trying to do is improve an article for readers, that’s all I was doing, because moving an image is completely harmless and he’s taking it to the extreme like it’s a threat to him. I also apologize to you when you got involved in the situation, I know the whole thing had nothing to do with you, I know you were just trying to help out like you always do. But I think it’s best for me to not report him, because if I do, he’s just gonna lie his way out of it. Again, I appreciate you trying to help me out, I wish we have more users like you. 2601:188:C405:F440:1190:2BC:D2C7:36BC (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop interacting with an editor, the best way to go about it is just to ignore them, and stop editing in areas they edit in. You are allowed to remove their messages on your own talk page – but I’d still listen to the concerns they raise. Not being involved in the dispute I have no idea whether the concerns are warranted or not, but it would be, in my opinion, foolish to not at least consider what they’re saying and have a brief think about whether they have a point. Again, they may not have a point – but then again they could. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand, I am trying my best to ignore him, but he’s still continuing to blame me. There’s something about criticism he can’t handle. I was very cooperative with him numerous times and on his talk page in the past and as usual its rinse and repeat. 2601:188:C405:F440:6D3B:D814:C719:8C30 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to avoid each other and this continues, my best advice would be to go to Dispute Resolution and let a third party decide. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jefflin555 here. I added a source to the Royal Air Maroc page as requested, but I’m leaving all the secondary sources here for your reference in the event that you’re not happy with the primary source. The thing is, I was on the WestJet version of their 787-9 last week, so I knew the layout.

Aircraft delivery records:
CN-RHA: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64980
CN-RHB: https://aviation.flights/boe/787/64981
As you can clearly see, these were both meant for WestJet and have the WestJet lopa.

WestJet’s 787-9 LOPA can be found here:
https://www.aerolopa.com/ws-789
(Note that RAM doesn’t sell premium economy seats, so those are counted as economy seats in the RAM article.)

Seat maps shared by fellow netizens:
https://www.facebook.com/nshaviation/posts/welcome-on-board-royal-air-maroc-newest-787-dreamliner-the-cn-rhathoughts-of-the/988307399994180/
https://www.reddit.com/r/oneworld/comments/1hbtfho/whats_this_seats_configuration_on_royal_air/#lightbox

Jefflin555 _Contribs 19:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, got a small request. Could you please update the Singapore Airlines page by adding Vietnam Airlines as a codeshare partner. I understand that you have a policy of requiring valid sources first before doing the edit. Thus, I have provided 2 links as sufficient proof first. If you have any other questions do not hesitate and kindly approach me here. Thank you and hope to hear from you. The 2 links are https://www.vietnamairlines.com/us/en/vietnam-airlines/press-room/press-release/2025/0923-EN-Vietnam-Airlines-and-Singapore-Airlines-Launch-Codeshare-Services and https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/sg/corporate/newsroom/press-release/2025/july-september/singapore-airlines-and-vietnam-airlines-launch-codeshare-service/#:~:text=Customers%20of%20Vietnam%20Airlines%20and,effect%20on%2026th%20October%202025. 2401:7400:6023:C211:9D4:4680:E1CA:674D (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate you watching Chiltern Railways as there’s a potential edit war risk. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope not… it’s on my watchlist anyway, and my face is getting reacquainted with my palm. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have explained politely so hopefully the editor will find some sources and add them to both articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment