Wikiwand AI

User talk:Danners430

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No sockpuppets

Courtesy link

Hi,

Re courtesy links on the V56 article, I copied the solution I used last time, which was the recommended solution here. Also, the photo I linked was uploaded by a recognised expert in the field.

Anothersignalman (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in that thread that says adding a courtesy link inside a ref tag is best practice. Placing something inside a ref tag implies that it's part of the citation - and in doing so you're placing a courtesy link to an unreliable source in the citation. If we want to illustrate the claim, then find a free use image, or upload one of your own, and add it as an image inline. Danners430 tweaks made 09:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
In this case, there are no free images to use, and being in a very specific time-frame makes it is practically impossible to acquire one. I'm about forty years too young to have a photo like that in my collection, and even if I did, there's no point providing it because it wouldn't be from or by "a recognised expert in the field". The photo itself is allowed under Wiki's rules re WP:EXPERTSPS; but fair call that it doesn't belong in the reference provided; on review there are two claims it can be attached to as its own reference, rather than as a courtesy link. Anothersignalman (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no - I cannot see how someone's photograph is anything other than WP:UGC. Photographs do not belong in references, it is as simple as that. There is no problem at all with using Cite Sign - but photographs, including Flickr etc. are not reliable, unless they are published in a recognised reliable source (eg. an image on a news site). I'm expecting you to self rv. Danners430 tweaks made 13:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, I've had a busy few days and it looks like I forgot to subscribe to this thread, which is why I hadn't responded. For the rest, I've started a thread on the RS talk page tagging you and a few other people who have helped in the past.
Just to check, aside from the Flickr thing, were there any other issues with that edit eg the convert templates?
Anothersignalman (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
No - only having an unreliable source inside a ref tag. We can easily have links to Flickr in External Links, although even then it may fail WP:EL. At this point you should really be discussing on the article talk. Danners430 tweaks made 10:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

ICAO for Liancheng Airport

Hi there, I saw you reverted my change for the ICAO code for Liancheng Guanzhishan Airport. I left a source in my edit comment, which is this Star Alliance page. I don't think it gets more official than that.

I saw in the history that there were several edits and reedits regarding whether the ICAO code is ZSLO or ZSLD, but this was the most official link I could find, not relying on third-party webpages.

I am new to editing Wikipedia, so let me know what I should have done to make this change more understandable. KandiraniPasulj (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources belong in articles - we don't expect readers to search through a page history to verify something. I'd recommend WP:Referencing for beginners. Danners430 tweaks made 12:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

I noticed that you commented my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-50741-05 It was strange because I used the same source which all previous data were taken from, it's the official page of the Georgian Civil Aviation Agency, link can be found on the page.

Agency home page: https://gcaa.ge/en/
Statistics with Number of Passengers Carried by Airports (in Georgian, can be translated in place) https://gcaa.ge/statistics/
Statistics > Number of Passengers Carried by Airports > Batumi International Airport (3rd link on the left)
https://gcaa.ge/%e1%83%92%e1%83%90%e1%83%93%e1%83%90%e1%83%a7%e1%83%95%e1%83%90%e1%83%9c%e1%83%98%e1%83%9a-%e1%83%9b%e1%83%92%e1%83%96%e1%83%90%e1%83%95%e1%83%a0%e1%83%97%e1%83%90-%e1%83%a0%e1%83%90%e1%83%9d%e1%83%93/
Table doesn't look good on my screen, some digits are cut. But you can download the Excel table and open it, as I did. The last year there is 2025. Compare the numbers from previous years and Wiki article, it's the same source.

I recently visited that airport and after looked at the Wikipedia article about it, then I saw the outdated table and decided that it can be improved. I suppose that you could (and should) do the same to check my edit. Unfortunately, you undid it. Sure, it's easy and doesn't require much efforts. But it's not my obligation to show everyone the proof of every word and digit I wrote, sorry.

I will not resubmit my edit and add another reference to the same source. You can do it yourself (or continue to work as a vigilante).
Iaroslav ~2026-50741-05 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to make an edit and not provide a source (you didn't add, remove, edit or even mention a source in your edit summary), then expect it to be reverted. Reliable sources aren't optional. Danners430 tweaks made 22:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in once again but I came here after reinstating this user's edit. The editor was simply updating the table based on the source already in the table. Are you even checking edits before you hit the undo button? This is becoming a trend and its getting ridiculous. Cubnorth (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
The only source in the table is from 2022 - so by definition that cannot verify figures from 2025. Yes I checked the edit - no source was added, removed, altered or referenced… and as we've just stated, the only existing source is from 2022.
If the editor is saying that the existing source is still the correct source, then why is it still labelled 2022 and why aren't we updating the access date? That's not something revolutionary, it's basic WP:BURDEN. Danners430 tweaks made 07:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
What isn't revolutionary is taking 15 seconds to check the present sources before you remove things for being "unsourced". I've reinstated it with the access date updated. Cubnorth (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
If an editor makes an edit and doesn't provide or alter sources, as I've discussed above, then that is an unsourced edit. It's as simple as that. There are tens of thousands of edits made every day which reuse existing sources and they're perfectly fine - I can't read minds to determine where another editor got their data from, and I explicitly refuse to try and make assumptions as to another editor's actions. Danners430 tweaks made 10:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
You didn't have to read minds or make assumptions because you could have read the source that was already on the page, and even after that, 2 people informed you as such. Cubnorth (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
And yet that second person again restored the content without appropriately editing the source….? Sorry but no, I'm not taking a lecture here. Sourcing isn't a black art and yet it's routinely not doing. Danners430 tweaks made 10:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Class 22 Sourcing

Hi there yes I did see the reversion about the source on the Route Disk colours, I would have edited the source provided on the page but I was waiting to see if someone in one of my various train spaces had the sourced book, now I've edited that section of the Class 22 page several times, mostly because it is Wrong, and frankly I would love to see what the source provided says because as I've noted in my editing comments the thing I'm changing is given credence by the thumbnail used on the Page itself, if Wikipedia itself has an image listed for a subject, should the image not be viable to source as actuate evidence, especially considering the point of interest is on the colour, and in every photograph showing it is of Yellow, so much so that the Wikipedia page for GWR Weight Disks lists the Class as Yellow, you can check that if you like, Great Western Railway Power and Weight Classification, so is the issue that I haven't provided a new source or simply that I haven't removed the original? TheMidnightExpress (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

First, I said take it to the talk page - the article talk, not my talk page. Second, you stating "it's wrong" is original research - there is a reliable source which (seemingly) contradicts this, which is why that it the version that shall stay on the page. The advice I gave was for you to discuss this on the article talk to see if anyone has the book - and only if and when the statement is proven to be incorrect do we change it.
Put simply - reliable source overrides your personal knowledge on Wikipedia. Danners430 tweaks made 19:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Sorry about that, no it's just, very annoying you know because another Wikipedia article has the "correct" information, and you can look at every picture of the thing on the page your editing and see the "correct", sorry for the air quotes this has just really been bugging me and I need to vent some frustration, information, but it's a bit annoying that the information can be sitting right at the top of the page in full colour for all who open it to see and you can point at it and say, "No this book is wrong because we have dozens of pictures that prove the contrary" but by Wikipedia's functions and rules, you can't really say that and then change it, but this is becoming my White Whale now, I'll solve it. TheMidnightExpress (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
The solution is to discuss - that is how Wikipedia works… it's not umpteen editors working sequestered away - it's a community. In cases like this, start a discussion on the article talk with your concerns and folk will chime in. I'd also ping the editor that reverted the first time, since he has a large library and may well have the book in his collection. Danners430 tweaks made 19:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Cheers thank you. TheMidnightExpress (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For cleaning articles by removing long-unsourced or unreliably sourced content per WP:V in particular WP:AEROROUTES. In solidarity, Penn65 | 💬 talk 22:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Forlì Airport

Regardless of the discussions, this name change is official and documented. At the very least, the Wikidata links should be preserved in case of changes. Malp89 (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't matter - official name changes don't automatically cause Wikipedia article names to be changed. There are many more considerations, particularly WP:COMMONNAME. The new official name is still there as a redirect, created when the move was reverted. If you feel the name needs changing, open a move request. Danners430 tweaks made 11:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep an eye on...

Kuwait Airways - editor adding press release / LLM content. Your insight would be welcome as this editor has a history of edit warring. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

sigh... I'd just start a talk page discussion, like at List of United Airlines accidents and incidents - and if they don't reply then WP:DISCFAIL. But if it's definitely LLM, then just take it to the LLM noticeboard Danners430 tweaks made 07:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Actually it's blatant copyvio which I have tagged for removal. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Maybe just add it to your watchlist for now. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

List of United Airlines accidents and incidents

Remember, 3RR counts removal of any content as a revert, not just the same content. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger One ping only 09:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Just for my understanding then, wouldn't that mean it's 3 reverts total, given the initial removal wasn't a revert? Or do I need more coffee… Danners430 tweaks made 09:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
A "revert" is any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors The way I read that it's any removal of content that counts as a revert (since it is, technically, undoing another editor's action), although I can see a case for an argument the other way. More coffee is always good regardless though! (Or more sleep. Which I should probably get, since it's almost 6am here.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Going by how the day's developing, I think both are in order... 5am start, and arriving into work to bonfires everywhere (not literally)... the canteen is gonna run out of coffee methinks Danners430 tweaks made 09:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks