User talk:VenFlyer98

Hello. I recently made an edit to FLL regarding seasonal airline service and the source cited a searchable site, which per a former RfC ^[1] is allowed: "The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references."

Is there more recent guidance stating that searchable websites, such as flight schedule portals on the airline website, are no longer valid to cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewhoya (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Andrewhoya: Hello, it was agreed in later RfCs that non-independent sources, such as airline websites, are a no-go. See WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. While there are other RfCs to see if this can be changed, as of right now you can’t use non-independent sources. Searchable websites also tend to fall pretty easily into WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The airport content link has the link to the most recent agreed upon RfC. Thank you. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC))

Thank you for the updated link. I am confused as to what you are referring to in regards to the searchable websites in SYNTH and OR. Is the general consensus that no searchable website (even if independent), such as a booking engine or flight finder like Google Flights, is not allowable as a source? An airport's direct website showing that ISP-FLL is operated on Saturdays seasonally on a daily departure board? Andrewhoya (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Andrewhoya: An airport’s website is a non-independent source so that would not be valid to use. Searchable websites are kind of a gray area right now and there really isn’t an agreed upon consensus so it’s kind of been a back and forth. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC))

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is not binding and is not required to be adhered to by any editors. By undoing all of my edits you also undid several other large error fixes, to the point it constitutes disruptive editing. You are required to check what your edit is changing before clicking Publish. Electricmemory (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you need to have a read of WP:BRD. Other editors are perfectly entitled to disagree with your edits and revert them - and doing so is not disruptive editing. Instead of leaving erroneous templates like this, the correct course of action for you is to discuss this on the article talk page so other editors can weigh in. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 I never said that was disruptive editing, have a read of my comment over again. What is disruptive editing is deliberately reintroducing large formatting errors and duplicated citations after I removed them from the page. You continue to make claims such as "references belong next to the destination in the list" without providing any actual policy to back this up with. It is not my job to simply sit around on talk pages and let you do as you please. Electricmemory (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You have used a disruptive editing template on the editor that reverted you - so yes, you are claiming it to be disruptive. And once again you appear to believe edit warring instead of discussing is the way forward. How about you accept that two editors have now disagreed with your edit and discuss it? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I am claiming that intentional re-introduction of formatting errors and duplicated citations is disruptive editing. Quit refactoring what I said into something I did not say.

And once again you appear to believe edit warring instead of discussing is the way forward coming from you is so unbelievably hilarious I don't even know where to start Electricmemory (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s quite literally what you are doing. Again - per WP:BRD, stop trying to restore your preferred version (although I, and I doubt VenFlyer either, have no problems with the formatting errors and duplicate citations being fixed - our disagreement is with the citations being moved into the refs column) and discuss it on the article talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You are missing the point. If you want the references back where they were before, you are required to do so manually as reverting my edit also re-introduces formatting errors and incorrect citations. Doing so intentionally is very much disruptive editing. Electricmemory (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Er, no - we are not required to do anything manually here. You are the one making bold edits, you got reverted, so now you discuss the edits on the talk page. Seriously - stop. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You decided for some reason to lie outright in both this edit summary and this edit summary. Why? Electricmemory (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I stand by both of those statements. You have made edits which have been disputed by two different editors, and you refuse to discuss them - instead you are choosing to edit war (which by the way is literally defined as disruptive) instead of discussing the disputed edit on the article talk page. We have both given perfectly legitimate reasons for why we dispute your edits. Now for the final time - if you want to make those edits (again, not including the genuine fixes, the dispute here is specifically around your moving of citations into another column), take it to the article talk page and discuss it there. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Er, no- WP:BRD is not Wikipedia policy, and is not valid justification for reversion. I warned you (as I have said repeatedly) for intentionally adding formatting errors into the article. This is now at the point of WP:IDHT. You are not allowed to intentionally add errors into a page, you should know that by now. Electricmemory (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are required not to intentionally add formatting errors and duplicated citations into an article. Electricmemory (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, WP:BRD is not binding policy and nobody is required to follow it, so I suggest you stop acting like I am. Electricmemory (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Claiming this template is "erroneous" is quite funny, when you continue to misread/ not read through the talk page comments I leave, which causes you to write false claims such as me calling a content dispute "disruptive editing", which never happened. Electricmemory (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Electricmemory reported by User:Danners430 (Result: ). Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: What a mess this turned out to be…See you got a 24 hour block out of this too. I do take your side on this, but literally woke up to all of this. Fun thing to wake up to! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC))

Hello. You reverted my edits listing suspended flights. Could you show me where it is stated that temporary suspensions are not to be listed? Lj123 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Somewhat confused - for better or for worse (I would argue for worse, but that's by the by) the refs column is there... if something references the entire row (which it does), shouldn't that be what the refs column is for? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: When was this ever discussed? What I find interesting is how many edits you have previously reverted for individual destinations not being sourced, yet putting this one in the refs column to source multiple things at once is all of a sudden ok? Can’t have your cake and eat it too :) (VenFlyer98 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC))

Er what? Show me one article where I have deleted content where it was sourced to a refs column. And as for it being discussed - hi! We're discussing it now! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@VenFlyer98: When you continue editing instead of responding it's generally safe to assume you've moved on… so kindly discuss instead of perpetuating another edit war. As for individual citations… individual citations are needed when there are multiple citations in a row - then it indicates which routes are sourced by which citation. They're not required when one citation sources the entire row. What do you think the refs column even exists for? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: Your original edit was because the first destination didn’t have a source, just the “both begins” part. Correct? Cool, we’re on the same page. You moved the 1 ref to the ref column (which yes at this point shouldn’t be there, but I digress). There’s been so many conversations on things needing to be individually sourced and now all of a sudden there’s exceptions? Plus how was my original edit even wrong? It’s the destinations with a source connected to the “both begins” part. That’s true. The source proves both destinations begin. The individual destination in this case shouldn’t even need a source since it’s verified by the fact that both begin on a certain date. What I’ve been doing in cases of both routes beginning is have the one source connected to the “both begins” part then adding it to both destinations once the route starts. What’s wrong with that? The sources verify the information that’s there and prove it to be true. And please don’t assume I’ve “moved on.” It’s only been 1 day and I’ve got things that take up my time outside of Wikipedia… (VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC))

Let’s break that wall of text down somewhat…

• Why do you say the refs column shouldn’t be there? There are plenty of occasions where it can be used to keep the table tidy.
• Why are we suddenly saying things aren’t being individually sourced? That source verifies both routes, aka the entire content of that row. It’s standard practice that when an entire row in a table is verified by one citation, you place that citation somewhere where it’s obvious it verifies the whole row. If there are piecemeal citations verifying parts of rows but not others then you place them against those items it verifies. In the case of airline routes, it’s rare that the former occurs, but not unheard of (see: this very example)
• I never said there was anything whatsoever wrong with your edit setting it to “both begins” etc. Where have I ever stated that?

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: What I'm not understanding is how I had it originally and why it was a problem. Both destinations were listed followed by the "both begins" and the source. You moved it to the refs column because, in your own words, one of the 2 destinations would be unsourced. But why in this specific example would that be a problem? The 1 source that was there verifies that both destinations are starting on the listed date in the exact same box of the table. In this case, the first destination doesn't need a source since it gets verified by the source (in the same box) next to the start date. At this point though, do what you want (revert it, I don't care anymore). As I've mentioned in other Talk Page messages before, I'm trying to slow down how much I edit on here (or outright stop editing Wikipedia) and don't really have the time anymore to go back and forth/edit war and would rather not keep going. Do what you want with the edit. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC))

When you put the citation after the both begins, it could lead to confusion when all the other routes which similarly have citations after the routes have individual citations. The refs column gets around that by making it clear it's not simply sourcing one specific thing, it's sourcing the whole row - which is what you were trying to achieve in the first place Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)