User talk:SempreVolando

Welcome!

Hello, SempreVolando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your occupation

Hi, I've just noticed you are a first-officer for the a320. May I ask what training and what JPL etc... exams you took? Because I would be interested in a career in aviation, since I actually know quite a bit about flying, and I've flown an approach in a cessna 303. I also hold a few awards on FSX :D

thanks,

Cf38 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Airport

If you visit Zoom Airlines's website you can see that they do not have tickets for sale on its service to Vancouver to Cardiff, thus resulting in myself to change the cardiff airport page. If you prove that this service still operates please tell me.

Many Thanks Loughrey13 —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff International Airport

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cardiff International Airport. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Cardiff Airport is an essential airport for the UK considering its location, the people relying on it, its routes, its role in the economy et cetera Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added no commentary of my own to the article, merely reverted to a previous version, a change made for good reason. You clearly disagree with the wording of the article and as such you should use the article talk page to put forward your point of view on this matter so that everyone can contribute and come to an agreement on the wording. As the 19th largest airport in terms of passenger numbers in 2006, Cardiff is certainly not a major UK airport and the previous text accurately represented the important part it plays in serving Wales. I have therefore reverted your change again and ask that you use the talk page if you wish to start a discussion on the matter. SempreVolando (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Tees Valley

Sorry I might have lost one of your edits when I re-worked the article. It was badly in need of a re-work. Regards MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, there were only small bits and much of it you rightly removed from the article anyway. Hopefully it is a little better now. SempreVolando (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easyjet

The new routes i added to the lgw page for easyjet are approved. they are bookable from tommorrow. So dont remove it again. Thanks Josh Rice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.81.173 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies, have just reaslised this myself via the website. Nice of them to tell their staff first, as usual! SempreVolando (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathrow expansion

Thanks for your contribution to the 'opposition' section, very helpful. I have come back with some more changes, I have added back some details about the impact on Sipson (which got watered down a week or so ago), and also the section on the climate camp/injunction (but I have added details of BAA and responses to the camp and injunction). The camp was a very significant event gaining worldwide attention, and provides the context for BAA's involvement in Flying Matters. I think there will also be a call for short paragraphs on climate change, local air pollution and noise (with both points of view expressed) but think it is better to let the section 'settle' first. I look forward to your further contributions and hope the 'health warnings' on the section being removed. Do you agree with the heading change, I think it is now at a more logical position in the table of contents. PeterIto (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed your reversion to London City Airport

Hi.

I've reversed your reversion to this article. I'm not a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, and as best I can tell the article isn't a part of that project anyway, although I guess it should be. I came to the article through Wikipedia:WikiProject London, which the article is part of.

The guideline you refer to seems bizarre from a general WP POV, and I've already raised an objection to it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. However that is not why I decided to reverse the reversion. I did that because an undiscussed reversion was IMHO way over the top. Wikipedia:Revert#When_to_revert suggests reversion in a few cases including vandalism, but explicitly not in good faith cases. As an editor not participating in the project you quote the guideline from, and making clearly non-vandalistic edits, I think I should be accorded good faith. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more pragmatic note, I feel that linking destinations does resolve some practical difficulties with the unlinked list. For example, without the link, individual readers are going to have to find out for themselves that the destination referred to as Nice is actually Côte d'Azur International Airport. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. I just left a note at the WikiProject Airports Talk Page following your comment which crossed with your message, and have commented there on the policy as it stands for not linking the destination names. I apologise if you considered my reversion to be over the top, I did assume good faith in your edit and perhaps should have discussed it first, but it was on the basis that the edit was not satisfactory (in view of the aforementioned rule). I did not mean to cause offence and did explain my reasoning. In the meantime I have made no further changes as discussed on the project talk page since this article may be a good example to use as the discussion on whether to amend the rule (hopefully) progresses. SempreVolando (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply and no harm done. I'm happy to abide by whatever the discussion leads to. I've copied my second comment above to the talk page, as it probably belongs better there. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clickair destinations

An editor has nominated Clickair destinations, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickair destinations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations Sol Airlines

Hi..i'm Migssant. Hey why you think this article doesn't need the country flags? i think they look good and is better for the lectors.. Thanks for you attention. Have a nice day Lacreta (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incidents-manchester airport

hi, why did you remove the incident of dragonair cargo from the page. its an accident and the refernce was given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the guidelines for including an accident / incident are shown at the WikiProject Airports page and state that "Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry."

This accident is therefore not relevant for inclusion. SempreVolando (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i thought it was relevant thats all, due to damage to aircraft etc. is the incident about the excel airways takeoff relevant then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough - the reason for the guidelines is simply to prevent airport and airline articles from becoming filled with minor incidents which happen all the time. In terms of the Excel Airways incident it is a more difficult one. I would be inclined to keep this as it was described by the AAIB as a "serious incident" with several safety recommendations made to both the CAA, NATS and Manchester Airport plc (see here), and therefore may comply with the final category for inclusion in the guidelines (invoking a change in procedures within the industry). Best to start a discussion on the article discussion page so the opinions of other editors can be sought on that one! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeh thats fair enough i didnt realise it wasnt relevant enough. I was also thinking if you might know where we can get get up to date passenger numbers for manchester from. Either on a rolling 12 month time line or for the first few months in 2008. It would be good to see if there is any change but i have looked briefly and cant find anything? cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CAA statistics are really the only official ones I know of - see the CAA Stats Page. If you click on the provisional airports data you will see some January 2008 Provisional Airort Stats which shows Manchester in Jan 2008 having 1,316,690 passengers (down 0.8% on Jan 2007) and the rolling year to Jan 2008 was 21,880,737 (down 1.1% on the rolling year to Jan 2007). The provisional February 2008 stats are due to be on there on Friday next week (14th March). Hope this helps. SempreVolando (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport

I restored the weather link here as it appears in several Canadian airport articles. It serves as an anti-spam link as can be seen here. It links to the official NAV CANADA site rather than advertising some site. At the time (September 2007) there were two different sites that were trying to put links in for weather. I know that there had also been attempts in other airport articles to get various weather sites included. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LHR Virgin Nigeria

You were asking for a source for the London Heathrow Airport mention of the Virgin Nigeria Airways service to Lagos from March 29th, which you reverted. Would this timetable do? David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. You're right - the flight also appears on the BAA timetable. Sorry about that - checked the VK website but saw nothing so assumed it was confusion over LGW/LHR. Feel free to re-revert. SempreVolando (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatwick Airport Apology

Sorry about reverting your revert we were probably both waiting for the IP user to stop his multiple edits. Still not the 30th March yet! MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I assumed that was the case. SempreVolando (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis to MAN and DUS

Is Oasis beginning HKG-MAN and HKG-DUS flights on July 3? Users keep readding back to the destinations list with a reference that I don't find very useful. Couldn't find the flights on their website. It still has Hong Kong to London-Gatwick and Vancouver flights stilll listed but not Dusseldorf or Manchester flights on their schedules. Did they announce it? Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Audude, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I have now posted on the WP Airports Discussion I don't believe there is yet any reliable source other than speculation for this route commencing. Until the airline starts to sell flights or publishes a timetable or press release, it shouldn't appear on Wikipedia, so I have removed references to it. SempreVolando (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SempreVolando, about the Oasis flights to DUS and MAN. It is odd that the HK airport website has the flights listed on their schedules for July 4 but neither Oasis Hong Kong Airlines's website or Manchester Airport's website mentions the said flights. Audude08 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save

Go to the site of Venice Marco Polo Airport official website (English) and put seasonal schedule, you will see that the flight from London Luton to Venice maky (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)User:S marky 90[reply]

Information

Hello, thanks for the information you data.Mi like to know where is your information? Thanks hello maky (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. Thomsonfly, First Choice, Jerairfly and TUInordic timetables are at This Site. SempreVolando (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAN Catchment Area

First of all how seriously do you want to take yourself!? It's not the end of the world by the way, I do appologise that people from all over the UK might just want to use Manchester International at some point in their lives and that doesn't slot in nicely to your little wiki palls ideas. You can tarnish my name all you like over talk pages, but thanks for letting me know eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfab27 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might take a look at Wikipeida's policy on civility? I have been perfectly polite and reasoned in my discussion with you on this topic and would therefore expect the same in return. Judging by your contibution on the discussion at the Manchester Airport page (which I politely invited, so that your views could be debated among other wikipedia editors), the policy is likely to be quite lost on you anyway. SempreVolando (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manchester Airport. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, my apologies for this. I do not make a habit of violating the three-revert rule, with this article unfortunately I and one other editor tried hard and politely to encourage the offending editor to use the discussion page in order to come to consensus before making potentially controversial / against policy edits. Unfortunately this was to no avail as the editor Abfab27 refused to participate in any discussion on the matter, simply responding with a couple of uncivil remarks. SempreVolando (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: easyJet

No worries, I noted the edit summary you left immediately, and understand the reasoning behind it before you wrote. I'm not a pilot, but it sounds to me like mechanical failure caused a compressor stall, and all the flames were just incompletely consumed fuel igniting after exiting the engine - doesn't strike me as a notable event in itself either. Regards and thanks for your message, WilliamH (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Your Edit Summary Here...

Hey there, Sempre. When you are using some kind of policy or project guideline as a reason for an edit, could you please link to that project guideline or policy properly in future? I saw your summary and thought it was page blanking because it was linked wrongly. Only after looking at your page did I realise my blunder and did a self-revert. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that - did intend to link properly but slip of the keyboard! SempreVolando (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceased Airline

Hey there, just out of interest which airline that used to fly in to manchester has ceased all operations?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was EuroManx. See my edit here. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bmi Regional ICAO

Hi,

My friend is a bmi regional pilot (on the E135/45) and he assures me that their ICAO is BMA not BMR, so I feel my source is correct.

If you have anything to say, please email me at: sam.nagy@hotmail.com

Sam

SamNagy (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam. Unfortunately Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, I'm not suggesting your source is incorrect however an ICAO code can only be used by one airline at once. In this case BMA is used by bmi. It may be that BMI Regional flights are operated under the BMA code, but this does not necessarily make their own allocated ICAO code BMA. I have started a discussion at the article talk page so this can be cleared up; in the meantime the code has been kept as BMR in the article as the BMA code remains unverifiable. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at BMI Regional shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Whilst you may have citations you're still over 3 revisions in under 24 hours. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Regional ICAO

Hi,

Do you want me to send you some realworld flightplans that feature the callsign?

Sam

SamNagy (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the 'Midland' callsign and 'BMA' code are used by BMI Regional, however per my reply above this does not make their allocated ICAO code BMA, per ICAO it is BMR. This is verifiable. If you continue the discussion at Talk:BMI Regional other editors can also contribute and hopefully we can come to consensus. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]