User talk:RPC7778

/Archive 2019 /Archive 2020 /Archive 2021 /Archive 2022 /Archive 2023 /Archive 2024

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hey, it's me! I was just wondering, what's your opinion on having 2 websites in the infobox at the pages of Ninoy Aquino International Airport and Mactan–Cebu International Airport? Drcarrot.phd (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I don't mind if other editors were to retain or remove those edits. RPC7778 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Your recent editing history at Juanda International Airport 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.
Slow editwarring and POV-pushing The Banner talk 13:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the March 2024 AfD on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hey, it's me! I was just wondering, what's your opinion on having 2 websites in the infobox at the pages of Ninoy Aquino International Airport and Mactan–Cebu International Airport? Drcarrot.phd (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I don't mind if other editors were to retain or remove those edits. RPC7778 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. I just noticed this edit. Just an FYI - you probably didn't get much of a response because that talk page is more about writing the MOS than questions about applying it. No big deal, its just so you know.

That said, I personally agree, those tables should go, they violate WP:GAMECRUFT. But it feels like there was a discussion in the past where some people tried to argue they were necessary, so you may be pushback. We'll see. That's all. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Just a few hours before your response, I actually edited the Honkai Impact 3rd page. After some time of deliberation, I concluded that some categories violate WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE, and by removing them, I noticed that the tables would be cluttered, so I untabulated them in my edit. RPC7778 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honkai: Star Rail characters: Separating playable and non-playable characters

Hey there, I appreciate you moving all of the characters to a new article. The main article was getting a little too big for comfort, so I thank you for your work.

Question: Would you be opposed to a separation of playable and non-playable characters for this article? I know Genshin Impact and Zenless Zone Zero both have separation, but I wanted to get your input before I shake up the majority of the article. Thank you! Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffrey34555: Hello! I'm opposed to separating them because it can unnecessarily bloat the table of contents and having more nested sections can make navigation harder. While I do appreciate the idea of separating them, the official website and the fandom already does the job by listing all playable characters in a single page. I do think players should go to those websites instead of here in Wikipedia, if they only want to see all sorted playable characters. RPC7778 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines refueling note

Hello, the the note regarding the fuel stop is still on the ORD page, it keeps getting restored after removal. Thanks! Jz0610 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it again and commented on the user's talk page. RPC7778 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day!

Is there a problem with me? I'm just wondering why the last source was marked as non-independent, even though it originally came from the airline's official website. Vineyard93 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vineyard93: Sources from respective airlines, airports, and airline alliances are considered non-independent (e.g., an airline's press release or timetable, or an airport's newsroom). Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, we should use reliable independent sources whenever possible (e.g., news outlets or travel websites—except Simple Flying). In this case, you used a source from Jetstar, which is considered non-independent. Non-independent sources should only be used when no reliable independent source is available. RPC7778 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IrAero Irkutsk - Guilin - Kalibo

Do you happen to have any sources that IrAero doesn't have fifth freedom routes between Kalibo and Guilin? If so can you list it, and by that you're allowed to revert my edit at Guilin Liangjiang International Airport Metrosfan (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here. I, however, cannot confirm the reliability of the source and still thinking whether to revert your edit or not. Although, you can revert it yourself if you'd like. RPC7778 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you recently removed content from Xiamen Gaoqi International Airport without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look at those two that you've just restored - I agree I made a mistake. However, this wouldn't happen if you explained your edits with an edit summary. Looking at the two diffs, it does look like you're removing sources - it's only when you look very closely that you realise what you're trying to do. I strongly suggest using edit summaries when making edits. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added an edit summary in the first edit in the series of edits I made, however in my succeeding edits I didn't bother adding any edit summaries because they are very similar and pretty repetitive. I still do think that removing end dates doesn't justify any edit summaries. RPC7778 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are there to tell other editors what was changed, so of course it justifies an edit summary. It doesn't have to be much - if you're fixing a grammatical error, it could just be a simply "grammar", or if you're removing a route that has ended it could just be "ended". At least that way editors have some clue what your edit is - otherwise it could be anything from adding sources to vandalism (that's not an accusation, just saying an editor wouldn't know) and the only way to tell is to actually examine your diff. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Danners430. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:The Banner. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was reverted, I stand for what I said. I'm not taking it back. RPC7778 (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend retracting such statements. Wikipedia is built on being WP:CIVIL to one another - deliberately being uncivil towards another editor is not a good look, regardless of what the other editor may or may not have done. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for removing it. At least I’ve gotten something off my chest. Still, I stand for what I said. RPC7778 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your sentiment, 100%, when dealing with crusty, incompetent editors. However, posting uncivil comments is almost never helpful. I probably shouldn’t post this either!! Happy editing!Jacona (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the administrator who blocked The Banner, consider this a warning that you too will be blocked if you ever make another remark like "good riddance" about another editor. Please read the essay WP:GRAVEDANCING. We do not celebrate any editor being blocked. Administrators block to stop disruption, not to punish or humiliate people. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RPC7778! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Malta International Airport. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Malta International Airport, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boggo Road railway station

Given the policy of WP:SURPRISE, it's probably best if you include "(formerly Park Road railway station)" or similar when you put in mentions of Boggo Road. The old name has been in use for a very long time so many people will be familiar with it but not the new name. Also, as people on mobile devices (about half of the readers use them), they see an article one section at a time, so you need to ensure that all sections have it if it is mentioned more than once as there is no certain they have seen the earlier section that mentions it). Kerry (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RPC7778 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru Airlines - Clark

Apologies, I only read the new flight information release on aeroroutes after undoing your change. I agree it can be removed from Clark Airport destinations table. I've been researching the airline and they are definitely unique in the way they operate. I'm surprised the airline is still in business and operating. I'm sure they must be subsidized by the Government of Palau. Dootfish (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Clark–Koror sector is being managed by Sparkle Travel & Tours in Manila. Aeroroutes relied solely on information from the Nauru Airlines booking website, which may not be entirely accurate as to the inbound sector. It remains unclear whether the agent is currently selling reservations for the Clark–Koror route. I’ll verify the outbound flight number to Koror, Palau the next time the service operates through Clark.

https://travelweekly.com.au/nauru-airlines-announces-network-expansion-with-flights-to-clark-philippines/

https://www.facebook.com/SparkleTravelandTours Dootfish (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]