User talk:Flyguy088

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make disruptive speedy deletion nominations in

First off I am not making "disruptive" speedy deletion nominations as you accuse me of doing to make any sort of point. My article was against the rules of Wikipedia and I fully understand that now, and am in no way trying to get it back on or resorted? I would appreciate it in the future if you would refrain from such accusations against me. The article I put up for speedy deletion

WP:CSD#A7. I have went on the web and checked for several different sources myself and was hardly able to find any notability for FlightAware. If you feel however that I am incorrect in this assessment please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyguy088 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It isn't too hard to find articles on FlightAware. If you, in

let it go. tedder (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I stand corrected with FlightAware. I never thought of doing a news search under Google for them, I was simply doing a regular search on them. Either way, I change my opinion about FlightAware being a notable source and will attempt to update the sources for them when I get the chance. Thanks for pointing those articles out! I'm simply trying to clean out any poor aviation articles I run across at the moment or attempt to clean them up. With the Template:US-airport I noticed the huge discussion that occurred going back and forth between editing the page. I see no point in the template being locked/under high risk though, all this does is keep the page from ever having a chance to be updated or added on to? Maybe I'm also incorrect in this matter? Flyguy088 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address those things. No worries about FlightAware. Water under the bridge. Cleaning up aviation articles is good, but if they are big changes, make sure there is a discussion about them first- at the talk page and also probably at

WP:AV, which is how you can draw attention to a random/minor page that might be under discussion. Templates are often locked because one bit of vandalism or edit war will affect hundreds of pages (if not more), where vandalism on a single page will only affect that page. (that specific template is on appx 490 pages) Plus, changes aren't needed often- note the discussions on that template are fairly old- the most recent one is 10+ months old. tedder (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]