This user is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but a burdenist, and believes that those wanting a particular item of information in the encyclopedia have the responsibility to source it.
For goodness sake, use an edit summary!
<sum>:1
This user believes that every edit should have a summary.
This editor is a Most Pluperfect Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, Sticky Note, and Bookmark.
Nice one. Funnily enough I used syntax highlighting for the first time today when I pressed the button accidentally. Looks useful. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's a really useful user script that adds an icon to edits on your watchlist (provided it hasn't auto-refreshed) showing what category of source has been added Danners430tweaks made17:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
...and I guess the rather unique editing style will mean spotting sockpuppets (as they did in Italy) will be an absolute doddle 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I’m in two minds. Disruptive and problematic aye… but I don’t like to see someone getting blocked for no reason other than they didn’t want to listen… but hey ho Danners430tweaks made20:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I thought their edits were poor. Overwriting whole articles with poor quality text - some of which is obviously AI generated - and never once in over a thousand edits adding an online and thus easily verifiable reference. I know that offline refs are acceptable, but to use them exclusively is bordering on unhelpful. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
He has been blocked for incivility. He reinstated some of the edits with only the month & year as start date. I seem to remember this is not acceptable but can't find any reference to it. To avoid me inflaming him further, perhaps you can take a look at the edits and deal accordingly? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good morning.
For some time now, <Mariam nei> has been scrutinizing and questioning my work. As a result, I sent him the message below. I wanted you to be aware of this...
Quote
Good day. Considering that you seem to be very careful about erasing/correcting/amending my texts, why you don't clearly and completely describe my "mistakes." Naturally, your observations should be supported by absolutely referenced sources. I'm ready to read, understand, and adapt…
=UNQUOTE= Settignano (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
As you should be well aware of by now, ANY editor has every right to scrutinise your work. This is a collaborative project, and you do not own your contributions. Any editor is free at any time to view your contributions and disagree with them, or many changes, provided they fall within policy. Danners430tweaks made07:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
I see that you are removing airline destinations from airport articles. You wrote that someone will eventually put it back and with a citation, which you like better.
Consider stopping this because your actions severely compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and those destination charts. I have read online where real people use those for general trip planning.
Consider stopping your actions because it is extremely time consuming and a hit and miss repair job. I only happened to notice it in one Wikipedia article when I thought "this chart is clearly wrong, Wikipedia is terrible". That also brings up the concept that bad Wikipedia editing reflects poorly on the entire Wikipedia project.
Consider two possible alternatives to your actions:
1. add a citation needed [citation needed] tag. This tag is permitted. If your opinion of removing material first then hope that someone else will fix it by noticing the problem (not a guarantee) and then finds a citation, that's extremely time consuming and not reliably fixed as some may go unnoticed.
2. Do what you're doing but clearly post a list of removals on the article talk page and on Wikiproject Airports (making a new list of your removals).
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I hope that you will be constructive and not inadvertently destructive. Have a Happy Wikipedia Day!
In a single word - no. Your message here is you effectively trying to tell me how to edit - and I will not accept that. You do not get to tell others how to edit.
I am removing routes from tables that should never have been added, because they have zero sourcing against them. Had they been added while I was watching the articles, I would have reverted the edit. I use CN tags where I'm removing bad sources (such as Aeroroutes, Flightradar or booking engines). By the way these aren't sources I've labelled as unreliable off my own back - they've all been to RSN… Aeroroutes is at WP:AEROROUTES, no shortcuts to the others - but FR24 and booking engines were agreed as WP:SYNTH. Danners430tweaks made08:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You wrote: Your message here is you effectively trying to tell me how to edit - and I will not accept that. You do not get to tell others how to edit.
Suggesting better ways to edit in Wikipedia happens all the time, thousands of times an hour. Wikipedia even has mentors that do this.
I would welcome if anyone gives me good suggestions on how to edit. Would you reconsider? Taoyuan International Airport is an excellent example of citation needed in the destinations list.
Yes - because I left them there. Each and every one of those CN tags represents an unreliable source that I removed. It doesn't represent the content that should never have been added because it had no source at all. Danners430tweaks made17:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Have you considered a disclaimer that the list is not guaranteed complete or that the list only includes destinations with a reference? I have read more than once in travel articles to rely on Wikipedia's list but that is no longer true. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Have you considered making a list of all the destinations that you remove such that somebody else could look for references? Otherwise, it depends on someone finding an omitted city by chance and then looking it up. That is how I found out about your deletions. I looked up a chart and thought "that is really strange that Atlanta is not listed even though another list later in the article said that Atlanta was the number one route for the airport". Vanguard10 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The page history exists as an archive of old versions of the page. The history stays forever, and is only deleted if an edit is made which breaches policies such as copyright or personal attacks (which my edits are definitely not) Danners430tweaks made17:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That requires an extraordinary amount of detective work, thus creating a whole lot of effort to repair the issue. If you are unwilling to make a clear list of your deletions, the next best thing (and still not very adequate) is to clear put in the edit summary that you are deleting destinations.
As evidence of the detective work that is theoretically possible, know this. Buried in Wikipedia is a name of a senior intelligence officer of which country I will not disclose. His name was removed with an edit summary that it was removed as a result of an order by a superior. Try to find that. I dare you. Hahahaha. It is there but what you are suggesting is "go find it". Vanguard10 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I note in my edit summary what I am doing. My standard edit summary is Remove and tag unsourced, remove unreliable sources... etc.
As far as I'm concerned the matter appears closed - I'm not changing how I edit, as I am editing within policy and removing content that should never have been added to Wikipedia in the first place. I take care not to remove content that is sourced to reliable sources, and where content is sourced to an unreliable source I leave a CN tag instead of deletion (unless it's obviously a fake citation, which does happen). I don't see any more to answer here. Danners430tweaks made21:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here’s the thing: As someone that has edited airport articles for a lot longer than my account has existed, almost every route had a source at one point. Most just got removed over the years from editors unfamiliar with sourcing policy. Most of those routes are accurate. It shouldn’t matter if the route had an unreliable source. You’re adding CN tags to some routes already, just add them to all and call it a day. Deleting just gives editors a lot more work to do. Or, instead of deleting why not just find sources then and there instead of deleting and leaving it to other editors? Of course, I can’t tell you how to edit, but it would contribute much more to Wikipedia to help with the sourcing instead of outright deleting. I just think if we CN tag routes, it’ll be easier for everyone to know what needs work, deleting them requires more work and just seems to get everyone into arguments. I just wish there was a better way to do this than deleting them. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC))Reply
I've already explained why I'm adding tags to some routes - because those are routes that had sources that were later deemed unreliable… such as Aeroroutes, Routes Online or booking engines. As for the majority of routes previously having sources… do we have evidence of this? Because my experience in just the last year or two looking at these pages, the amount of unsourced edits being made is off the charts… so I'm more inclined to believe this is the accumulation of years of unsourced edits. Danners430tweaks made00:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also here's something not a single person has answered yet… why is it that it's only now, when people start deleting the unsourced content, that suddenly there's a concerted effort to actually source what should have been sourced from day one? You keep saying it's more work to add sources to stuff that's been deleted… well, before the I started getting heavily involved it seems a very large amount of the additions were wholly unsourced. I do see you and others trying to keep a lid on things, but it quite simply doesn't seem to be working. Danners430tweaks made00:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I read the discussion at the talk page for Palm Beach International after i participated in the RM there, but I wanted to assure VenFlyer98 is not alone in trying to fix these destination lists - i am monitoring a bunch of Australian airports and regularly make similar fixes to cite and restore destination lists there as well.
Danners430, I understand you are trying to fix a longstanding issue with these lists becoming obsolete and factually incorrect, I support this goal as well and want to help. However, I do agree with Vanguard10 that there are more collaborative ways to improve the quality of the encyclopedia.
Danners, sometimes you do things like reverting edits that have valid citations because you dont like the exact position of the references and admit you didnt even check what the references said like you did with my edits to Adelaide Airport. That suggests you are holding other editors to a higher standard than yourself. It would have taken you far less time an energy to make a simple edit to move the location of that ref than to engage in a long efit summaries and talk page conversations when essentially we are working toward the same goal.
In my opinion, that doesnt feel like you are engaging in good faith with editors who want to help, and actually discourages us from trying to work with you.
I'm also frustrated by your lack of engagement over at George Town Aerodrome. You removed a bunch of content you claimed was LLM use (that claim may or may not have had merit and is not my issue), however, instead of then seeing if the sources removed actually were RS, you PRODded/AfD the article on the rationale it is "non-notable". I have done extensive work to rewrite the article and demonstrate this airport is very historically notable. I pinged you in the deletion discussion over a week ago to ask if you could withdarw the AfD, since nobody else has commented, but you have ignored me. That feels like you care more about arbitrarily deleting articles than improving them.
As I have mentioned, and judging by comments here on your talk page, there are a lot of editors who would like to help you fix issues with aviation content (myself included), but your methods are creating a lot of frustration. If you will not change how you choose to edit, would you at least consider slowing down? It is difficult for us to keep up with all the reversions, prods and AfDs you are raising in a short period of time. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Id be very willing to help with any concerns you have about for Australian content if you raised it on my talk page directly and ask me to take a look, rather than having to go looking for what you have reverted, prodded or AfD'd regularly...? Dfadden (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
First, please don't come to my talk page with a WP:WALLOFTEXT.
I'll go through your two specific examples - the Adelaide edit, all you're giving me is a link to a discussion from last month… I have no clue what that discussion is in relation to, so diffs help. In relation to AfDs - I out of principle don't withdraw AfDs, as I believe the process that has begun should be allowed to run its course. That is my personal belief, and it is my right. I am under no obligation to withdraw nominations that were made in good faith and with good reasons. I am also under no obligation to respond, especially given you only pinged me to consider withdrawing the nomination - which I am not doing for the reason given. What else do you want me to contribute?
As for slowing down… why? I'm editing at my own pace. I see no reason why I should stop removing unsourced content, unreliable sources, or tagging non-notable articles because editors can't "keep up". I'm finding issues that have existed for literal years - the paragraphs of text I'm removing from articles (not talking destinations here) are because they've been tagged for over a year (I don't remove unsourced content outwith destination lists otherwise). The majority of articles I'm PRODing have been in that state, often untouched, for years too. So no, there is no deadline… but at the same time, nothing is being done until suddenly the content is removed. Danners430tweaks made22:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I find it interesting that you say I out of principle don't withdraw AfDs, as I believe the process that has begun should be allowed to run its course. That is my personal belief, and it is my right. Yet at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caledonian Airways (1988) you did exactly that after I improved the article with additional sources. So what has changed in your beliefs since then? I ask because as I said, I want to work collaboratively with you, and I acknowledge you have done some very useful work in the aviation space. But I am having difficulty understanding your motivations lately as your approach seems to have shifted to wanting everybody to do things your way, rather than working with others to improve things. I understand why you initially started deleting things - it put the community on notice that issues had been tagged for a while and werwnt being fixed. That got my attention and i am sure others. We are working on it. But we have lives off wiki too. I can do a thorough job fixing maybe 2 or 3 articles a week with the time I have. Slowing down to let us catch up would actually reduce your workload in the long run and might result in a better standard of article. 02:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Dfadden (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, folks. I don't monitor airport articles as much as I used to, but Danners430's edits to the Madrid–Barajas Airport article have brought me here because I noticed that a destination that I was flying to was not on the list. That destination, in fact, was in the list until the editor in question removed it. While I've been making edits in the last few days to try and source some of the other destinations on various airlines, I too share the concerns expressed here by other Wikipedians who find this very disruptive. Not everyone is going to have the time, patience nor wherewithal to pore through the edit history to try and find every single removed destination and source them, nor to reconcile what was kept and what was removed.
I understand that airport destination lists being unreferenced has been a major pain point for Wikipedia for several years now, but if the intention is to force a reckoning I don't think it will generate the desired effect. Sure, people are working on the articles now, but at what cost? Would it have been less disruptive to at least try and source the destinations, even if others would remain unreferenced, rather than just removing them wholesale? --Sky Harbor(talk)16:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The intention is to get routes sourced. We don't indefinitely host unsourced content… as you agree, the sourcing has been a problem for years - so it's well overdue for removal. Danners430tweaks made19:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The intention is get routes sourced. So rather than remove content, which you know is more disruptive, why not try and actually source the content? --Sky Harbor(talk)13:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.
I thought the same. Should I propose it via the talk page or just go ahead and nuke 'em all? Maybe I should play the game properly. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Game? Oh you're not on about the beautiful game that just finished in Atlanta… *puts away Argentina flag*
Personally, I consider - https://airlinehistory.co.uk - to be an unreliable website. It's a jumble of informations, often incorrect, stolen here and there. When I have more authoritative and confirmed references, I delete it without remorse... Settignano (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
References
↑"…………………". Airline History. Retrieved …………………..{{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
Latest comment: 15 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey!
So, I was editing Riyadh Air and I saw your comment on PR Newswire not being reliable so I removed PR and kept the Airbus Boeing newsroom sources. However, a genuine doubt is that should we allow PR Newswire source in this situation cause the PR Newswire source was directly quoted by Boeing in their newsroom for the investors and public release. So, since it was directly quoted by Boeing should we consider allowing it? ClashOfClansFTW157 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpeg){kind=small}
