Thenoflyzone

Canada's busiest airport

That page uses the NAV CANADA TP577 as a source for movments. That way all the airports are from the same source. Otherwise you would have to list a source for each airport. Plus the fact is that not every airport in Canada counts the same way. They all seem to have larger numbers than NAV CANADA comes up with.

Mistake

Hello... I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the place to do this or not, but I noticed that you changed what I put for Thomas Cook Airlines for the Calgary International Airport. You stated that Thomas Cook Airlines only flies from Manchester to Calgary. You deleted my addition of the London Gatwick to Calgary route.

I worked for Thomas Cook Airlines. This summer, in it's tour opertaor conjuction with Canadian Affair, Thomas Cook Airlines flew from London Gatwick to Calgary on Thursdays and Saturdays, and from Manchester to Calgary on Sundays.

You stated that on FlyThomasCook.com it only has Manchester to Calgary. I'm not sure where or why that is stated but I know that they also have a London Gatwick to Calgary route because I work for them in Calgary!

Currently, Thomas Cook does not have any flights to Calgary - this is usual for the winter season as Monarch Airlines serves the routes of London Gatwick and Manchester to Calgary.

So, please stop deleting the London Gatwick to Calgary route. I apologize if this is the wrong area to post this kind of message to you.

-griffinpaul

Air Transat

Flight to Barcelona are via Malaga thats why you don't see it on the site. I was on the flight in January 2008.

Merry Xmas!

Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

talkback

Hello, Thenoflyzone. You have new messages at Synchronism's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

June 2026

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Airbus A321neo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

To expand on the above - you’re removing sources from the page, and not adding or altering existing sources… so where is the source for these changes you’re making? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The source I removed was outdated, and not necessary, as the main source above it (number 26) already provides the updated and correct info. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So your talk page, not mine? That's confusing...

I also assume you mean source 26, not 28 - if that's the source you're using, why haven't you opened or read it? It's dated the 19th June, which implies it hasn't been opened since then. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one that is confused.

1. I did say source 26.

2. It says June 16 (not 19) because that is when I added that source to the article. If you had bothered to look deeper down the edits, you would have seen that. You didn't.

3. You should learn by now not to revert my edits. The due diligence is done. When i remove sources, it's because they are outdated or not required, as the main source (which i often update) covers all the info in the specifications.

Thenoflyzone (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

First of all, point 3... excuse me?? You should learn by now not to edit my posts - sorry to break it to you, but you're not special. You do not get special treatment, and nor does any other editor or I for that matter. In this case no, due diligence has not been done. If you are using an existing source, as you claim, then you must update the access date to show this. If you're using it to make edits on the 29 June 2026, then that is the date that's in the source, because that's when you last accessed it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You're pulling hairs. Get a life. I'm updating info that is wrong. It takes precendence over updating dates on sources by 10 days...Thenoflyzone (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

After Get a life, you can consider this a warning for WP:CIVIL. You're an editor with over 21k edits. You're better than this. You're making updates to an article based on an out of date source - and the way to make it in date, and this is basic knowledge, is to make sure the citation has been updated accordingly... which involves the access date or date parameters as appropriate. That's not pulling hairs, it's basic verifiability. And no, updating info that's wrong does not take precedence over ensuring sources are maintained - in fact it's the other way round. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. We use reliable sources to verify everything we do.

And since you altered your message after I sent mine... You should learn by now not to revert my edits - sorry but as I said above, that is nonsense. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I updated to a reliabe source before all my edits. Doing an edit 10 days later based off of that same source is approriate in my book. It's the first time someone reverts my edits because the date parameter was off by 10 days. Ridiculous. And yes, I am better than this. You should be too. Thenoflyzone (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you made a perfectly fine edit when you added that source. But you can't then go in ten days later and make further updates on, what is by that time, an outdated source. Literally all that needs doing in updating the access date so that readers and editors alike can tell where the information comes from, and when it was last verified. You obviously verified the information in the source, because otherwise (I sincerely hope) you wouldn't have made the edit. Therefore, when you verify a source you update the access date to the date you verified it. Again - it's not ridiculous, it's basic verifiability. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada Train the Trainer Program Survey / Sondage pour le programme de formation à la facilitation

Wikimedia Canada is developing a Train the Trainer program to train volunteers to lead Wikimedia workshops across the country and we'd love your input!

If you are interested in learning how to teach others to contribute to a Wikimedia project, please fill out our short survey by July 10, 2026. It only takes a few minutes and it will help us create a program that works for our community.

You have received this message because you are on the Wikimedia Canada Interest list. To remove yourself from the list, please click here.

_________

Wikimédia Canada élabore actuellement un programme de formation à la facilitation destiné à former des bénévoles à l’animation d’ateliers Wikimédia et nous aimerions connaître votre avis !

Si vous souhaitez apprendre à former d’autres personnes à contribuer aux projets Wikimédia, merci de répondre à notre bref sondage avant le 10 juillet 2026 afin que nous puissions créer un programme adapté à notre communauté. Cela ne vous prendra que quelques minutes.

Vous recevez ce message car vous faites partie de la liste des personnes intéressées par Wikimédia Canada. Pour vous désinscrire de cette liste, veuillez cliquer ici.

-- Wikimedia Canada via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)