User talk:TL500

Welcome!

Hello, TL500, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --HailFire 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Western Merger

The merger was not offically complete until April 1 meaning Western was still its own company until then. It never came under Delta until April 1, when it was dissolved. If you post this error again, I will report.

Western was never a brand under Delta. The merger was announced in September of 1986, but Western was still a public company(there for not part of Delta) on the NYSE until April 1, 1987 (date the merger was completed). The moment at which the merger was completed(April 1 at 8:30 A.M.), all Western Airlines flights were changed over to Delta flights and Western Airlines was dissolved. Western couldn't have become a part of Delta on the day the merger was announced because every shareholder must be sent a proxy statement to vote on whether a merger should occur. Also Delta had to wait until the early morning of April 1 (around 2:00 A.M.) to complete the merger because Supreme Court had to rule on an order from a lower court blocking the merger. I checked in a book I have that was publishedby Delta on its history saying that the merger didnt close until April 1, 1987. Historically, it is very rare for an airline to have two mainline brands, although one exemption is U.S. Airways. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just trying to get the right information out for the Delta page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.181.118.24 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest if you don't want this to be construed as a personal attack then you don't accuse TL500 of vandalism ;). Content disputes are not vandalism. --Matt 01:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only accused him of vandalism after i posted the above and TL500 again posted incorrect information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.63.196.223 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC-8)

License tagging for Image:RSAF Museum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RSAF Museum.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold, Be Civil, and Assume Good Faith

We're all volunteering to edit the articles around here, and most of us pick things we're interested in, which usually means things we like. Sometimes people think "Oh, Wikipedia doesn't have a list of all of the airport with crown rooms, I'll add it." They probably don't mean to make it an ad - it might just come out that way. So I'd suggest assuming good faith.

That said, we're donating our free time. Accusing people of being stooges is fairly uncivil and makes people want to stop editing.

All of that said, be bold. If you think that Delta Connection routes don't belong in the Delta main article, move them to the Delta Connection article. I don't think people are consciously introducing inconsistencies. People mean well.

Cheers, and happy editing --Matt 00:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries and edits seem to show a very "You're either with me or against me" attitude - like "Wikipedia article, or DL stooge" and "Hiding info or being forthright." Everyone here should want to be honest and write excellent articles, so you're basically insulting anyone who disagrees with you. That doesn't seem to be a harmonious approach. I suggest not disparaging people - but coming to compromises on the content. It might be worth checking out Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Cheers --Matt 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Edits

You need to condense your edits down into one edit or a few because you take up too much space in the Delta Air Lines History page. People will assume you are editing to falsify information or your adding things in-between edits.--68.41.96.184 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "vandalism, to be restored" please use {{inuse}}. We shouldn't leave the article in a half done state like it is now. Cheers --Matt 22:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Hey - check out talk page guidelines - they recommend new topics go at the bottom of talk pages. Cheers --Matt 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo - I'm surprised to see you still adding new topics at the top - do you disagree with the talk page guidelines? --Matt 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

requests

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TL500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

desire contacting adopter (adoptee/adopter program). Intend to try to contact them and then discuss possible future edits. Look at my edits. They are civil and aviation related mostly. I won't do any edits before I work with an adopter

Decline reason:

You were blocked as a sock of Dereks1x being used to evade a block. Oddly enough, Dereks1x is also asking to be unblocked to seek adoption. What a coincidence. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 02:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you really know the blocking process, you will know that if someone is blocked, the whole IP gets blocked. I kept posting because my IP was not blocked. I was blocked because an administrator thought that I was a sock puppet. First, that person blocked the sock puppetmaster. Then that adminstrator saw that I kept posting for hours and thought that a sockpuppet was editing. So the administrator put in a new block on me.

If that isn't proof of no sock puppetry, what is? When you run a check user, that person will say either that the socks are using the same IP or different. This shows that we were using different IP's.

Also note that I have never done any vandalism or made wild edits.

I would like to say "ok, I admit that I'm guilty" and show remorse but I am a separate person than the puppetmaster. We even use different computers with vastly different IP's. If the definition of meatpuppet is some discussion among people, then I may be a meat puppet even though I edited different articles for the most part. It's not a coincidence that Irishguy mentions. We discussed it. If I were a true sock, then it doesn't matter if I'm block. I'm a different person.TL500 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do understand the blocking process. IPs can be changed. IrishGuy ^talk 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]