I have no bias for Tilton or the union, I just state the facts as they are. Your bias might fly on a union web page, but not on this general knowledge website.

Hello, I'm TornadoLGS. I noticed that you recently removed content from United Airlines 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. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a gross mischaracterization of a weather/ATC event that is not even close to being noteworthy in the context of United Airlines' Wikipedia page. Maybe it should go on the FAA/ATC's page. The false equivalency with the Southwest incident that caused the cancellation of 16,000 flights and the largest fine in FAA history is comical. When I delete it again I will delineate why, but I thought it was self explanatory. Norco3921 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, you should provide an edit summary, especially if you are removing content or reverting an edit (aside from obvious vandalism). Without an edit summary, we cannot tell if the intentions behind the removal are legitimate. Worth noting, some people with a conflict of interest will try to remove content that reflects negatively on the subject in an attempt to whitewash the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the entire space provided to explain why I deleted it. If an airline put all such weather events in there would be hundreds of them. Whoever put it in there obviously wanted to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The title and text were complete mischaracterizations. I don't think misinformation is too strong a characterization. Norco3921 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United Airlines fleet 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. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! And "Edit War"! Who knew? You made all kinds of edits to my entries that were quite good so I thanked you. I made a couple of minor edits including one correcting your factual error of United having 200 orders vice the actual 150 for 787s after 2021 that you changed back without using the "User Talk" function. In fact you didn't use the User Talk function for any of your edits. Interesting. Knock yourself out reverting to incorrect information and awkward wording and syntax. Norco3921 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"150 787s + 45 A350s = nearly 200" Except the 45 A350s were ordered in 2010 not after 2021 as YOUR sentence says. Too funny. Norco3921 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you correcting the error in the number of wide body aircraft, but now it is verbose and repetitive with the same info in the first paragraph. I am editing it to simplify it. The less words the better. Norco3921 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page United Express, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the specific references in the "style rules" that requires the opening to include either the entity's legal name or any history in the just before a history section, or any requirement that the history section of an airline article needs to cover its entire history when there is another linked article that does that. It is telling that you have edited both the American and Delta Air Lines articles within the last two weeks and neither begins with the legal name nor are any of the airline articles titled with their legal names. How do you explain that?

And if you don't think these sections are poorly written I am not sure what to tell you. United is the biggest airline in the world by several metrics and you keep deleting that. Ever heard of burying the lead? The bits about O'Hare and Denver are redundant and of little importance.

You also keep replacing a header titled, Destinations and hubs, that has one sentence with destinations under it and two sub-headers of hubs and Alliance and codeshare agreements. The header is completely unnecessary and doesn't mention Alliances and codeshare that is under it. Norco3921 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

JCHL (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Help:Diff, thoroughly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the page itself, I'd like to ask you to consider the tone of your writing. Doing things like pasting large descriptions of topic sentences to "review", or quoting me and saying only I think that says a lot. both come off as condescending or antagonistic. You don't have to like or respect your fellow editors, but speaking only for myself, if you show that disrespect, it makes it much harder for me to see your point of view, much less be convinced. I expect most people are similar. I expect my own tone hasn't been the best, either. I apologize for that, and will try to do better in the future, and hope you'll do the same. EducatedRedneck (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic sentence blurb was for JCHL and expository or not the point is the same.

I appreciate and also apologize for my tone, but I try to meet people where they are. I used to be a big fan of Wikipedia, but this process is ridiculous. I have wasted enough time trying to make a difference on a subject I enjoy. I will pick my spots and you all do what you want/have to do.

"Norco3921 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood; sorry about that! And thank you for hearing me out. I'm sorry this process has demoralized you; that's obviously not the goal, so I'm sorry for my part in it. For what it's worth, I hope you regain some of that passion; even if I disagree with you on some things, you're an asset to the encyclopedia. If I do something (behavior-wise) which makes it worse, I'd welcome a gentle nudge on my talk page; like most humans, I make plenty of mistakes. I'm okay being wrong on content, but if I'm alienating editors like you, I consider that a serious mistake on my part. Thanks again for hearing me out and responding so well; I really appreciate it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you updated the destination count and fleet size for United Airlines. I updated the access date for the destinations to make sure it reflects the updated figure. However, I'm having trouble figuring out where the 1,007 figure came from. The infobox source is for an article about the 1,000th aircraft, and seems outdated, and the fleet section has a source which says 1,463. If you could point me to the source you used, I could update both figure citations. I don't trust my own expertise enough to discriminate between a good or a bad source on this topic! Sorry to trouble you, and thanks for your help. EducatedRedneck (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Google web site is unique to United Airlines, https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/mainline-fleet-tracking. It was reportedly started by a someone who was at the time in high school and wants to be an airline exec. It keeps track of every UA & UAX aircraft including very detailed modifications and livery changes. It includes links to FlightAware for each airplane also. Norco3921 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reference for the fleet count in the inbox. Norco3921 (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the other airlines. AA's reference is behind a paywall, Delta has no reference and Southwest's reference is static to 12/31/24 from their 10K. This is indicative of Wikipedia pages and much of my heartburn with the process. People resist change even if it's an improvement, but have no problem/recognition of the substandard status quo. Norco3921 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: it's either the Embraer 175 or E175, but not the Embraer E175. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If that was the case then is it Embraer ERJ 145s or Embraer RJ145s? Norco3921 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a subjective thing. It's Embraer's naming convention. The older aircraft are Embraer ERJ 145 or ERJ 145. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It doesn't make sense to me, but it appears you are right. Norco3921 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Infobox company § Consistent notation. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There are different ways to record financial results that are in the millions or billions of dollars. Pick one and use it consistently in all parameters." Using a capital B for billions and M for millions is accepted in all kinds of financial reports and is better for info boxes. Norco3921 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the examples for rounded millions/billions are in the format $10.864 billion or US$3,963 million. There's nothing there that supports using a capital B for billions and M for millions. Also show me a real financial reports filed with the SEC that uses that format. Most in my experience say something like (Dollars in millions) and avoid abbreviations altogether. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using B and not spelling billion or million in first use case is violation of MOS:CURRENCY. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part I’ll also point out that the Infobox instructions say to pick one format and use it consistently in all parameters. My interpretation (and the format used on so many pages) is that we shouldn’t be changing to an abbreviated format after the first use. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the optional M and bn should be used after the first use especially in the info boxes where brevity is useful. The repetitive use of billions and millions is unnecessary and can be distracting in conveying the actual numbers and trend info/symbology. Norco3921 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your proposal at Template talk:Infobox company and get consensus for your proposed change. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do that if you wish. Thanks for the recommendation. Much appreciated. Norco3921 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so by not discussing your proposal and getting consensus for your proposed change, you'll abide by the Infobox instructions which says to use one format "consistently in all parameters"? RickyCourtney (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wouldn't discuss it on Template talk:Infobox company, but I thought you hight want to as the status quo is obviously out of compliance as it uses incorrect names of airports, JFK in one case, pet names in another and not the name of the WP articles. I say let's get it in compliance, but maybe use a little common sense as suggested in the guidance as the rules are somewhat contradictory. Again, thanks so much for all your suggestions. Norco3921 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You are the one making BOLD changes, when those changes are reverted it's you, the editor who made the bold edit, who must discuss it with the person who reverted you. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You have demonstrated a pattern of unwarranted reversions while not looking at other airline pages for consistency. Please take it to the talk page. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "consistency" is that you're making those changes. Furthermore, you only edited the "big three" airlines, the rest of the many airlines in the US are not using the format you're championing. Also, I did take it to the talk page. I'm here right now. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page. Take it to the United talk page. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're making these changes across multiple pages (American, Delta and United) so the proper venue is your talk page, unless you wish to propose a format change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Norco3921 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With what? RickyCourtney (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the editor making the change or wanting to insert information is the one who must get consensus on the talk page. If you are reverted, you take it to the talk page. If you revert back to what you want it to be, that's called edit warring. You do not reinsert your edit and then insist people talk. If you continue your disruptive line of edit warring you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 14:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Canterbury Tail talk Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To what article(s) are you referring? Did you provide the same warning to RickyCourtney who started this on the United Airlines' article? Norco3921 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Airlines and United Airlines specifically, but you appear to be edit warring all over the project. And yes I did. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Did you block RickyCourtney since he continued reverting articles? Norco3921 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have not done so since the warning. And do not gender editors if they have not revealed to you how they wish to be referred, or what gender they are, unless you have evidence that RickyCourtney identifies as a he. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He" is still used accepted as a generic pronoun and as I have never met nor do I know the person using the Wikipedia name RickyCourtney I don't believe the vast majority of people would take offense nor was any intended. Do you know RickyCourtney's preferred pronouns? If not, what is your purpose in bringing this up? Thanks in advance. Norco3921 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, do you have some status I should know about? What posts are you referring to on what articles? Norco3921 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made this edit which (in addition to violating MOS:CURRENCY) changed the numbers to other numbers not supported by the reference. You altered the financial figures and didn't provide a reference meaning the reference attached didn't agree. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then your "unsourced" accusation is completely and demonstrably unfounded as NONE of the content, but only the way in which B & M represent billion and millions is annotated. Again, do you have some special Wikipedia status? Norco3921 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's unsourced, your numbers were not in the source which provided for 2023 figures. You changed numbers that were sourced to numbers that were unsourced. And the reference is indeed annotated, it's right there at the end of the lines. Canterbury Tail talk 14:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did exactly the following, "million and billion should be spelled out on first use, and (optionally) abbreviated M" as stated in your reference, but you changed it back. Please fix your mistaken reversion ASAP. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mistake, billion is abbreviated as bn, not as B. Million is only abbreviated as a capital M to distinguish it from m for meters. Canterbury Tail talk 14:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billion are commonly abbreviated with a capital B in all kinds of publications including financial. You allowed reversion of capital M's to millions while accusing me of "unsourced" edits. Please change all the millions back to M ASAP. Thanks.

For the third time do you have some special editor or other status on Wikipedia? Norco3921 (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am an administrator, not that I have to tell you that as it's easy to discover. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was properly sourced and has been for years. Norco3921 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source which is superior to any of the other major airlines' Wiki pages upon which you might want to focus if airlines interest you.

https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/mainline-fleet-tracking

If you follow that link it will take you directly to a link to FlightAware's link for the actual aircraft that was actually delivered yesterday.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N37367

It appears that you might not be familiar with these sites. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Best. Norco3921 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) no it wasn't sourced, and even now the reference doesn't support the data. The reference that there are 117 M8s in the table doesn't say that. If you're going to update the table you MUST update the reference that goes with it. The reference was, and still is, this which very blatantly doesn't support that. 2) What evidence do you have that that site is reliable? It seems to be one person's passion project, they don't identify themselves and make no claim as to their credentials in the area. And much of FlightAware's data is user generated and supplied (I know, I'm one of them) which fails WP:UGC. Canterbury Tail talk 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is sourced and quite well if you know how to navigate this superior source compared to any other of its type. To simplify things click on this link.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZlYgN_IZmd6CSx_nXnuP0L0PiodapDRx3RmNkIpxXAo/htmlview#

Then click on M8 from the menu on the top of the sheet. You will see at the end of the list on line 119 aircraft N37367 was delivered yesterday and if you subtract the two header lines from the top of the table it equals 117 737 MAX 8s.

The source has been proven most reliable over time even garnering press coverage to that effect, but additionally uses other reliable sources to corroborate it like the FlightAware links for each and every aircraft in the fleet like the one I provided for you above. Did you click it? Here it is again.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N37367

Again, it appears you are unfamiliar with these sites and how to navigate them. Please keep the questions coming as I am confident you will agree once you familiarize yourself with these superior and continuously updated sources. Best. Norco3921 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't covered the fact that the source saying there are 117 M8s in the table doesn't support it. This is why it's continually being reverted, you need to update the specific source. Canterbury Tail talk 16:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just showed you. I think we need to take this to the United Talk page so others can explain this to you. Norco3921 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or would the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) page be more appropriate? Norco3921 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If you look at the table for the fleet, go to the row for Boeing 737 Max 8, go across to the reference column, the reference is this page https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/aircraft/boeing-737-800.html which does not say they have 117 of them. That is the reference for the Boeing 737 Max 8 row. Not what's at the top of the section, but what is actually specifically against the data row. If you change that number, you MUST change the reference on the row if it doesn't support the change, which it doesn't. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the number of planes for all the fleets and the reference is in several places in the article including at the top of fleet chart as it applies to all the aircraft types in the fleet. If you want to put that reference to the side of every fleet then take it to the United Airlines Fleet Talk page. That is not done for any airline that I have seen. Those references to the right are there for those specific fleets and their sub-fleets' seating configurations.

It is obvious that you aren't familiar with these pages per se, but you seem to take a special interest in my edits. Maybe taking that issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) page would be advisable. Norco3921 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the pages, I'm an active admin in the airline/airport space due to the amount of bad referencing that goes on there. If you wish to take it to ANI feel free, but that isn't the place for this. Canterbury Tail talk 18:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to me where you get the exact aircraft number of United Airlines and add it on United Airlines fleet like how you did here or do you use planespotters.net? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/mainline-fleet-tracking

Follow the links for United fleet and then every sub fleet. It also includes different pages for United orders and retired aircraft and UAX orders, fleets and retired aircraft along with all kinds of info on aircraft modifications and flight tracking. Norco3921 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to this site? Canterbury Tail talk 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,The Airbus Orders&Delivery numbers for April 2025 doesn't lie and Airbus still expect to deliver another 185 A321neos to United Airlines. It means that United Airlines have received two A321neos (37-35) that were not originally ordered by United Airlines. There are 3 likely reasons: 1) Two used A321neos are purchased from another Airline or leasing company. 2) Two brand new A321neos are purchased from another Airline or leasing company (in United Airlines configuration). 3) Two A321neos are leased from another Airline or leasing company. So Airbus doesn't list current owner status purchased/leased of the two A321neos recieved from 3rd party. One 3rd party A321neo was delivered to United Airlines in March 2025 and one A321neo in April 2025 according to Airbus delivery reports. Airbus delivered 3 A321neos in March 2025 and one in April 2025 directly to United Airlines. Rygjar (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure then make the change, but the United fleet Google sheet shows 37 delivered and 133 non-leased A321 Neo's left and another 40 leased to be delivered starting in 2026. That equals the 210 that have been reported. You might want to cross-reference the N numbers to make sure it is not just the difference in the timing of the various reports. If you show another 185 to be delivered that is 222 total which is 12 (not two) more than reported. Something doesn't jib. Norco3921 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least the photo in your latest reference identifies that aircraft as N34535 and that it is not one of the 40 aircraft to be delivered starting in 2026 from another lessor. As stated in the article this is one of twelve from this lessor, but like many aircraft in the UA fleet it is leased. In fact UA has increased the number of leased aircraft in the fleet from 140 on 12/31/24 to over 160 now. Some of these are likely sale lease backs, but I don't think they are 'additional' aircraft unless you can demonstrate that with a more specific link than the Airbus one you provided. Please let me know as I plan on undo(ing) your latest edits if you can't. Sorry. Norco3921 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. They're pretty clear. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You are trying to include undue content in an article, it is your responsibility to take it to the talk page and obtain consensus for it, not the person who removed the added content. Also note that WP:ONUS is not a guideline or suggestion, it is a part of a central Wikipedia policy. Canterbury Tail talk 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, It is you who undid content that was not disputed by anyone, but you who I have seen do similarly uncalled for reversions. Maybe, we should go to the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) page after all. Norco3921 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who disputed it, it's disputed. If you wish to go to the ANI page feel free, I don't think it will go the way you think it will the way you are edit warring and making unsourced changes all over the project. You are also making claims of policy and guidelines that do not say what you think they say.

Additionally, what is your connection to United Airlines and/or the United Airlines Fleet website? Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is FlightAware a reliable source? I bet you weren't even aware that every plane in the UA and UAX fleets have a FlightAware hyperlink, were you? Norco3921 (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have absolutely no connection to the United Airlines fleet Google site, but nice try. Norco3921 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other part of the question? What is your connection to United Airlines? Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a passenger on United and a lot of other airlines. Norco3921 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost your entire editing has been around United Airlines and people connected to it, it reasonable to ask and see if there is a WP:COI. Do you have any connection with United Airlines, and people connected strongly to it, other than having been a passenger? Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I edit all kinds of airline pages primarily US majors. Norco3921 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the vast majority of your edits are around United Airlines, its positions in various rankings, and people connected to United Airlines. So again with the question, do you have any connection with United Airlines and/or people strongly connected to it? Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Norco3921 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to make edits that are not properly sourced or just changing details to something that doesn't agree with the source at all. You made this edit changing the destinations to 380, when the reference clearly states 369 destinations (220 + 149). If you continue with your poorly sourced edits you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 01:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Here is the source that I thought was already referenced. Thanks for taking such a unique interest in my posts.

https://www.ch-aviation.com/airlines/ua Norco3921 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to United Airlines fleet, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. I can't figure out what you were trying to say with this edit summary, particularly when {{better source}} is listed in WP:NOTRS. Given the timing, it comes off as a WP:POINTY response to my comment on process at Talk:United Airlines. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples of specific edit to which you are referring.

I would also suggest that you go look at the United article or those of the other major airlines from six months ago when I started editing them. The improvement from my edits is dramatic. See for yourself.

Also, we addressed the United Fleet Google site back in February 2025. Norco3921 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you added an 'unreliable source?' tag to the United Fleet article lede. It was you who told me references aren't even required in the lede if it has a proper reference(s) in the body of the article. Much like the fleet total in the info box the fleet total in the lede is derived from the Fleet/Subfleet matrix totals/subtotals which in this case has four references. I would just delete both the reference and your tag in the lede and info box, but due to current sensitivities I will refrain for the time being.

Also, regarding your "Okay, used preexisting template, since the gentler "better source needed" was objected to", the proper verbiage is simply "better source" according to the WP Reliability that you shared with me. Personally, I couldn't care less but you all seem to think proper WP procedure is important.Norco3921 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide examples of specific edit to which you are referring. You'll note I provided a diff.

Prior states of the articles don't concern this warning, which is about WP:POINT.

Whether references are required doesn't change your WP:POINT edits.

I've given you the warning and links. Whether you take it is up to you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to document that you didn't provide any examples (or a specific diff) as I requested. Norco3921 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Document what you like: I provided a diff of a specific example, which is more than is required to warn you. To wit, I'd like to encourage you to make yourself familiar with WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SEALIONING, WP:BLUDGEONING, and WP:1AM. This will serve as your warning about those behaviors as well. I note WP:ONUS and WP:BRD were discussed above. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your help, encouragement and the myriad references that you have generously shared with me. It is so refreshing to see someone in a supervisory role who keeps the big picture and the main thing, the main thing. If you have additional WP:XXX references or maybe a comprehensive index of all them that would be greatly appreciated. I obviously aspire to understand every possible detail and nuance of the WP infrastructure and its mechanics instead of merely the subject of the articles that interest me. Thanks for all you do in making easier for editors to make positive contributions to the continued success of Wikipedia. All the best. Norco3921 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to United Airlines! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. I fixed it for you this time, but to in the future, your edits are much less likely to get reverted if they don't make work for other editors. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm EducatedRedneck. I noticed that you made one or more edits to an article, United Airlines, concerning the updates of review statistics, box office numbers, sports statistics, or some other frequently updated data with a fixed web address, but you did not update the |access-date= parameter in the citation template. The |access-date= parameter is the full date when the content pointed to by the URL was last verified to be working and supporting the text being cited in the article. This means that the parameter needs to be updated whenever the content is updated. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to update the access date field when you update numbers, or your edits may be reverted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask where you got your 1,043 figure. Cirium right now shows 1,042 for the "In service" value. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted the date changed so I changed it to 8/27 when Cirius said 1,044. Their number changed to 1,043 on the 28th when an airplane in heavy maintenance went over 60 days. How do I know that? From the web site you all banned. The real fleet number is actually 1,048 with another two new A321s sitting on the ramp in NQY. Meanwhile on other US airline wiki pages editors are adding/subtracting aircraft to/from fleet/subfleet totals with ZERO references to support those changes and none of you say a word or make any changes. And please don't send me multiple wiki references to defend this blatant double standard. Norco3921 (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

changed it to 8/27 when Cirius said 1,044 ah, my bad. I'd misread the date on my end, and thought the figure was current. Thank you for your answer! As to your comment about other airline pages, if you think they're wrong, feel free to seek consensus on their talk page. I'm not the police of all airline pages; if someone paid me to do it, perhaps I'd feel compelled to go fix other articles, too. :P EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If one is going to pay so much attention to one airline page then it makes sense to do so with others to maintain at least some semblance of a standard. Or maybe it is just certain editors that people like to monitor. For me I am not going to waste more of my time trying to convince the wiki rules aficionados that 2+2=4. Norco3921 (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]