User talk:Sunyrai

Talkback

Hello, Sunyrai. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Abhishek ^Talk 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpiceJet

Your edits are WP:UNDUE in the article besides being unencyclopedic (see WP:NOT). If you feel it needs to be included, start a discussion at WT:AIRLINE. Until then please do not include it per the WP:BRD policy. — Abhishek ^Talk 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see anything therein which prevents mentioning airline performance metric on the article. Need to follow WP:DISENGAGE Sunyrai (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard about WP:NOTNEWS? Only incidents that are notable enough should be included. You are engaging yourself in an edit war. — Abhishek ^Talk 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from your contribs that none/most of your edits have not stayed (either removed or reverted). — Abhishek ^Talk 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity to get personal. Please refer WP:FOC, noone is a born Wikipedian. Some people have time to do it all day and may have gathered lot of expertise in less time; but that does not bar others from contributing. The edits in this article are well referenced. There is a reason why the data needs to be here. We can ask for consensus, do not engage in edit warring. Thx Sunyrai (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You seem to know the rules quite well Sunyrai (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SpiceJet‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Abhishek ^Talk 13:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, go through these guidelines of WP:AIRLINE. — Abhishek ^Talk 13:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is edit-warring. You cite BRD, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. And as per Airline content page goes, the event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. The SC notice makes the event noteworthy and will probably change the way Spicejet operates.Sunyrai (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since your edits were disagreed upon, it is your responsibilty to gain consensus on what you call as notable. And besides, as tols you are edit warring and of course, you do not own the article. I have cited the projects guidelines clearly to you, if you are here to go against the guidelines, then you are nothing but vandalising the article. I mostly edit airline/airport related articles and know pretty well what best suits these articles and stop acting like you didn't hear anything. — Abhishek ^Talk 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now, you may wanna see this. — Abhishek ^Talk 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sunyrai. You have new messages at Anikingos's talk page.
Message added 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I never knew that the issue reached the supreme court. I supported it ever since the start, however. And now that it reached the SC, it has to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]