Talk:Canberra Airport/Archive 1

Discussion2

• Comment Google News: Canberra Airport Google News: Canberra International Airport Bidgee (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bidgee, what's your point here? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is Canberra Airport is used and not Canberra International Airport. Bidgee (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You've confused me. Your first example says "Canberra Airport", your second example says "Canberra International Airport". i.e. They are both used.

In any case, the examples are irrelevant. We are looking for the "official" name of the airport. The "official" name is not dictated by what appears on Google. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason why I have those links above is to show the news stories and outlets who use what. I've found none using Canberra International Airport but have found a few using Canberra Airport so it is relevant on what the media use! I'm using Google News to make it easier to find stories from news outlets and it's not dictated by Google in anyway! Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Isn't this example: Google News: Canberra International Airport using "Canberra International Airport"? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you're failing to read what I'm saying! The above link (Google News: Canberra International Airport) has no stories that use as a name Canberra International Airport where as Google News: Canberra Airport has stories for Canberra Airport! Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And how is insulting me going to help?

It is by no means clear that I'm "failing to read what [you're] saying".

What is clear is that I am failing to understand what you are saying (or more precisely, "what you are not saying clearly".)

"The above link (Google News: Canberra International Airport) has no stories that use as a name Canberra International Airport" - Well why didn't you just say that in the first place? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And as I asked below, how is this helping us determine the "official" name of the airport? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "insulting" you rather stating fact that you didn't understand what I wrote!

We are after it's common name rather then "official" since it seems to come under two names. Bidgee (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Errrrrr. I don't agree. "It's clear you're failing to read what I'm saying!" is not the same as "stating fact that you didn't understand what I wrote".Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that statement either. "We" are doing neither. I have stated several times that I am looking for its "official" name. As far as I can see, you are the only person who is after its "common name". Again, AFAICS, the other people who at one time or another have been in this conversation are not looking for either.

You know, I find it rather peculiar that despite the fact that I had stated that I think Canberra International Airport is a pretentious and inaccurate name, and that it is not necessarily the name of the airport, you have chosen to pick a fight with me, chosen to insult me, and then chosen to start pulling non-existant "facts" out of thin air. Yet, somehow I imagine that you think that behaving in this manner will convince me of the correctness of your arguement, and enlist me to support it. Let me assure you that it won't. If you want my support, drop the opinions and start presenting facts. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You've chosen to assume bad faith not me. you said you didn't understand me so stop trying to twist my words. non-existant "facts"? I've posted links to google news, The BoM, postal facts which I can't post online but maybe someone could find something that is. I've found that you have been pushy to me and I'm not pushing my opinion Bidgee (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. As I've said, I can not read your mind, and you seem incapable of explaining yourself clearly and explicitly. Your vague and general statements may have meant something to you when you wrote them, but they only succeed in confusing me. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what I think. Each time you have done it, you have been wrong. By all means tell me what you think. Maybe then I will understand you.

Unlike you, I have not assumed anything. When you have made an unclear statement, I have said "I don't understand, please explain".

I have not chosen to assume bad faith.

I have not accused you of assuming bad faith.

I was not referring to those items you mentioned as the non-existant "facts".

As I said, "If you want my support, drop the opinions". Also stop making assumptions too.

Just stick to the facts. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"so stop trying to twist my words." - How can I twist your words when I don't understand them?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This was twisting my words [1].Bidgee (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And you said above you have chosen to pick a fight with me, chosen to insult me, and then chosen to start pulling non-existant "facts" out of thin air. Thats not assuming bad faith? You have upset me and really I could careless about this Article move and Wiki as a whole. Wikipedia's loss not mine. Bidgee (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

a) I still don't understand what you're talking about.

b) Let me see if I've got this straight. I tell you I sort-of agree with you, so you pick a fight with me, then you insult me, then you blame me for upsetting you. Is that right? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go again in the loop! I didn't pick a fight with you nor did I insult you. Bidgee (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already told you that I don't agree with that opinion.

Continuing this bit of the discussion is not likely to be very useful.

Shall we agree that we disagree, and get back to the topic of the name of the airport? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)