G'day, the list that you have been editing is limited to those airlines which bought DC-3s brand new between 1935 and 1941; and Capital Airlines, which was the only airline to buy Super DC-3s after World War II. Pacific Western doesn't meet the inclusion criteria; it was established after WWII, and therefore could not have been an original operator of DC-3s. About half an hour of online research reveals that Lamb Air operated C-47s and a C-53, so it is out as well; and TCA only operated Lockheeds prior to the war, not obtaining DC-3s until 1946, so it also doesn't meet the criteria. If you can find reliable sources for any Canadian operators ordering DC-3s from Douglas prior to WWII, by all means add them to the list. Otherwise please stop making the changes. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you look at note 3, you'll see that these are figures for the British Empire. This obviously included Canada, so adding a separate Canadian figure is double-counting. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Tornto Maple Leafs. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Canada. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This constitutes a really long edit war. As you'll see, I'm not the only one who recognizes the sentiments in the hidden comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Canada. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]