User talk:Jmcc150/Archive3

Need help for Birkenhead School crest licence

Could you help me sort out this licence for this image for the school. Image:00026birk.gif

Thanks Chrismorrisbhead (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a photo

Dear Sir,

My name is Pablo de Leon, from Buenos Aires, Argentina. I am working in a short book about space activities in Argentina. Erich Bachem went to Argentina after the war and stayed there until the '60s. I am writting about the Bachem Ba 349 Natter and I've found the excellent picture you posted in the article about it here. I was wondering if you might be so kind to allow me to use your photo in my book, with the proper credit to yourself. If possible please write me to deleon@aate.org

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Pablo de Leon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.224.33 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new Oxbridge user box

Jmcc150...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB FAR

I have responded to your comments. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I await your response. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the FAR for the time being. Please raise your concerns in the article's talk page. I am confident that they will be resolved without a month-long FAR process since the article has ample attention as a result of its recent main page exposure. Regards, Joelito (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you doubt it was up to FA standard or whether the article's topic was relevant enough to be an FA? Calling it an aberration, in my opinion, suggests that you favor the latter. In any case my suggestion (and the other FAR directors', Marskell and Raul654) is that your concerns be brought to the talk page. If they are not addressed to your liking then you may bring the article to FAR. Joelito (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glider specs

If you're using the {{Aircraft specifications}} template then some of the additional performance specs could be added using the more performance field - the competion class could probably stay in the infobox. You could also try asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-2, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tanvir che (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the name S.H. Georgeson to Dick Georgeson, this is the reason of my reversion. However I'm sorry and thank you for your notice. Tanvir che (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy

Re your change at Wirral Peninsula, see my comment here. I'll take it that you agree with me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I didn't mean to cause offence. My comment here also. Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation WikiProjects

I apologize, both for the typo and the mistaken assumption. I've added it to Category:Sports WikiProjects; hope that's okay. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary glider

The two new links you added in the See also section of this article are red links. WP:SEEALSO states that the links in this section should contain blue links only:The optional See also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reformatting. By the way, on what basis you perceived me as a bot? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu

Glad to find someone working so hard to find references! It's needed doing for a very long time. I felt a little bad about forgetting to write an edit summary when I removed that section. garik (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Costello

Before considering removing you edit to Birkenhead consider this, his parents or one of them was from Birkenhead while another was from Liverpool. You cannot dismiss this relevence he even admits his connections to Merseyside Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't get involved in rules, if only! All I know is how tenuous some claims are in certain locations - however Elvis Costello would probably be happy himself to link himself to Birkenhead and Liverpool. I have put on his page one link regarding a Liverpool Echo report of him visting the Liverpool Philharmonic today and I have another link to put on which has a more indepth interview. When I can. Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airbrakes

I wanted to refer to airbrakes in commenting on an image in Cotswold Gliding Club, but found the article on Air brake (aircraft)|airbrakes a bit unsatisfactory—at least as far as gliding is concerned. I then noticed that Gliding doesn't say anything much about either landing in general or airbrakes in particular. Do you think something should be added to either or both articles? --User:Ndsg|NigelG (or Ndsg) | User talk:Ndsg|Talk 08:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

John, thanks for your prompt reply. I think a link to Spoiler is what I was looking for. Following your reference had the additional spinoff of leading me to the excellent annotated Image:Glider_Cockpit.JPG! All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re your comment Photo taken by John DeRosa. He was specifically contacted and permission for free within Wikipedia was granted.: I don't think WP is too keen on this sort of conditional permission. If it's on WP, the theory goes, anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial use. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Little Dutch Girl

I need help on an illustration and history section for Pretty Little Dutch Girl. Angie Y. (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AAH

Hey, If you would read the talk page for this article you would realize that consensus has been reached about what should and what should not be in the article. If you have problems with this then bring it up on the talk page. I will be reverting back to the old version as your information is actually not actually "referenced to a highly respectable source." Also, please assume good faith .--Woland (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, I responded on the AAH talk page. --Woland (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've definitely wandered unknowingly into plenty of controversial articles, I think that this was actually what got me started with the AAH article. The worst ever for me was this article. Anyway, happy editing and remember; All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Woland (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Morgan

Hi Jmcc150, I see that you have added some more details to Elaine Morgan but have trouble to find the original sources for some piece of information (e.g. the Prix Italia for "Joey" IMDB) (I'd like to augment the german WP article). Since this was a collaboration together with director Brian Gibson I suspect that the award was given for the documentary as whole rather than Morgan personally? The Bafta Cymru website seems to lists awards back only to 1991. --Drahkrub (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sailplane & Gliding

I have nominated Sailplane & Gliding, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailplane & Gliding. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Brilliantine (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:AT0134.jpg

Image:AT0134.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Remorqueur Pawnee.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Remorqueur Pawnee.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for wading hypothesis

Hey dude, I was just wondering if you have a citation for further weight to the theory is given by the similarities of the human pelvis to that of Oreopithecus bambolii, an extinct ape that lived in marshes. ; specifically where someone has mentioned it as evidence for this. No big deal, I'm just a stickler for references and original research.--Woland (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. --Woland (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Howard

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to edit the material you submitted to fit WP guidelines regarding speculation WP:SPECULATION and reliable sources WP:Sources, WP:QS, etc.. The website cited does not stand up under a number of WP criteria for reliability, and the remarks that "the whole truth may not be known until..." is contrary to WP:Speculation. An adequately sourced statement that something more specific than "the files" exist and an equally adequately sourced statement as to the nature and location of those files, who controls them, and what policy guides their restriction, would go a long way toward making this information viable for WP. As it stands, it's no more encyclopedic than a link to a website run by Lee Harvey Oswald's nephew stating that "the truth about the Kennedy assassination may not be known until some files somewhere are opened" would be. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glider & sailplane

You have left the glider article in a half-finished state and duplicated much of it in the sailplane article. Much of the glider article still refers mainly to sailplanes and even says as much in the terminology section. Very little new, if anything, has been added and the result is less logical than before you started. Have you changed your mind part way through or are you coming back for further editing sessions? Are you going to complete what you started or should I revert your changes? I would also be interested to know about experience of gliding. JMcC (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to draw a line and do this now; it should have been split before. These splits are never entirely clean and it will take some time to get the rough edges off. The previous article talked almost exclusively about sailplanes, which is almost fair enough, but there was no general article on gliders and the article didn't do what it said on the tin, which isn't. I was not trying to add any new material, I was separating the existing material. I'm sorry if you think that the end result is less logical right now, but I'm completely certain that the end result will be worth it, and once the rough edges are off, the articles will actually be about what they say they are about. I deliberately created some slight duplication during the split, this is unlikely to last long, either it will be refactored or the two pieces will diverge over time. We certainly should not revert, we really do need to take an eventualistic approach in the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just reduce the quality of an article and hope that someone else will sort it out at some future time. When are you going to finish what you started? I would have been ashamed to leave an article in this state. If it does not improve, I will revert it. JMcC (talk)

Nice attitude. Attitude determines altitude, I'm steering upwards.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you think the glider article reaches your personal standard of quality. I am staying clear for the moment. JMcC (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your energetic language in WP:Aviation leaves me to pity the state of mind that produced it. Expletives, even if abbreviated, do not indicate someone in a rational state. JMcC (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. Please stop harassing me, or I will act to get you banned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds should I be banned? I have only disagreed with you, and when I did so, I used only moderate language. People are allowed to have different opinions, upsetting as this might be for some. I merely suggested that you do not make postings when you have lost your temper. JMcC (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving these comments as a badge of honour. Some bombastic people find it difficult to deal with people who contradict them and so lose their temper.JMcC (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escalating rhetoric is not an effective communication tool- unless all that you want to communicate is emotion; you're both in the same sand box with the rest of us- stop throwing the sand.--Mavigogun (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glider re-organisation

Hi Jmcc150 - per your request on my talk page to help untangle this; I've actually moved Sailplane over its redirect from Glider since this seemed to be the shortest route to get to the point you were aiming for. Is this OK? As things stand right now, we have Glider (aircraft) and Unpowered aircraft as near-duplicates in scope. How would you like to proceed? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Use

You said at Talk:Glider:

However I think the phrase "Language is a growing, morphing, subject thing" helps make my point about literacy. JMcC (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The above acts far better as an illustration of adding unproductive noise to the talk page, and doesn't serve the article in any way- in fact, quite the contrary: it is derisive, sucking energy from productive work.--Mavigogun (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:DuoDiscus1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:DuoDiscus1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of articles

Hi again Jmcc150 and many thanks for your feedback. Actually, it's the other articles that have been rescoped that I'm interested in; I've already seen that there's presently a lack of consensus over the scope of "Glider"!

Secondly, while I appreciate the compliment, I'd just like to say that the "heroic battling" metaphor doesn't sit comfortably with me. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collegiate environment in which we discuss our differences and hopefully arrive at something that everyone can live with. If there's a battle, it's against vandals and spammers and not against people like Wolfkeeper who I'm sure (as much as I vehemently disagree with him) is acting in what he genuinely believes to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, just as you do and I do. I'm sure that you haven't forgotten our past feuds; you certainly helped to broaden my outlook, and I can only hope that I did the same to some extent. :)

I think you are misreading the page history of WP:NPOV – those anonymous edits are clearly the work of somebody trying to make a point about Palestine.

On a tangentially-related matter, this whole fracas has alerted me to the fact that we actually lack an article on gliding as a mode of flight (while we've got a really good article on autorotation!) I'm not sure of the best place to park such an article, and something would have to be worked out to accommodate both it and the article on the sport of the same name. Sometime after the dust settles maybe! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard

Hi. You're the subject of a post on AN here. FYI. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging histories comment

I actually made it in response to the comment I put it under, but that doesn't mean you can't heed its advice :) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkeeper

Hi. I was on Wolfkeepers talk page and saw that you were encountering difficulties similar to what I’m going through here on an ANI regarding his behavior. Can you please explain what you have been experiencing with him. Please reply on my talk page. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been involved and am watching all contribs with more than a passing interest. I withdrew from discussions when I realised that any reasonable argument I put forward was always countered with a torrent of nonsense. All I can say is that you guys have my support and obviously have far more patience than I do at the moment. One way or the other this unconstructive ranting and incivility needs to be ended. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (Unpaid gliding instructor with a 'conflict of interest')[reply]

Hudson River landing

I've added a note to the Talk section of US_Airways_Flight_1549, pointing out the possible importance of the captain's training as a glider pilot. Perhaps you'd like to comment ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References & Citations

Thanks for the message, I do not think that adding inline citations in an aviation article would make it unique among those articles. See this aviation article: Blue Yonder Merlin uses inline citations... RP459 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redefining gliding

What a tedious discussion this is! I'll add my 2 cents' worth, but I really don't feel tempted to enter the debate full time, I'm afraid. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

It's self evident from your edits that you are edit warring, and further are aware of the 3RR rule. You may not be aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement. Nevertheless I couldn't find any evidence of you ever being formally notified so:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By way of explanation, an unsupported statement was made that was at least ambiguous. With no citation forthcoming, it was reversed. JMcC (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glider

Hi Jmcc, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]