Jump to content

User talk:TheLongTone/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

R100 weights

Just had a read of R100. I spot that a number of weights in the prose are given in Short tons. eg gross lift around 156 short tons (142 t) uncited. The Flight article of 1929 gives an estimate of 156 tons which assuming Long tons is more like 170 short tons. Whatever the value is, it probably ought to be given in long tons. what do you think? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%... I'm not quite sure what a short ton is, but the usual UK measur is the long ton,no? (not to be confused with the LongTone) I've got Masefield to hand, so have all the data more or less to hand. I'm giving R100 a go, as you've noticed, but got sidelined by the Imperial Airship Scheme article, which seems to me where a comparison of the two ships belongs.

Btw is there a consensus on the gender of these things? The R101 article uses 'it', but r100 uses she at least once....she was used at the time, but I think modern use is it...any thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A short ton is also 20 hundredweight but using the US hundredweight which is only 100 pounds. I don't think either the R100 or R101 article can be entirely free of comparison because both have the same specification and were built at the same time under the glare of public interest. Regarding she/it - if I recall from the various Milhist/and Ships projects discussions either is acceptable, though the less romantic may prefer "it". When working on articles I worry more about the definite article with HMS Whatever to avoid saying "the His Majesty's Ship Whatever..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks...definately long tons in that case, not only is iy a UK topic but all primary sources will be long tons. I agee that it i impossible to avd some comprisons betweenthe airships in th individual articles, but I don't think that a detailed comparison belongs in either or both: the Airship scheme seems the best place to put it. Gender wise, I'm easy, but internal onsistency within articles is important, and I'd say desirable across the variety of articles on airships.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Mayflower, 9r, R36, R31 class, R33 class and R23 class are all currently using the feminine and, R100 and R101 excluding, they constitute most of the article space on British pre-war airships. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The figures are most certanly Long Tons. Where it all gets sticky is that the weights vary, according to exactly when taken, and lift depends on how full &c. I'm coming to loathe Masefield. Have you read it? If you have not, it's exhaustively reserched but very poorly organised. There are dozens of tables of weights &c, but they are very poorly collated. And its stucture is appalling, written like novel with flashbacks. It's as bad as Cloud Atlas. No, worse. But it seems to be the only serious print source. I am getting so pissed off I am thinking about writing a book on the subject myself.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
If the weights are so variable, your options (save writing the definitive work on the subject) are limited to:
Giving a range of values - "50 to 52 tons"
Specifying the exact circumstance "52 tons, at 1,000 ft, on a summer's day, with the wind in the east."
Using "aprox." and "about" a fair bit.
Perhaps I should look out for a copy of Masefield then, forewarned is forearmed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You won't find it in Oxfam. Current price on Abebooks is £81 upwards...a copy with an inscrition to Else Cave-Brown-Cave from author a snip at £95. I think Kimber are a semi-vanity publishing house & probably not many were printed. A proper publisher might have employed an editor to cut about 25% of the book's length to advantage. Masefield could easily sustain a wkipedia biog btw: look him up in the DNB if you have online access. From memory, he also wrote the DNB entry on Burney. R100-wise, I'll stick in the figures at the lift & trim trials. & I'd like to semi-undo your change to the table in the Airhip scheme article: tonnes are fine, but repeating the units imo simply enlarges the table, and in a way the units don't matter; its about a comparison of numbers.

I was thinking more inter-library loan, but thanks for the warning. I'm not wedded to the table so there's no problem. I think I'd try the table with volume as the first row since it is largely that which determines the weights. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, its a valuable work & very interesting in parts. An example of what I mentioned above is a pair of tables, two pages apart. Which more or less agree, but give two sets of weights for R100 (taken five days apart), which differ. It's a small difference, one quotes 18 LT as the servic load and the other 20 LT, but fewer better collatd tables would be much more useful.TheLongTone (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
And, changing the subject, why is it R100, not R.100. I know its the convention on Bitish airship articles, but most sources seem to use R.100 &c - was there some lengthy & acrid discussion long aWhtgo about this?TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
There is probably a passionate discussion somewhere in the talkpages of either the Aviation or Milhist projects or both. Generally I think it follows from the wikipedia style going away from abbreviations/contractions using full stops. (UK, USSR not U.K. and U.S.S.R. - though U.S. and USN just to be awkward) And this carries over into other designations though historicals do abound alongside the cleaner form of other period aircraft: Spitfire LF.IX, Saunders-Roe SR.53 and de Havilland DH 108. It can be a touchy subject (though not as bad as hyphens in ship class article titles). Generally "R100" has a more modern look to my eye. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I like my worms in the can: much better things to worry about...like article content or cooking dinner, but I do prefer the full stop because it separates letters & numbers: (a Spit LFIX?).

Talkback

Hello, TheLongTone. You have new messages at Talk:Okanagan Lake Shopping Centre.
Message added 22:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It is obviously notable, and certainly doesn't fall under "A7" for "speedy deletion"! TBrandley 22:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

replied on article talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Replied, regards. TBrandley 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Zeppelins

Hi, at List of Zeppelins, I see that you have amended a lot of HTML code from e.g. <div id=LZ16> to <div id=LZ 16>. Please note that this will break any inbound links, since the id= attribute cannot contain spaces unless it's quoted, as in <div id="LZ 16">. Try clicking on List of Zeppelins#LZ and List of Zeppelins#LZ 16 or a redirect like Zeppelin LZ16 to see where you end up. It also creates invalid HTML, since every id= must be unique, but you've set up 60+ identical IDs. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll go back & fix it...problem was that the naming convention for Zeppelins was wrong. I didn't know that the coding woud not accept spaces: I imagine the best solution would be to use the quotes, since the correct name format has the space. Any guidance would be most welcome, code is not my forteTheLongTone (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, after this fix it works fine. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Done 'em al now. Although its not very useful unless one is familiar with the mechanism: I've just back-checked one of the links to the page in question, & the link w simply to the article rather than the airships in question.TheLongTone (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, can't win 'em all, attention wanders during these repetitive tasks.TheLongTone (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

David McConaghie

Although I didn't agree with you, I appreciated your interest in this topic after experiencing some frustration with one other editor's constant objections to absolutely any mention of the subject. Could I ask you to revisit the AfD [1] page when you have a moment, and think about whether the added material, and talk page discussion, changes your mind about whether the whole article should be deleted? Even if you're still of the same view, I'd still be grateful for more than the couple of lines you've given us to date. Thanks. Brocach (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for deletion - Jerusalem Road 21

Greetings, Long Tone. You tagged my newly created article Jerusalem Road 21 for speedy deletion because of lack of notability. I strongly disagree. Think about it: A new road is being created in East Jerusalem between Arab neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods (which the international community considers illegal and calls settlements). Notable? Left-wing groups claim this is an effort to solidify Israel's hold on East Jerusalem. Notable? Milions of dollars are being spent on this endeavor which Israeli authorities claim will improve transportation in the city. Notable? I fully expect new sections to be added to the article detailing these various points of view. The article is only a stub right now, but its notability will increase as other editors add their two cents. I implore you to remove the speedy deletion tag and allow the roots to sprout. Also, please note that the article already exists on Hebrew Wikipedia. In my opinion, the English article (which includes references) is already far more comprehnsive than the Hebrew one. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent reason for considering this road notable, just add it to the article lead & remove the PROD notice if you have not already done so.TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Long Tone. I want to gather some reputable references first. Right now, however, I've gotta run. I will get to work in the next couple of days. You're really pushing me hard to do good work, huh? lol Take care, --@Efrat (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I'll remove the PROD.TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ooops, I'm afraid you made a minor mistake. Thanks for trying to help out with the ref, but the ref refers to a completely different highway. Furthermore, the ref is from Haaretz Premium which means it's not always available except to paid subscribers. It will take some time for me to get the proper refs for this highway, because it's so new and the media hasn't caught on!!! But I'm on it. Now that you removed the speedy deletion tag, the pressure is on to prove myself. lol Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I expanded the article with another reference and gleaned more facts from existing refs. Unfortunately, most of the refs are not in English, but this is true with many English Wikipedia articles about other countries. Hopefully, the English media will soon catch on to this subject. Intersetingly, I could only find one Palestinian reference that mentions the road. --@Efrat (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You've convinced me, and the article is relativly safe now since articles tend to get afd or PROD notices slapped on them when newly created since people keep an eye on the new article page to weed out the rubbish. Good luck with finding English language sources, my guess is that this will only get coverage as an inclusion in an article on whats going on generally. Since in essence this story has been going on since 1967 there's a certain amount of media fatigue.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If you ever come across any info, feel free to forward it to me. --@Efrat (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure thingTheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

EasySky Flight 735

I seconded your WP:PROD but I suspect someone will take the prod down before its 7-day expiration is up. When or if that happens, I'll AFD it. This is not a notable incident at all....William 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have speedied it, but I don't think there's an appropriate tag? TheLongTone (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Crashes like this are never speedied. An AFD might close as delete more rapidly than a prod. Look here[2], here[3] and here[4] for examples. AFDs can be unpredictable too if its a recent incident. LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016, a belly landing 767 which was videoed and therefore played over and over again. Fails WP:AIRCRASH but recentism prevailed at its AFD[5]. I'm thinking of proposing it for AFD once again. That can be done. Anyway I predict AFD will be where EasySky's ultimate fate and I think the result will be delete. It didn't happen in the US or Australia and wasn't videoed, so the recentism crowd are unlikely to participate....William 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Right you are, I'll do that the next time I come across a similar thing. Agree about the Polish incident, pilot must have greased it in though.TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Miller

I've seen your message. He's obviously notable, but my impression was that it was pretty pov. I'll have another look tomorrow to see whether to restore or sandbox for you, too tired at present. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Author obviously picked a couple of nice quotes to make him seem notable, but one does not start an article because somebody couldn't keep time & always showed up drunk. if you decide to dump it in my lap I'd rather you made it a userpage rather than put it in my sandbox, which has quite enough sand in it at the moment.TheLongTone (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I take that point, but most of the article is just a string of highly pov quotes from reviews. I wondered in fact if an article with so much of the content taken from elsewhere didn't come close to plagiarism, even if the sources were were acknowledged. Even the few bits that are not quotes or their sources are on the lines of Another one of Miller’s great accompaniments.... Not sure what you intend by userfy (yours, the original creator's) but he's posted the text on my talk page, so you can take it from there. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd favor putting the article as edited into the creator's user space if possible: I added nome wikilinks, formatting & a picture, but I've no sources whatsover (I listen to music rather than read about it) & have no idea what makes a reliable source for adding cites.TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bland Mayfly

The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hubert Le Blon

Hello TheLonTone, I have compiled a page on Hubert Le Blon, and have thus mentioned the 1910 Olympia Show and the Humber (le Blon type) aircraft. But I am unsure what the official name ofthe 1910 show was, so could I ask you to check HLB and comment/fix it. Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s. What do you intend to call your article, I would like to link it from HLB.

Seems to have been called the Aero Exhibition. I'm afrid the article in my userpages is stalled at the moment, needs something other than a list of aircraft. 'm not very good at finishing things...TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go with that. Neither am I, that's why I publish and DYK immediately and let others do the rest. :) Chienlit (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The LeBlon article looks pretty complete to me...that cite needed tag should be fixable, I'll have a look at the Flight archive.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Excellent work! I don't know how and why I created the page in mainspace (i.e. missed "User" in the URL)! Great work! Best, Tito Dutta (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

easy mistake to make...Thanks!TheLongTone (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey TheLongTone; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions of Porridge Episode pages

Hi,

I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Porridge episodes. I have every intention of editing them to the standard of other episode type pages. You see, I was in a rush this morning, and I thought it would be good to get the basics first. I hope you understand.

Eddie655321 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

About Oberoi splendor grande

Hi, I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Oberoi splendor grande. I have edited the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberoirealty0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Like fun you have.TheLongTone (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi,

I got your messages about the proposed deletion of pages I made for Oberoi splendor grande. I have edited the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberoirealty0 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Legiotex

Hello and thanks for your help. It is the second time I write the article Legiotex. I modified and removed parts that were promotional. But I see no way to make it more encyclopedic than promotional. It is need to write an article in Wikipedia for the realization of a European project. I would appreciate any advice for changing and modifying the page. To see if the third time's charm. Thank you again. Rubendesign (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Millennium Kitchen

Hello TheLongTone. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Millennium Kitchen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Created a notable game series is enough for A7. Needs to go to AfD if youo think it should be dleted. Thank you. GedUK  12:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


funmela article for speedy deletion

funmela This page should not be speedily deleted because... (because we still editing in the article ,first we just add it with links to check how it looks to describe full info of website content but trust it there is nothing that are promotional we just describe the website history with its specialities and content of catagories. but its still looks like promotional so we can change the whole article without external link ,so please remove speedy deletion tag) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funmela (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

AFerry

Hi, can you please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoldenClockCar/AFerry now and let me know if this is okay. If it is I will publish it. If you think there should be changes, I will make them. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenClockCar (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

wrong decision

I was not hungry to waste my time too much to create the article.i just wanted to help Wikipedia. I visited the page, list of article requested for creation/business. In order to help Wikipedia I wasted my whole day to create this article and my whole hard work was reduced to rubble by your just one click. I gave all the needed refrences and you stated the reason for deletion as just important, if it was not impoptant then why you people list it on articles needed for creation page.go to hell wikipediaAmericanluck (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I knew nothing of this having been listed as an article for creation. As it stands the article does need to establish notability. And your article has not been reduced to rubble by just one click. Try to be polite.TheLongTone (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) hey don't say that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics#Accounting. go to and you will find the truth. thanks for your work to so called improving wikipediaAmericanluck (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

CYAN Networks

Hi, care to respond? thanks Albi the Dragon (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To what??TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

inclusion criteria for aviation pioneers

Hi LongTone- I've attempted a very rough draft of inclusion criteria for aviation pioneers in my sandbox along with the table format list. I'd like to get your feedback on it and perhaps tweak it a bit before bringing it to the list talk page. It's just a draft, and I'm very open to suggestions. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem partly springs from the title, List of aviation pioneers. This is because it means something very different from 'list of pioneer aviators', a popularly used term which can include pretty much anything pre-14. After 1909-10 much of the flying isn't particularly pioneering, just dangerous. The article as it stood seemed to concentrate on pioneer construction, with a couple of firsts like Alcock & Brown and Brindejonc de Moulinais, a rather minor competition pilot pre-war & WW1 service. ( &train crash of a machine-translated article). I don't really see that the pre-14 & post-14 divide is helpful: someone either makes a notable contribution or they don't.
Significant contributions in at least one of the following
Scientific contribution to theory and principles (whether correct or not) that were used as contemporary resources, building blocks, or influenced period thought;
Designing an aircraft (exclusive of pure reproduction)/Constructing a prototype aircraft (or the direction and supervision of construction);Certainly not in itself remarkanbe post 1909
Manufacturing aircraft for commercial and/or military contracts;
Flying (Aviator) solo in an aircraft (??AND receiving certification as a pilot??)There must be three thousand or more licenses by 14
Supporting aviation (e.g., positive publicity; personal, corporate and/or philanthropic sponsorship, education).


(((Model aircraft??)))significant models come under the scientific research.TheLongTone (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... Thanks for the feedback, it is helpful. I'm thinking it is better to be more restrictive in the criteria (and force the occasional talk page discussion) versus having a list that is diluted by people why did not actually leave a lasting mark in aviation. I will revise.-Godot13 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Without stringency the list will become impossibly (& hence uselessly) long. With early pilots I think they have to have won important awards, established records or made some significant contribution.TheLongTone (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hey, just let you know that I declined the speedy on The Trade Off. It looks like it was released traditionally in DVD format, so it isn't really covered by A7. If it was an internet only release on something like YouTube or the like I could probably justify it, but it doesn't seem the case. The page is just neutrally written enough to where I'd probably say that it can't be speedied through anything we have now, so AfD would be the way to go with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, I think I've established notability for the director, but there's not really any notability for the films. If they're un-redirected then we could probably take them to AfD, but I hope that it won't come to that. The only one I had to nominate was Vault of Terror, as it was actually a compilation DVD from several different people and lacks a clear redirect target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
seems a good solution.TheLongTone (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sean Lane (Entrepreneur)

Hello Frze,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sean Lane (Entrepreneur) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: You can delete this page. Please talk to User talk:Weswolf88, I copied the content from here. --Frze Disk 14:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop to inform me again and again. I am not interested in this page. Ping User talk:Weswolf88 to stop him to remove the speedy deletion template. --Frze > talk 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing, I worked out that you just did the rename.TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcel Brindejonc des Moulinais, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Marne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag

Hi, I hope you are doing well. You tagged an article I created for speedy deletion. The article shouldn't be deleted because the company is notable for an annual event it organizes and its investments. Please check Al Tamimi Investments and The Big Start in Google News and Google. ThanksMuhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined Al Tamimi Investments speedy

Hey, just thought I'd drop you a note to say that I declined the speedy on Al Tamimi Investments. Notability is still in question, but the contest they run has received some news coverage, which makes it squeak by the speedy rationale. It'd probably be better off at AfD if you want to pursue further deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I put the thing about A7 on the Religare talk page; thanks for getting to that so quickly! Jjcooper0811 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Julian peintre listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peter Julian peintre. Since you had some involvement with the Peter Julian peintre redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TheLongTone (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caudron Type A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines

Hi,

This is just to let you know that I was intending to merge the important facts from the chronological lists into the main text, and ditch the rest. So it may not be worth tidying them too conscientiously. If you have other ideas, please do tell on the article talk page. Many thanks for helping, too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, although I do think the lists are quite useful. It's good work you're doing, the article was a train wreck.TheLongTone (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You do train wrecks an injustice. I'll think about the lists a bit more before I wreck them too, then. ;) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

simplehuman marked for deletion

Hi,

As I noted on the simplehuman page itself, I don't believe this article should be deleted for lack of asserted importance because I believe it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Specifically, Wikipedia's own notability article states that "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2)Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources. simplehuman undoubtedly meets both of these criteria. It is a well-known brand that sells across the US and internationally (in all the biggest home product retail chains) and the uncontested leader in high-end trash cans. It has been covered by almost every major publication (I cited the NY Times and Business Week alone in the short posting) not because of any PR campaign, but because their products have a much better design, are more durable, and have better technology than any other products out there. Far less notable companies have pages of their own. While the page could be better, and I am willing to make whatever changes are necessary to make it meet the guidelines, it's very hard to argue the legitimacy and notability of the company. Please let me know what changes you think would help the article stick!

Thanks so much, Roth3nyk (Talk) 08:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Make some claim of notability on the lead.TheLongTone (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, updated. Can you check it out now and remove the tag if it's better? Thanks again for the feedback! Roth3nyk (Talk) 08:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Done but a ref for the claim would be good.TheLongTone (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddingley

I've declined your speedy as A7 doesn't fit. It's a pair of murders and subsequent court proceedings, not a person or persons. It's not one as well known as, say, Maria Marten, but national interest is claimed. Could do with more refs, but that's not easy for that date. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Zipwhip

Hi TLT- Do you have your pilots license certificate? Have you been up to Oshkosh for the big fly-in each year?

So I'm writing you because of your notice on the page I created called Zipwhip. Can you please remove the notice since the significance is explained? Tolberg jeremy (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do anything for a cup of virtual tea. And the notability claim is plausible.TheLongTone (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Enjoy Tolberg jeremy (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: 15Five

Hello TheLongTone, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 15Five, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Where??TheLongTone (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean where does the article make a credible assertion of importance or significance? If so, I'd say that last paragraph does it. The paragraph claims the project got over $1 million in funding from several notable groups and individuals. That's enough to pass WP:CSD#A7. I'm not saying that the article's notable or shouldn't be deleted; I don't really have an opinion on that as I haven't done enough researching. I hope this helps! (BTW, if you reply here, could you place {{ping|cymru.lass}} at the front of your reply so I'll get a notification about it? Thank you!) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WBA

I've deleted the talk page too. The template off the speedy notice unfortunately brought the title with it. I've replaced it with a Level 3 vandalism, as I can't find a specific for attack in Twinkle. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand. Or rather, I'm entirely sure I don't understand.....!TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That one you tagged as attack - part of the attack was in the title. It was easier deleting the talk page than doing a revdel. I can't be more specific without repeating the thing... WBA normally stands for West Bromwich Albion, but not this time. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A subtlety of nastiness I'd missed!TheLongTone (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

stop banning my stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super jard (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Propertini

Hi TheLongTone,

I saw your comment on the Propertini talk page. I did dig into this deeper. Seems they're reasonably notable. So maybe on balance worth keeping. Though I'm happy to discuss further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobski58 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

mmm. I see no assertion of real notability, the company is of very recent origin, & they do not seem to be doing anything particularly novel. And I am very suspicious of all the posts supporting the article's retention. I've never seen this before in an article I've flagged for CSD.TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleriot

Hi, thanks for your interest. Actually I did source this material from the 1978 book The Wright Brothers: Heirs of Prometheus. The book was put out by the Smithsonian in 1978. It's important in that when the Wrights reneged on making the flight, and Wilbur would have probably been successful, it left the window open for Bleriot, the Count de Lambert and Hubert Latham. Several knowledgeable authors participated in the Wright Brothers book ie Tom Crouch, Richard P. Hallion, Paul Garber, Marvin McFarland. I didn't know there was a singular wiki article on the Daily Mail/Channel Prize itself so you may have a point. My inclusion of the paragraph in the Bleriot article is that Bleriot eventually made and won the flight. Indeed, one of the authors stated that "..I cast no shadows over Bleriot, he made a glorious flight in a doubtful aeroplane". Koplimek (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at the Daily Mail article it's a list more than an article, & couldn't take the weight. I wasn't impugning the general accuracy of what you added, (Hallion is reliable, as is the Smithsonian unless you're a Whitehead fanboy) but I think the WB's motives for not taking place were certainly more than the money not being enough. It's also interesting that they did not take part in the Grand Semaine d'Aviation at Reims, where there was a lot of money to be had... and I would have thought fabulous schmoozing opportunities. However I do get the impression that Wilbur didn't really do schmoozing...TheLongTone (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree 'paltry' wasn't good wordage. Based on 1910 dollars - 1,000 pounds equaled about 5,000 US dollars. Indeed Wilbur's European tour was a marked success and Northcliffe, IMHO, wanted the Channel flight to be made safely and witout loss of life to any aviator; thus demonstating safe and reliable flight, that's probably why the offer was made to Wilbur exclusively. In the 'Wright Brothers: Prometheus' book there is a picture of Wilbur, his sister Katharine, Louis Bleriot, and three Wilbur pupils, the Count de Lambert, Capt. Lucas de Girardsville and Paul Tissandier. I was recently comparing Lord Northcliffe's Daily Mail prizes: the 1909 Channel Prize, the 1910 London-to-Manchester prize, and the 1913-1919 Atlantic Crossing prize to the Raymond Orteig prize for the first New York-to-Paris flight. Hardly any lives were lost in the Northcliffe/Daily Mail prize attempts though some aircraft such as Lathams Antoinette(1909) and Raynahm's Martinside(1919) came down in water. But six men were killed trying to win the Orteig prize in 1926-27 which was eventually won by Lindbergh. Just a thought.Koplimek (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Lord Northcliffe's aim was certainly to encourage aviation rather than to merely sell newspapers. (shame that today's Daily Mail is such a venomous and contemptible rag. (IMO!) But I think Hawker & his navigator were lucky to be pulled out of the ocean, and likewise Alcock & Brown very nearly spun in during the flight, as I recall. I know zip about the other Orteig prize attempts...the more I learn, the more I discover how much I don't know.TheLongTone (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done

Do not restore the personal attack

Just because you didn't say the word "fuck" doesn't mean it wasn't a personal attack. Stop stirring things up when they need to cool down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm afraid that I don't see how one can describle this editor's intolerable behaviour to him without using terms that could be construed as an attack. And since I imagine that you reverted without looking at the edit in detail, near the top I had interpolated a comment which you may have missed. He had said something along the lines of 'I got called a prat today but didn't go crying to Mummy'. It was me that called him a prat. Which I know is not civil but I am not going to resort to elaborate circumlocution when the person has A] just told me to fuck off and b) explicitly expressed their contempt for WP:CIVIL. Not to mention the abusive and disingenuous edit summaries that he has left. But you are right....there are fights you can win by walking away, and this is one, in terms of my dispute with the creature. I do, however, entirely fail to see why he is allowed to remain on WP, let alone be an admin.TheLongTone (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mattress World of Michigan

Hi! I found some additional sources for Mattress World of Michigan. I have restored the article after adding three new sources. Two come from a national Furniture-centered publication and one is from an Indianapolis-based newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dunne-Huntington triplane

Hi,

Stumbling across your sub-page, I thought you might be interested in this letter from the Science Museum, published in Flight, 1955. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh cripes, my guilty secretthe horrible number of attempts to do articles that have foundered on the rocks of insufficient sources or sheer inanition...forgot that I had attempted to start this one. I'm separated from the bulk of my library at the moment, but seem to remember that I didn't think what there was in British Aircraft 1809-1914 was enough for even a stub. Thanks anyway....that Gloster scooter is rather cute, isn't it!TheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

John Weston

Hi! Just dropping by to say thanks for continuing the work on this article - fixing the things I missed. I would have gone back to look for typos etc but I hope the edit I did meets with the general approval of the early aviation team. The article was sadly quite terrible and I hope it is now a bit better or at least a base to work on. In passing, have you read Jem Shaw's novel "The Larks"? It is a nice WWI aviation based tale and quite well written for a first novel. Jem is an early aviation enthusiast as is his brother, the English actor, Martin Shaw :-) Kind regards, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I encountered this article a while back & did a bit of copyediting, but very cautious compared to yours (!)...the article is now approaching a reasonable length. I'm very dubious about some of the early aviation claims, though.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Karl_Pierson

Please visit Talk:Karl_Pierson as soon as convenient, and then stop being a vandal. BitBus | Talk 12:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism my curvy pink butt. If anyone is guily of disruptive editing it is you: the article on the shooting is almost certainly going to be changed to a redirect, as will your article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Good call on the redirect but as the target is also up for deletion I have sent this to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Pierson. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. My second reirect was to the appropriate section of the school article, since I saw that the first target was a fair way to the dumper, & I've also mentioned the issue on the AfD discussion for the incident article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessica090

Some people do not understand. That guy thinks blanking the talk means there remains no evidence. FYI, leave him alone, I have reported him to WP:AIV. Good luck, Ethically (Yours) 13:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

One does lose patience with such editors.TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just don't get warned for edit warring; They are perfectly entitled to do it if it makes them feel good about it :P --Mdann52talk to me! 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just for a short note; your talk is on my watchlist and while on my mobile I accidentally pressed the rollback that I have. I have self-reverted my edits. Ethically (Yours) 06:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Colin Morison

Just created Oscar Colin Morison but a bit thin on information on his flying career, appreciate any additions to it if you have anything, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wilco. I'm attempting to do Graham Gilmour, but don't hold your breath. On the plus side, I have managed to bring myself to put up an article on the first Deperdussin design.TheLongTone (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK - I like Deperdussin 1910 monoplane a nice article, most of these early 1910s aviators have an intersting story somewhere, might had a look at some of the others when I get time. Might be some mileage in Astley he gets mentioned a few times. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The horrible saga of the Deperdussin article is largely your fault...you put up the article on the 1912 British Military aircraft trials & I remember blithely remarking that the redlinked French types should be identifiable. Little did I know....TheLongTone (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, we have enough confusion with early British machines never mind the French. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The pleasure is entirely mine. I was entirely unaware of the almost complete lack of reliable published sources on early French aircraft: nothing remotely comparing to the Putnam series on British types. I now know a great deal more about early French types, but the knowledge has only added to my confusion!TheLongTone (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

good work

catching the copyvios from another editor (Percivale Liesching and others) . As reviewing administrator, I've dealt with these by reducing the articles to minimal stubs as an alternative to deletion. It's a preferred alternative, and serves as a place marker. Deletion is also a good way to deal with them, and if I had not had the time to immediately stubbify, I would have deleted, as I have done many hundreds of times over the years.

Unfortunately, the editor does not seem to understand, I have given him an unmistakable warning, and I shall follow it up with blocking if necessary. Everything you said to him was absolutely correct, and I hope you were not put off by the tone of his replies. . But if you see any further before I do , let me know on my talk page. WP relies on us all to maintain standards. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Water off a duck's back. All these people are very borderline notable, imoTheLongTone (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
He kept going. I've blocked him until he can show he understands. As for notability , anyone with a full entry in the DNB is unquestionably notable, and probably also anyone with an editorial obit in the Times. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Bad news. I saw that he had recreated a couple of deleted articles with a one line entry, & he's certaily been fiddling with his creations & was being civil & sensible on his talk page, as you may have seen. Re notability, a lot of establishment figures get entries for no really good reason. Imo. TheLongTone (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down to Earth (Bee Gees song)

Hello TheLongTone, you shouldn't bundle articles in with another editor's AFD especially when comments have already been made. What you should do is create an AfD for In the Summer of His Years (Bee Gees song) and then bundle the other 3 articles there. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines say should be near the start of the discussion...since the only "vote" so far has been mine & I am in a discussion with the nominator of the article about this editor is there a real problem? There are at least seventyfive of these witless articloids. However, I think I've had it for tonight. I'll put another bundle up tomorrow, I think more than half a dozen to ten per nomination is enough???TheLongTone (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Alexf did something similar in the past and was reverted & had to create a new AfD discussion. I know it's a pain in the behind given the vast amount of seemingly non-notable articles, but think it's probable best you create a new AfD and bundle there. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well as I said it's way past my bedtime, so I'll leave it to tomorrow & if the additions get reverted so be it. As I said, I'll start a new AfD for some of the articles then. The articles are unquestionably (imo) non-notable, several have notability tags on them & one has even been PRODed since May & anothe got deleted at AfD very recently.TheLongTone (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess if User:EatsShootsAndLeaves clarifies his position on the articles you've bundled, it's not a big deal. I'll leave it with you. Good night. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at his talk page. & for more (the horror, the horror) take a look at my sandbox...item one, "hitlist". Now I really am off to bed.TheLongTone (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been monitoring his talk page and had to delsort most of those AfD's and I also just looked at his articles created via tools that's quite an inconvenience he's caused. He should be blocked if he creates any similar articles in the coming days. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Going to do another bundle or two today, I'll put the delsort tags in as well. But I'd rather be adding content.TheLongTone (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Overstreet

Hi. Given your recent work on Eiffel Tower and your interest in aviation, I wondered if you were aware of this. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Very lucky to get away with it imo!TheLongTone (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any old iron: Eiffel Tower

The English term is certainly puddled iron. The French term "fer puddle" is obviously a use of the English word puddle (small pool). Puddling was a process for producing wrought or bar iron. I will leave you to correct the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.TheLongTone (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I didn't know that wikipedia has such wise editors. Thanks to your efforts. Nanderovski (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

While I was sending that I wanted to test it's real or not. Because it was like a joke to send someone a badge in a such serious site. I am new with writing in Wiki and I don't how it works actually. As the time goes I guess I will learn the procedures better. I agree with your conclusion and thanks for your baklava. It's a kind of irony that as the contributors of the Wiki are searching for notability, some of the sportsmen and artists have nothing to do with making contributions to the world. They are just gaining and spending money. Nanderovski (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The White prisoner delete

Here is a brief list of sources with their internet editions, who are reviewing the book, they are on Bulgarian language

Bulgarian national newspapers: 24 hours: http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=2670458 Monitor: http://www.monitor.bg/article?id=412292 Trud: http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=2670436 Duma: http://duma.bg/node/68951

TV Here is interview with the author of the book Ognian Georgiev at the morning show of Nova TV – one of the national TV stations in Bulgaria on 11 January. Starting from 54 minute. http://play.novatv.bg/program/sbudise

Radio Here is interview with the author at the national “Darik” radio station with one of the most popular radio announcers Nikolay Kantchev. Here the author was asked if he plans to translate and to Publish the book in Portugal and he answered that probably first it will be published in Germany, because Boevski competed in a German club years ago. http://radio.dariknews.bg/?page=audio&id=231490

The book is published in Bulgaria just 20 days ago after the huge interest of the arrest and sentence of the Olympic champion Boevski 2 years ago, which was noticed by the news around the world from Europe to New Zealand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celibat (talk • contribs) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Hi. I want to let you know that I declined speedy deletion on the page you tagged, Haian He, as it's not eligible under the speedy deletion criteria because it provides a credible claim of notability. Regards, Alex discussion ★ 19:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Doing a PhD is a credible assertion of notability? You jest. OK, I'll waste people's time at AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AlifLif

Hey, just letting you know that the article for AlifLif is the work of a person who has been trying to re-introduce hoax articles on Wikipedia. I've tagged it accordingly and opened up an SPI here in order to try to find any further socks. In any case, I was wondering if you could help keep an eye out for any similarly themed articles, as I don't think that they'll stop until they get their IP blocked or similar. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do. Saw the 'album' was a recreation. I see you've tagged AlifLif for a speedy, I PROD tagged it before doing any digging about....thought I'd led the PROD stand until either a bogus source was inserted or article creator removed it.TheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of If I Fall Back Down - A Punk Rock Memoir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article If I Fall Back Down - A Punk Rock Memoir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If I Fall Back Down - A Punk Rock Memoir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Holiday (EP)

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Holiday (EP). The reason I declined it is because records by artists who have articles (in this case, Bee Gees) aren't covered by any of the criteria for speedy deletion. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheLongTone/Archive_2&oldid=1139367833"