User talk:Denniss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Bombing of Wieluń in World War II

At Talk:Bombing of Wielun in World War II you asked a question. Could you explain your problems a bit? Halibutt 19:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of World War II electronic warfare equipment

FYI I have moved the list of code words from H2S radar in to List of World War II electronic warfare equipment. I have added it to a category:World War II electronics. Philip Baird Shearer 02:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German WWII redirects.

I have speedied the "Pazerwagen", I am inclined to leave the other two. Capitalization is likely to be mis-entered, and while you are doubtless correct about the naming convention for aeroplanes, the designation Junkers JU87B-1 returns enough hits to validate a redirect as far as I can tell. If you think I am wrong, you could perhaps stick them on the Redirects for Deletion page? Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 01:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hp vs. PS

You changed the units in the BMW 802 article from hp to PS, and then re-calculated the kW numbers, apparently based on the PS values. I would like to know what source you used to decide to make either of these changes. The source I am using is a 1946 copy of Jane's All The World's Aircraft Engines, which lists values for this engine, and every other, in hp.

Maury 21:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you really sure Jane's used imperial hp or just translated PS into hp ? I have no source but these PS/hp-ratings you used are too fine to be recalculated from PS to imperial hp. --Denniss 21:29, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

[edit] Leopard Split

Those are some very valid points! I ran out of time to check for redirects on that article- yes it is important to get those, and ditto for minimizing smaller m edits. Muchenhaeser 19:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok I did not find any double redirects, so it was fine. The only issue was that pages in other wikis link to the wrong page! Perhaps you with your german and french accounts could change the links on there respective pages to the leo 2 (rather then other page). Muchenhaeser 20:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I updated the german and french link. Previously I checked all links to Leopard MBT and changed a lot of them to Leo 2 --Denniss 21:41, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Oh ok duh, you had already fixed the doubles! Thanks for doing all that with the links. Muchenhaeser 21:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apollonia

Hey, it would be both pleasant and good if you could help me translate a little german text on article Apollonia (city) into english. Thank you in advance! --Albanau 18:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leopard 2 images

Hi. Those were some good photos you removed from Leopard 2. Are they all pending deletion, or are you removing them just in case? If the latter, why not leave them, and remove them from the article in the case that they do get deleted? —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 22:18 Z

They all have no source and no license. They look like taken from the manufacturers website and are clearly not available with a somewhat free license required by the commons. If these images are needed/wanted then go to the Leo2 article in the commons and look at the older version with these images, then upload them with promotional tag to the english wikipedia. --Denniss 09:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
If you have evidence that these images are copyright violations, then say so. Mark the image pages with copyvio tags, so they can be deleted. Otherwise we are free to use them. It's not your job to strip images out of Wikipedia articles just because you have a bad feeling about them. —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 14:48 Z

[edit] Aer Lingus

Thanks for your support of my removal of ICAO codes etc in the text of the Aer Lingus article, much appreciated. It looked very strange to have an exact repeat of that data in the infobox - Adrian Pingstone 16:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coppermine-T

Hi Denniss, i'm the guy who submitted the edit for the coppermine-T that you reverted. I can't guarantee ALL BX boards support coppermine-Ts, but there's no question at least the Abit BX-133 RAID does, so it's not accurate to say they are old-core-new-board only as is the impression in the current state. Their last released BIOS notes explicitly list support for 1GHz Celerons which are definitely Coppermine-Ts:

http://www.abit.com.tw/page/sa/download/download_bios_detail.php?pFILE_TYPE=Bios&pMAIN_TYPE=Motherboard&pTITLE_ON_SCREEN=BX133-RAID&pSOCKET_TYPE=Socket%20370

Also, on this forum there's an excerpt from someone who's had communication from Abit re: coppermine-T support (you have to scroll down, no direct link):

http://www.abxzone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6817.html

i'm pasting it here:

I think the PIII 1200mhz you guys are seeing is not a Tualatin but a faster PIII called the CopperMine-T.

Check this thread at anandtech:

Link (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=512647)

There is a post from RichieZZZZ there and he posted:

you need to read HOCP they e-mailed abit about it.

<< There is and has been confusion about what exactly Tualatin CPUs will work in as we stated earlier. It seems as if Tualatin CPUs are not backwards compatible with BX or i815 chipsets. When I posted this earlier I got this mail from Don Goff that pointed us to this link which we had posted a month or so ago that states this, "Supports Intel Coppermine T CPU." about their BIOS upgrade for the ABIT BX133 RAID board. Admittedly I am a bit confused about this too so we asked ABIT what exactly the deal is and here is their response.

Kyle,

OK, I have it. It is the confusion about CopperMine CPU vs. CopperMine-T CPU vs. Tualatin CPU.

The CopperMine-T was the CPU that was the bridge between the CopperMine and Tualatin platforms. The CopperMine-T can work in BX boards, usually through a BIOS update.

The Tualatin CPU has a different pinout and simply will not work in a BX board. I have confirmed this with our R&D and FAE so have to believe that this time it is true.

Scott.

  • Coppermine III (part 2)

I just received (12 hours ago but I just checked my email) an email from a user which says that they are blocked and quotes the 165.21.154.111 number that you reverted on the Pentium III. The blocked list does not show them as blocked however. The email also includes the section above that starts "Kyle". They also included this (as the edit they wanted to add):

  • 'Coppermine-T

An intermediate Socket370 CPU produced by Intel as they shifted the Pentium III to the Tualatin core; e.g. the last pre-netburst/P4 Celerons released were Coppermine-Ts.

The Coppermine-T is a hybrid Tualatin-process chip but which is electrically/pinout similar to the older Coppermine chips and therefore can work on the older Socket370 boards (though a BIOS upgrade may be required to recognise the higher clock-multiple CPUs). While Tualatin-compatible boards are usually also backwards-compatible with older Socket370 CPUs, but the reverse is not true (Tualatin CPUs will not work on older Socket370 boards).

An example would be the old Abit BX-133 RAID mainboard, which despite being based on the venerable 440BX chipset, can support up to 1.1GHz Celeron CPUs at the official 100MHz FSB.

There has been some confusion between the Coppermine-T and the Tualatin: (from http://www.abxzone.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6817.html, a post referencing a response from Abit staff)

    • I have no idea if this is a proper edit or not. I'll leave it up to you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Look at this : http://users.erols.com/chare/586.htm There's a Coppermine Celeron with 1.1 GHz as well, not only Tualatin. Coppermine-T is listed with 95mm² die size and Tualatin is 80. According to german C'T computer magazine it is definitely a Coppermine with support for Tualatin low-voltage bus system (1.25V/1.5V instead of 1.5V on standard Coppermines) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/14782 (german). It is said the Coppermine-T is often confused with the Tualatin but it's really based on a slightly modified Coppermine design. --Denniss 22:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:A10 gun.jpg

Please remember to notify the uploader when tagging an image "no license". Thue | talk 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mussolini/Skorzeny/Student

From Talk:Benito_Mussolini:

Sorzeny did not lead the rescue team ! The operation was planned by General Kurt Student and his staff. His Paratroopers/elite infantry did execute this operation. Skorzeny did only take only in this operation as observer.--Denniss 17:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Denniss -- please see discussion at Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Rescue by Otto Skorzeny. Best, Xian 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denniss, I added some comments myself. Pls. check. Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Rescue by Otto Skorzeny. g999b

[edit] Tagging PD images as copyvios

Please see the explanation here. Thanks, --Irpen 08:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gneisenau/Scharnhorst

Hi, I don't think the class name changes were meant to be vandalism, just a newbie who wanted to help. --Yooden

[edit] Image:S vs pelton schnitt 1 zoom.png

Guten Abend Denniss, ich habe bei dem Bild oben die GFDL nachgetragen, die aus einem mir nicht erkennbaren Grunde gefehlt hat. In der Diskussion zum Bild ist nochmals die Mail wieder gegeben, mit der mir Voith-Siemens die Verwendung unter der GFDL frei gegeben hat. --Markus Schweiss 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, das war das falsche Wiki. Ist mir zunächst gar nicht aufgefallen. --Markus Schweiss 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Falsche Wiki, richtiger Benutzer. Hab's schon gesehen und Dir geantwortet.--Denniss 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Hey don't call me a vandal. Portable 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are. You created a secondary account just for the River Plate battle. --Denniss 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I did not. I have forgotten my password, I haven't used my account in ages. Portable 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm on my laptop and it doesn't have my account details. Portable

[edit] Spitfire

Brookie here - the captured Spitfire used by the Germans was not in France but over central England - have reverted your deletion. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RAF did not use Spits in France - how should the germans capture a Spit there? Spits were preserved for home defense and not for offensive operations during this time (1940). How should it be possible for a captured Spit to fly missions over central england ? It may had better range than the 109 but not that much higher. --Denniss 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

>(rev (again); who made the photo ? Sow us any docs that this image is free of copyright) Denniss - I've changed the copyright notice on the Spitfire again because, as I mentioned in my note, I contacted M P HOUGHTON at the Ministry of Defence, UK, to confirm that this images is in the public domain, formerly Crown Copyright. Please see the entry to confirm the meaning of Crown copyright: any image taken by MoD personnel in the course of his duties is Crown copyright. So, the creator's (i.e. the photographer's) identity is not relevent to the copyright discussion, since the MoD has confirmed that the photo was Crown copyright.

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for helping to revert User:RareAviation's vandalism. They continued to restore the links and I listed them for banning. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on the T-34 article. Nice catch. DMorpheus 16:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg

Greetings. I noticed you tagged Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg as {{PD-self}}. Why do you think that the uploader owned the copyright to the image? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2000 CF-18Hornet.jpg

Hi there, what's the problem with the picture? Just curious as to why it isn't allowed, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ouuplas 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read this copyright statement: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp . These images are far from having no usage restrictions. You should always carefully read usage restriction on thirdparty websites ! --Denniss 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Which usage restriction wasn't I abiding by? Ouuplas 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The part with commercial reproduction ? This is a usage restriction you should't forget to mention. --Denniss 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the commercial reproduction section have to do with posting the picture on Wikipedia though? Ouuplas 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy, non-commercial images are not accepted anymore in en wiki. And in general you can't ignore a usage restriction and stating a false free copyright status just because you don't like the restriction. --Denniss 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't. I was unaware I was using the wrong usage tag. I do think deleting the image altogether is a little extreme, isn't there another tag that could be used to keep the image? (Not to mention all the other images you tagged?) I really think all those images contribute to their articles, and I'm not sure deleting them is completely necessary. I'm still not completely sure what was wrong with how I tagged the image originally. If it's alright with you, I would be interested in getting a third party to provide their opinion on the whole situation, otherwise a whole lot of great images are going to be deleted. Ouuplas 03:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they are usable within the fair use regulation but I'm not an expert in fair use. --Denniss 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Granville Mall Halifax.jpg

You were pretty agressive with [Image:Granville Mall Halifax.jpg]. You changed the tag, without offering a real explanation. If, for the sake of argument, your aggressiveness was justified, let me encourage you to remember that that people you are dealing with are other volunteers. You risk alienating them, or really pissing them off, by acting high-handedly.

Over on the commons you accused someone of a copyright violation, without offering any substantiation. I got accused of a copyright violation myself, four months ago, by a very aggressive guy. It is a very unpleasant accusation. My accuser couldn't admit he made a mistake. -- Geo Swan 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not very aggressive other than with copyright problems or obvious copyvios. People uploading images have to be sure there are no copyright problems with images they upload. They can't "forget" some vital parts of a license. Over at the Commons this user is uploading abviously copyvios, I remembered some of them to be of canadian forces origin because i had to tag several of these as noncommercial here. Surprisingly I found several of them over at the Commons tagged as PD-self. And an IP releted to this user tagged these noncommercial images here as copyright free use but again "forgot" the noncommercial part. --Denniss 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but please bear in mind that it is an ugly accusation. Very disturbing to receive, and disturbing to read. I am suggesting it is important to substantiate that kind of accusation. And, assuming good faith -- well, doesn't it require at least giving lip service to assuming the copyright breaker made a mistake? At least the first time? If you found multiple instances, shouldn't you link to them, for the sake of the innocent bystanders?
About this non-commercial issue -- frankly I am confused. I uploaded half a dozen to a dozen images from the Canadian Coast Guard site. (1) Non-commercial, (2) give credit, (3) no misrepresentation... At the time I uploaded them there seemed to be no problem with uploading those images. Is the reason the images are being removed to facilitate canning a version of the wikipedia to be distributed as part of linux distributions? If that is the only reason, why not just use the tags to not include those files when the CDs are being made? -- Geo Swan 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK there was a change in the image usage policy, Jimbo Wales and others wanted to have less conditional use and more free images. But if there's a non-commercial restriction the uploader has to mention this in the image description. --Denniss 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of this image, you could've told me about the problem and I easily could've gotten permission. I wasn't aware there were any problems with it. Ouuplas 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resistance

Wow. Some people are way more upset about losing those DFO images than I am. -- Geo Swan 06:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the same user who uploads these copyvio images on the Commons with his IP here, he even has another sockpuppet account on the commons ... --Denniss 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:GR-C

I don't understand why you won't discuss your edits and why the image needs to be changed. Ardenn 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All .png flags are replaced by .svg versions at the Commons. They render better on the server side (consuming less CPU time). They have other benefits, too. --Denniss 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Why? Please reply on my talk page. Ardenn 04:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An image deletion question

After thinking about the DFO and DND images that may be deleted soon I decided to go through all the CCG images, and determine which were under free liscenses, and go looking for more free images. My notes seem to indicate that there was an image named [[Image:Canadian Coast Guard Bell 206.jpg|thumb]] that was a free image, and another image with the almost identical name [[Image:Canadian Coast guard Bell 206.jpg|thumb]], which is noncommercial.

Now, either I made some errors, or the one my notes indicate was under a free liscense has been deleted. I'd like to get to the bottom of this. If I didn't make a mistake, then an admin deleted the wrong image. Can you tell me where I would look to see the list of removed images? If I can't find a file with the spelling I thought was from an OK image in that list I am the one who made a mistake... -- Geo Swan 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athlon 64 3800+ Winchester?

You say there is no 3800+ Winchester, yet I own one. Using CPUZ (www.cpuid.com) , it was identified as a 90nm with 1.5v with code name Winchester.

What stepping is shown ? If it's really a Winchester then it's not a standard one. It is not listed at http://www.amdcompare.com . --Denniss 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Using CPUZ, it says stepping is 0. Any idea what this means? --Chuggwald 02:02 20 March 2006 (AEST)

Hmm, No. Try the latest version (AFAIK 1.32.1). Do you have Everest Home ? It may be able to show more Info. --Denniss 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, am using latest CPUZ (1.32.1). Using Everest, it says Unknown for CPU Type, Winchester S939 for Alias, and DH-D0 for Stepping. --Chuggwald 16:09 21 March 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Image copyright

Hi, just wanted to ask a question regarding the Hawk Mk120 and SAS Drakensberg images. I just got off the phone with the person responsible for the South African Department of Defence's online presence (eg the dod.mil.za site and all those related), and established that the DOD was ok with any non-commercial use of its images, and he expressly stated that using them on Wikipedia was perfectly fine. Do you have any suggestions for which licence should be applied to the image for this? — Impi 12:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Use {{fairusein|article using this image}} (one article is enough for the template), please check other possible fair use tags according to the link given inside this template. --Denniss 16:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:UNKG0001.GIF.gif for speedy deletion with the reason "Duplicate of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg --Denniss 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)". However, "Duplicate of Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg --Denniss 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use one of our other deletion processes, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, if you still want the image to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leopard image

I changed the two fair-use images on Leopard tank in keeping with the fair use policy.

'If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it ... The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.
We've no shortage of free images for this article, so replacing Image:Leopardpanzer.jpg seemed sensible. Hope that makes it clear... if you've no objections I'll take it off again.

[edit] Reverting is not minor

Please stop marking your reversions at Heinkel He 111 as minor edits. Please review the minor edit policy. --Xanzzibar 10:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Sturmtiger 4.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sturmtiger 4.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan International Airlines copyright violations

Thank you for your spirited comments backing up my removal of two of Youssef90s pics of PIA aircraft. He steals them from Airliners.net then (incredibly) calls them Public Domain! I very much appreciated your help. I have replied to him here. Best Wishes, - Adrian Pingstone 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like people like him. I recently had lots of trouble with one user registering with many names at the Commons. The only purpose of these names was to upload manipulated images stolen from airliners.net (copyright notice removed). --Denniss 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:N805SY 2 small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:N805SY 2 small.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fw 190G data...

I removed the build numbers from the G section.

The build numbers and acceptance numbers for the Fw190G given by RLM starting in the fall of 1943 are very very innacturate. Some of it was interdepartmental propaganda to hide the true impact of American daylight and British nightime bombing, as well as the fact that rebuilds were happening a lot more frequently.

The actual estimates for the Gs was no more than 800 aircraft.


--Evil.Merlin 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] SDR-SDRAM Move

Can you please add to the discussion on the naming of the SDRAM article before reverting its move? It had been discussed and the consensus was that the bacronym naming was unnecessary. Please comment on Talk:SDR SDRAM. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-01 14:13Z

[edit] T-34 edit

Nice edit. I had to do a revert back to your version just now; glad you caught the TV BS. DMorpheus 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-34 and Military Channel Ranking

Just like the Enzo Ferrari article has a couple of mentions of "Top lists" so can the T-34's article. There are many lists out there that don't place the Enzo anywhere close to number 1 in any aspects, does that mean that those pieces of information (eg. Sports Car International's ranking) don't belong there?

Military Channel gave a very good criteria for their ranking, and has a reference online as well. It is valid and is worthy to note. Don't delete that paragraph again please.

Sorry but those rankings are always with a personal point of view and do not belong to an article.--Denniss 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why are you not editing the Ferrari Enzo article?
Not my field of interest --Denniss 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
But in your opinion, those who wrote it and the thousands who read it are wrong? Interesting. Interesting indeed. I am not going to waste my time putting it back. It's a shame there are peopel like you who think they are always correct.
FYI, it does NOT violate NPOV. The article doesn't sway into stating something like "As a result it it safe to assume that T-34 was the greatest tank in history".

[edit] Prinz Eugen's Denmark Strait Explots

Hi, Please see the Prinz Eugen article's talk page for my comments on your revision of my last edit. Thanks bigpad 08:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal New Zealand Air Force B757

Denniss, thanks for noticing my error with the Boeing 757 pic on Commons. I was careless when I typed the filename as 767, and the error carried on from there. I have corrected it everywhere. The pic is on Wikipedia Royal New Zealand Air Force and on Boeing 757, and of course on Commons under Boeing 757 and under New Zealand. I took the pic at Kemble Air Day in Gloucestershire. Kemble is a small airfield (once home of the Red Arrows), about 25 miles from where I live - Adrian Pingstone 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-5 Image

It was clearly stated that the image was from a number of Aerei of 1977. Anyway, there was a typo in the tagging. Ciao! user:Attilios

Being an image in an italian magazine does not qualify for the PD-Italy tag, you have to know who the photographer is. Only if he is an italian citizen then PD-Italy may be usable. As soon as this photographer is a non-italian citizen this tag is not to be used (copyright regulation of his home country applies, most of them have 70 years pma). --Denniss 08:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAe 146

Hi. I didn't add the template or put it back after you removed it. I just thought I'd point out however that the BAe 146 is an aircraft operated by the Royal Air Force and hence an "Active military aircraft of the United Kingdom" Mark83 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airbus Deliveries

Hi, Thanks for updating the O/D details on some of the aircraft.

It seems there is some discrepancy between airbus documents.

I had used 1974 to 2005 Deliveries to compile the Airbus Deliveries and Orders set of tables.

But if you compare the original document, and indeed, my tables with the orders and deliveries document you used up to may 2005 there are some descrepancy's!

Damn Airbus

I suppose i know which would be right, but, why would the other document be so far out on some numbers? (maybe with the A310, cancelled or changed orders....)

Reedy Boy 08:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with this compilation, maybe they did not remove orders if changed to another type( 310 ->300/330). Listing by model and customer available here --Denniss 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia Strategy

  • Delete - Seems to be only created to continue personal attacks at User:Mmx1, the creator has some strange view about some plane's history (like F-14 Tomcat and others). He does not listen to valid arguments and sources but prefers personal attacks and insults. --Denniss 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Denniss seems to make sensible contributions, so does Denniss believe that Bob Kress told Modern Marvels that the F-14 was designed for good turn performance? Flight Magazine 1969 titles a photo "VFX air superiority fighter: F-14", does that mean that the F-14 was the first "air superiority fighter", not the F-15 as claimed by Mmx1? If you agree with Mmx1 that both premesis are false, then I am indeed and we are all in a good bit of trouble. I'd like to know on my talk page what you think is a "strange view" of the F-14, and Mmx's claim that the F-14 never had a dogfighting requirement and must be removed from the air superiority fighter page. --matador300 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ju 388

Thanks. I tried to get it to work but it didn't, even though it was just like other infoboxes, with the exception of the data. --LWF 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Elefant

Thanks for keeping me posted on it, let me know if I need to raise protection or unprotect it. There is likely going to be a ripple effect on this and all related articles soon. You're free to warn Colbert-related vandals (but be nice, {{subst:test1}} is fine), and report to have them blocked. --Pilotguy (roger that) 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A300 picture

Please refrain from calling me a troll. I am only trying to remove a picture from Wikipedia of which I own the copyright, as I have done with multiple others. You are the only user in history that opposes this. Nick Mks 11:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore Points

Danke fuer den Tip Deniss. Ich habe das leider auch selbst erst viel zu spaet gemerkt, es ist wie gesagt das erste Mal, das ich hier zu etwas beigetragen habe und von daher musste ich mich da erst einmal einarbeiten.

Florianbrenn 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Würzburg Radar

Would you please stop removing valid information from this article? I can see no reason why the reference to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory should be omitted; it does not fall under any of the criteria on WP:NOT and although you may not feel that it is important, that is not grounds for removing it from the article. I might agree if it had been included indiscriminately in the main body of the article, but it is neither an irrelevance nor an unverifiable piece of information and is doing no harm under the heading 'Trivia'. Plenty of other articles include Trivia sections. --Yummifruitbat 00:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this article is about the Würburg radar and not about any piece of computer software. Its minor appearance is absolutely irrelevant to this article. We in WP:Air have a hard fight to keep this BS out of articles because it adds nothing to these articles. Would you like to have articles flooded with Trivia sections like "this ... was seen in the movie ... (although only for two seconds" ?--Denniss 08:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not exactly a 'was seen in... for 2 seconds' example, is it? If you read the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory page you would notice that this mission makes up a sixth of the game. As I have said, it's not in the main body of the article, and is not 'flooding it with BS'. I admit that the original line was untidily done, but my rehashing and link was not detracting from the article. FYI, I have little interest in computer games and am as serious about the topic of articles like this as you appear to be - as I think my previous contributions to this article should make clear. That does not mean that information, relevant to the subject but not of great interest to us, 'does not belong to Wikipedia'. --Yummifruitbat 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How could an appearance in a computer game be of any relevance in the Würzburg radar article ? It contributes null, zero, nada relevant information to the target of this article (informing us what this radar had been used for in WWII). --Denniss 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you have the 'target of this article' confused. The article isn't only about its uses in World War II, it's about the radar, its development, history, notable related incidents and any other information pertaining to the radar. If it was as you say, the title would be "Uses of the Würzburg radar in World War II". I've browsed the talk page archives of WP:Air and I think you're acting outside the consensus of opinion on removing trivia from articles - the criteria for inclusion there are apparently that the subject of the article makes a substantial appearance in a game/film/etc. notable enough to have a significant article of its own. On that basis there is no reason to delete the trivia/popular culture reference from this article. I also take issue with your tagging of this edit as 'minor'; this runs contrary to the second point of minor edit policy and is considered poor etiquette. I don't wish to become involved in an edit war over this but I would ask you to reconsider your actions and re-insert my version of the reference. --Yummifruitbat 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aufhören

Stop the branding my image licenses as "bogus licenses". Stop it, my licenses are valid under BsG.Smith2006 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Warsaw siege1.jpg

On what do you base your statement that this image is copyrighted? If so, then please be so kind as to provide the copyright holder before you list the image for deletion. //Halibutt 11:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's easy: Photographed from a german plane thus copyright protection is life of author + 70 years. Even if the author died in 1939 it's still copyright protected until 2010. --Denniss 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the 747 thing. It wont happen again.

[edit] F-117 Nighthawk

Actually, the US Air Force publicly classifies the F-117 as a fighter/attack rather than a bomber. [1] Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

You first have to: prove my licenses are "bogus" (can't you speak a proper English?). Then I would like to be notified of your tagging "my" images as "bogus" and "unsourced", so I can improve their sources! That's an absolute minimum. I am contributing to wikipedia to have you in a clerk-like way destroy all the work, merely because a source is a bit lacking or deficient in the License description! Please observe this and notify me of all your changes to images by you made after August 24. One other addition: pictures are not copyrighted anymore + 70 years after author's death, but instead are copyrighted until 70 years after first publication. Sadly, despite your good intentions, you are doing great harm to the articles by tagging them for deletion, while at the same time nót notifying the uploaders and nót specifying the reasons.Smith2006 08:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The uploader has to provide accurate source and license information. You may want to read and understand the german copyright law, it is life of author + 70 years. There might be a very small chance that image become PD 70 years after publication if the author is unknown and there's no way to find out who the person in question was. That does not affect images where the author is known, especially those from Hoffmann. P.S. : bogus = obvioulsy wrong or at least highly questionable --Denniss 11:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] f14

Thanks, I'm well aware of what wikipedia is. However, my edit meets all grounds policy wise for inclusion, including notability grounds, as the game in question is a platinum best-seller. If unverifiable inspiration for an anime can be included, my edit shall as well. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Appearance in games is irrlevant for an article about aircraft, it may be included if it's a F-14 simulation but not with this minor appearance . --Denniss 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NowCommons template

Please stop removing valid NowCommons templates from images, this template's only usage is to mark images available at the Commons. Do not remove the template because the image at the Commons has a different name, this is only a marker template to prevent these images from being uploaded twice. --Denniss 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a backlog at CAT:NC. As I understand it, these images need deleting per CSD I9 or to have NC templates removed. I have been removing the tags of images I am not deleting to clear the backlog. My reasoning in removing these templates is to keep them from getting deleted unduly by someone else in the case that: 1) the author is uncredited at the Commons 2) the article doesn't exist on the Commons or the link is botched 3) there are more articles linked than I can rename the images to accord with the Commons name in a reasonable amount of time. Since you bring this up, I'd like to get a third opinion. DVD+ R/W 00:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the broken links on many of the templates I removed. I've gone ahead and started deleting the ones that were properly transferred. Many of the others lack credit to their authors and it would be a shame for some one else to delete them for being redundant and to loose that. DVD+ R/W 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

What, exactly is the problem with the template? It would be vastly more constructive to know what specific thing is the problem. A75 01:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 747 table

Thanks for filling out the table. I have been busy lately and didn't get a chance to finish it off. Thanks again. --Bangabalunga 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I deleted Boeing 747SP (which was atm a redirect) per your speedy tag. You can continue your move operation now. Syrthiss 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight International aircraft in service additions

Why are you deleting all these additions without any reason being given? A little common courtesy wouldn't go amiss. The information being added is accurate, up-to-date, referenced, useful and legitimate. I will be reverting the references. Ardfern 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Several reasons: 1) Linkspam to Flight international article 2) Data is two months old, do you want to keep them all up to date ? 3) often doubles information already available in article. --Denniss 20:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDR2 "pure marketing trick"

Please read up on Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies before contributing anything further to this article. --Dtcdthingy 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in service planes

Hey Dennis, Im getting tired of these people puting planes in service in aircraft articles. Like Ardfern. Or other guys that just added all the planes at boeing 737. What do you think of deleting them all? There is already a list of 737 operators. These people can put their info there.--Bangabalunga 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that, too. Who should maintain these entries, they need constant watching and updating. We should find a regulation at WP:Air to typically have only the five major users in the infobox and eliminate all others. Maybe there's an exception for old planes or old versions of a somewhat recent plane like the 737 with only ~5-10 of them still in use.
I also dont like this IP guy adding every single user of an aircraft type regardless how many they used but this is a different task and not that important. --Denniss 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lego

Hi Denniss, I didn't care much for the lego thing either. Some guy put it there. I thought whatever its fine with me, our trivia could use some new material. So I put a link to it. Did you see the barnstar I gave you? Hope you dont mind me puting it on your userpage and not talk page. Since you live in Germany, I have a question to ask you. I am doing a paper on wind power. I know Germany is very engaged in wind energy. I want to know, are people there aware of wind energy becoming very common in Germany or not? The research I have been doing leads me to believe that the country is so pro wind energy that people that oppose it like some farmers or landowners are not heard from. Schleswig-Holstein is where most of the wind turbines are being erected. This state feels it is becoming the wind factory for germany and too many turbines are put here while the electricity is generated for other places. Is this true? Is there a strong sense for green energy in Germany? Thanks--Bangabalunga 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

...

[edit] Hubble copyright

Hello Denniss We noticed you removed our Hubble copyright tag. On the copyright page you wrote: "remove Template:PD-Hubble; as soon as ESA is involved it becomes noncommercial." I think there must be a mistunderstanding. We have carefully crafted the Hubble copyright tag to comply with all the agreements between NASA and ESA (called Memorandum of Understandings) on the Hubble project. Please talk me if you disagree and let me know where you think the problem is. For now I have reverted your deletion of the tag so that our work can continue. Cheers Lars Lindberg Christensen 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of photo links

Denniss, why are you removing the links to photographs of various US military aviation subjects? I checked the forum pages where these photographs were placed, and they seemed to be useful images. Is there a question of copyright or other issue I don't see? Bzuk 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pure linkspam to promote their own site, user contribution has nothing more then posting these links, website do not pay attention to copyright (they do not cite image sources). Do you need more ? --Denniss 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Sorry, I don't know how to send messages (if there is a way). For the image EstherBioPic.jpg, what would be the copyright license if the image was found on a website and then editted? Xephyrwing 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to specify the source website and the source of this image (if the website has it taken from someone else). If this image is copyrighted then you can't use it without agreement from the copyright holder. --Denniss 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Forces Images

Denniss, in rereading the copyright provisions for Canadian Forces Images, I can't see what the problem with them is. Here is the quote: Copyright/Permission to Reproduce

Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission by the Department of National Defence. We ask only that:

  • Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • The Department of National Defence be identified as the source department; and
  • The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Department of National Defence.

Bzuk 5:54 27 January 2007 (UTC).

What do you not understand in personal, non-commercial use? You are allowed to use those images at home for anything you want as long as you don't sell them or use them to harm Canadian forces in any way. Wikipedia falls under the commercial reproduction regulation thus those images are only usable under fair use. --Denniss 04:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Denniss, Can you please send me your Yahoo or MSN id as I need help from you. Thank you Best wishes Sorin

Hello, I have worked a little on the website and I have made this page : http://www.aircraft-list.com/copyright.html and fix the "flas as inappropriate" script. Is now all better? Thank you very much Take care Sorin


[edit] KV tank

The sentance was added by ip 209.130.203.190 dec 21 2006 and today it is 30jan 2007 so a whole month has gone by without any sources. I am certain that he/she has no sources, and since there are no sources then it can be removed, please do not revert me since the statment which is not "a nice story" does have sources.

This page has lots of info about the tank

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=50

Thank you

66.246.72.108 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for members' help with the Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Comet articles

I need some help here. One editor has constantly (12 times under his user name, perhaps many others with an IP address only, since 30 January 2007) reverted the introductory paragraph to read that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Now there may be compelling arguments for this claim, however, this editor has taken to using the article and the Me 262 article as the forum for his argument rather than taking it to the discussion pages. Since there is no consensus from other editors, I believe that the most effective path would be to have bonafide sources and provide them in the discussion page. From a cursory observation of the same editor's modus operandi, he has also been involved in a similar dispute on the de Havilland Comet article where again he has championed a very nationalist viewpoint which has been characterized as "POV." What can be done? Is there a way to block his constant reversions? Bzuk 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Reply:Well, one could perhaps refer to an offense against the WP:3RR rule and report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Is it User:Michael Shrimpton that you are referring to? MoRsE 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Bzuk23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply:It all looks a bit arguable, the German and British jets had considerable overlap in their introduction period into service. You need to stick to only what can be cited, POV isn't wrong provided it's somebody else's. Using a technical policy infringement to what may amount to or be perceived as enforcing your own POV isn't likely to do anyone any favours.WolfKeeper 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply:Good point, if you check the history of this argument, substantial references and citations have been provided on both sides, but the discussion page was only at times the forum for the back-and-forth, which is the key reason for my commentary. I stressed on the discussion page and with the editor that was posting that if there was a questionable point raised that it should first go to the discussion page and get worked out there. Instead, there has been wholesale "chopping and dicing" going on. I do not have an abiding interest in what argument prevails but there is a lack of decorum that is being instilled. Bzuk 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
Reply:Now he's at work on the de Havilland Comet site, changing and reverting areas to suit what he considers his own research. There has to be a method to challenge these constant reversions. Bzuk 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
Want a hoot? Do a google search on our friend. I was astonished at what I found. This is a classic case of a person highly respected in his field of expertise but...Bzuk 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. -Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barcelona

Aside from the product numbers, what else would there be that's relevant to the article? A spokesman today revealed the details for 3 models to HEXUS, what else is there to know? --Tene 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for an official release of these processors. This list is not for speculation or info collected from various websites. --Denniss 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll?

Please refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which shows that my edits are in the right, and then refer yourself to WP:CIVIL. You may also want to keep aware of WP:3RR. Thank you for your time. --Action Jackson IV 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot?

If you are not a bot, please read the message at the top of User talk:Emax. It was at the bottom, too, but some people still posted below it (perhaps I should make it blink and scream...). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Maus destroyed rear side view.jpg

Check the talkpage. Check User_talk:Starfury. Your changes have been reverted. I (the IP you claim doesnt know what theyre talking about) will be reporting that image as a copyright infringement. Any other images not CC2 which go in its place will also be reported as such- an example of the vehicle exists preserved in the Kubinka museum.

When new information comes to light which casts serious doubt on the rationale for an image you really should try to take it more seriously. Why not try to get in touch with the original uploader to find out why that rationale is justified? (hasn't been seen since April 2005) 'Starfury' may also be able to explain why that image was deleted from wiki.de. I suspect because its a copyvio making the rationale "nonsense" and not the rights of the person with copyright. Fluffy999 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI [2] Fluffy999 12:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on RDRAM mediation

I've commented on the RDRAM mediation request here. YechielMan 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Shipwrecks

Please do not add articles to this major cat if they are already included via specific subcats by location like M/S Estonia (in Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea). Please also consider using these subcats instead of the major cat. --Denniss 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, Denniss but the major catagory is underpopulated. If M/S Estonia appears in Category:Shipwrecks a reader will find it more easily, then while actually reading the article the reader could then select Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea to see what other ships have sunk there. I hadn't planned on adding every ship to the major cat, just the major ones I happened to think of. Anynobody 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is what the guideline WP:CAT says about this kind of situation:

Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories

To an editor just interested in the subject of shipwrecks in general but without much nautical knowledge, is probably not going to find what he/she is looking for. By selecting a few well known shipwrecks and applying them both to the category describing what sea/ocean they sunk in but also the main category. I'll go back to the M/S Estonia and it's placement in Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea. There are 27 listing is that category, I'm not suggesting all 27 be added but having one of them in the main category too gives the whole Baltic sea category more exposure. Then there is the case of the RMS Titanic, it's a pretty famous shipwreck wouldn't you agree? Shipwrecks that many people have heard about belong in the main category because they are well known examples. There are many, many people who have heard about the Titanic but couldn't tell you in which ocean it sank, by taking an article like that from the main page you're actually hiding something that should be easily accessed.
I'm not saying every ship I added should stay, but several of them should. Anynobody 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/n/User_talk%7EDenniss_734e.html"