User talk:Jmcc150/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gliding images

Well the new versions of those photographs look excellent. The descriptions and source information are also good, although they still need appropriate copyright tags. If your intention is to preserve the link back to http://www.whiteplanes.com that is fine, and I would suggest the tag {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|www.whiteplanes.com is credited}} — That is to say, they are copyrighted, but anyone can use them provided that they credit, and provide a link back to whiteplanes.com

Once it has an appropriate free copyright tag, I would be tempted to nominate Image:V20001.jpg as a Featured Picture Candidate — the colour seems a lot more natural now and I prefer the looser crop (could perhaps go a little wider still). -- Solipsist 20:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now added the copyright information that you suggested for the glider and gliding photos. Thank you for suggesting that Image:V20001.jpg should be nominated as a Featured Picture. Were you planning on nominating it or should I? Jmcc150 19:18 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No worries I've done it now. I've a fair bit of experience on FPC, but I still can't predict how pictures will be received. Sometimes people just like the picture, and sometimes they get hungup on technical details - the license is a little unconventional but should be fine (most people are only comfortable with GFDL). Good luck in any case. - Solipsist 21:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Piggott

Hi Jmc,

You might be able to help me with an article on Derek Piggott that I've been meaning to write for a while. If you fly at Lasham field, you might be able to get hold of more biographical information than I can find on the web (remarkable there is almost nothing that I can find). From memory, I have a range of annecdotes that I recall from his rainy day lecture for Lasham training courses, but I have the impression that there is at least one proper biography of him — not available in my local library, but there must be a copy in the Lasham club house. -- Solipsist 18:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

Hi Jmc,

Just to let you know that your photograph Image:V20001.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day tomorrow, the 28th July. You can check and correct the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 28, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Winch1.jpg has been listed for deletion

[edit] Pipe of extra dimensions in Large Hadron Collider

Hi Jmc. I'm not sure I agree with your switch of the extra dimensions wikilink in the LHC article to pipe to Why 10 dimensions?. The reason is that LHC will only be able to detect the (roughly) 5-dimensional effective theories inspired by string theory (as the article states); under no circumstances will it see string theory's 10 dimensions. It is more appropriate to have it as it was, where the wikilink redirects to Kaluza-Klein theory--that at least is one way of describing a 5D theory, although perhaps a generic extra dimensions article would be ideal. Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 07:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Piggott Cayley Glider replica flight

Hi Jmcc150

Pretty sure about the location - the photo in the magazine has the caption the glider being towed into the air at Holme-on-Spalding Moor

The article talks about the early Lasham flights, but also mentions later flights taking place under tow by car at Holme-on-Spalding Moor where: the glider made an interesting contrast to the Phantoms and Buccaneers on test there.

Regards, Ian Dunster 16:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you know Derek then how about seeing if you can get a photo of him - the article could do with one! Ian Dunster 10:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Much better - nice to have a photo of the man 'imself! :) Regards, Ian Dunster 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magda

Thanks for the Irving cite, I added some other details. Wyss 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Man in the Iron Mask

Very good work with The Man in the Iron Mask. However, the legend is still an embellished account of the de Bulonde's incarceration and some of the theories were formed after the letters were deciphered - Skysmith 11:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathaniel Ward

Thanks for starting the Nathaniel Ward article. I noticed that glaring omission and was planning on starting it, but you did a better job than I would have! Dunno if you're interested in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, but I hope to get around to doing something on that - any knowledge you have would help! Anyway, thanks again - Ward certainly is an overlooked figure in the history of American law. Cheers. Tertulia 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torbjörn Caspersson

Cut-and-paste moves unnecessarily cuts off the history of an article and should usually be avoided. I moved Torbjorn Oskar Caspersson to Torbjörn Caspersson (which I believe is enough). Please re-add the additions you made at Torbjörn Oskar Caspersson to the article now at Torbjörn Caspersson and redirect the former to the latter (I could do it, but it is better if the additions are attributed to you in the history). Cheers! up+land 18:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot - just use the "move" button above the article next time you want to move something to a different title. up+land 18:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy water

Please, do you have a reference about Hans Suess' advice? The UCSD biography just mentions he was advisor to the plant. Jclerman 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info. I read the book soon after it was published and I was present in a group in which Hans Suess was asked to comment on that heavy water project by one of his scientific peers who had been a Navy (USA) Officer during WWII. In fact, I met Hans while I was grad student first and faculty later, in several European labs and in Tucson, AZ, USA. It was from mid 1960s to about 1980. Unfortunately I haven't yet written my memoirs so I can't quote a printed source in the Wikipedia. If you are interested in Hans send me email from my talk page and I'll tell you some anecdotes. This page gets indexed by Google and I don't want to broadcast un-ready material at this point in time. Jclerman 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lasham Airfield

Use the "move" button to change the title of an article. Cut-and-paste moves are unnecessary and cause the page history to be lost.

[edit] DNA navigation box

I have added the names you suggested to the navigation box. Alun 13:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to address your concerns while also including the names of other people involved in DNA research. What I have been trying to do is to include a main navigation box (my version of the double stranded box) that includes only the four important contributors to the structure in 1953. I have also included the single stranded box with the names of the other people (excluding the four biggies, why put them in two boxes?). The original single stranded navigation box, with all contributors on it can be used for articles about people other than the big four of 1953. I hope that doing this I can forge a compromise between your position and that of JWSchmidt. I realise that by doing ths I may in fact just antagonise both of you. This is not my intention, I am merely trying to forge consensus. Alun 06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glider

The military section of the article needed balance, and still does. The Allied Forces glider program was very significant, including on D-Day, as that is how medics were sent in. I'm doing the bio for Richard C. du Pont, who founded one of the early glider manufactories in the U.S. so I stuck a bit in the glider article which, as I said, needs expanding. - Ted Wilkes 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't profess to know anything about gliders. Please edit this or create a new article on the military part as you see fit. - Ted Wilkes 19:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birkenhead School image

It's really just aesthetics. An image which stretches right across the top of an article dominates it too much and looks awkward. The problem with that image is that it's long and narrow. A squarer image that sits comfortably on the top right hand side would be more desirable. Remember though that the image is clickable. If someone wants to see the full-sized image then they can do so. -- Necrothesp 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I'd still prefer a narrower and higher photo, but as you say, we've got to use what we've got. -- Necrothesp 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Hill or Lord Hill of Luton

Jmcc150,

This regards another Charles Hill who might fall under the forgotten hero idea. I see you moved the Lord_Hill_of_Lutton article to Charles_Hill recently.

I found the Charles Hill article linked from a reference to another notable person of similar stature in the article on former U.S. Secretary of State, George P.Shultz. This other Charles Hill is a less a public figure yet highly influential in U.S. foreign policy.

Ref: www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/hill.html

I de-linked ambassador Hill from the article you moved, and am reading up on Wikipedia naming conventions and disambiguation. As you are more familiar with Charles Hill the television executive and MP, you would be in a better position to judge if the following snip from Naming_conventions:

Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")

... might indicate a switch back (move) to Lord_Hill_of_Luton or perhaps a new move to Charles_Hill,_Lord_of_Lutton. I'm sure the move to Charles_Hill is quite sensible for simplicity, except for the complication of this other public person, the ambassador.

I am holding off on creating a Wikipedia article on the ambassador until I am comfortable with the implications of naming it Charles_Hill,_Ambassador (or some such) or branching both persons off a disambiguation (DAB) page.

Query you thoughts,

pjabbott

[edit] Image:Winch2.jpg has been listed for deletion

Romeo Bravo 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyman James Briggs

The changes look good to me.

I'm still curious about why Briggs didn't distribute the MAUD report and haven't found any reason for it. I don't buy the idea that he was just old and vague. Several ideas come to mind:

• He was buying time because: it may have been embarrassing that the British got there first; or he wanted to ensure the continued involvement of the NBS; or he wanted to ensure American leadership over the project.
• Briggs strikes me as an experimentalist and the report was theoretical in nature - he may not have trusted the results or fully understood it.
• The Uranium Committee was loaded with European emigres, and for several reasons he may not have wanted to cooperate with them fully. They had a political agenda that may not have been compatable with US objectives or he wanted to find out what they knew, but not the other way around.

Anyhow, Briggs won the Medal of Honor, and I can't find any evidence that Vannevar Bush got one after being so central to the push for the atomic bomb. It sounds like Bush did push as a result of the MAUD report and the project went through, but he lost some friends in the process.

[edit] Glider pics

Please have a look here for my reply to your glider pic comments - Adrian Pingstone 09:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Asw28.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Asw28.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. Thank you. Tawker 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of radar

Thanks for the reply. I have tried both Radar and radar but neither works for me. When I previewed this entry just now, the heading appears in blue, but when I click on it, it tells me that an article does not exist. Am I losing my metaphorical marbles already, or is there something wrong? 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That is very strange - both work flawlessly for me. Have you tried clearing your browser cache? (Open the page in question, then click CTRL+refresh (CTRL+F5 in Internet Explorer)). That is indeed odd. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Bungee1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bungee1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dg800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dg800.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. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Ask13.jpg

Hawaiian717 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Help_desk#Missing_image_OL0026.jpg

I posted an answer that might explain what's happening. I'll copy it here for your convenience.

The image is actually stored at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/OL0026.jpg The ad part in the image's path is causing it to be blocked by some overzealous adblocker on your end. Just turn it off or allow all pages within Wikipedia to fix the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyndall

Hi! I saw that you wrote that John Tyndall discovered the anti-bacterial properties first, but I can not find any reference for that anywhere. Could you please add the reference?DanielDemaret 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a good reference!DanielDemaret 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duchesne

Your input on Duchesne was interesting. Thank you. I have pursued it further, and seen references to even Pasteur noting penicillin previously, albeit another strain, which I shall enter as soon as I have better references. However, could I ask you to read my thought on the Duchesne talk page? I am worried that the speculation about WWI may be a far stretch for several reasons. One is that even Fleming could not produce the substance in mass production. The other is that the strain that Duchesne discovered, does not seem to be the strain used in penicillum today. I could could be wrong on this last, but I have only seen glaucum used for other purposes in medicine today.DanielDemaret 08:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was just about to re-spell and redirect myself :) DanielDemaret 09:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New article

One idea with new the article, is that I have seen so many articles refer to one or other of the different "first" discoveries, which are all incomplete, that I was thinking that they could refer to this section instead in future.

I suspect that this article will expand in time, and which might even in time refer to discussions in other papers on the development of medicine in general, dicussing the reasons why medicine sometimes take such a long time to come to fruitition.DanielDemaret 09:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =Duchesne again

Silly me. There was much information in my bio by Kevin Brown about Duchesne along with even more tidbits of information about pre-discoveries of mould actions.DanielDemaret 23:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CockpitComputerlores.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CockpitComputerlores.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 Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Kirby

Here was a mistaken copyvio "nothanks" notification. Removed now with apologies. (15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)) Fiddle Faddle 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please pop over to my talk page for a fuller explanation. I did "everything right" except from an incorrect starting point. I have removed the notanks element that was above with pleasure, and learnt something of value. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various articles

Thanks again for the Wirral stuff. Following links from and about the Wirral leads to these suggestions:

Links (golf) lists famous links courses in Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland, and mentions several in the U.S. There is no mention of the course on the Wirral, or of any other in the UK, if there are any. I know nothing about the subject beyond what is in Wikipedia, so I don't want to edit anything. Maybe you do.

Caterpillar Club could use a picture and maybe some external links. Somewhere I saw some business about caterpillar pins with different eyes, depending on the circumstances of the member's jump. Casual Googling didn't find it today, though. (It DID come up with some good links, though. Once again, I hesitate to edit something where my knowledge isn't very great.)

Football (soccer). I've looked at various football articles, and cup play is still a mystery to me. I don't know what the heck it is. In the US, our professional sports have only league play. College sports, notably basketball and baseball, often have championship tournaments played after the regular (league) season; maybe these are similar to cup play, but I don't know. Anything a football fan can do to illuminate the nature of cup play would be greatly appreciated by me, and I'm betting by a lot of others in the US. Lou Sander 12:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cup play stuff. I'm still wondering when these matches take place -- is it during the regular season, or after? I'll do the Caterpillar Club stuff. Lou Sander 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caterpillar Club

I've talked with the lady who issues the pins, and I've expanded the article accordingly. Hope it meets with your approval. Lou Sander 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dg800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dg800.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. --Hetar 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CockpitComputerlores.JPG

Thank you for the copyright notice requiring a source to be given. Not every image will be on the web and so quoting a source without giving personal details is difficult. The original user who uploaded the photo is not a regular Wikipedia user. When the first copyright notice appeared I tracked him down using his glider's registration number and got his permission for the free use but copyrighted tag to be included. I cannot quote his e-mail address as a source, so I hope that including his user ID in the source box will suffice. Failing that is there an wiki-affidavit? JMcC 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, just a short sentence about how you got the image is probably fine, that the image creator said it was licensed this way etc. Now it just seems confusing because you have a name, "Photo by John Smith", but people don't know if that's you, or someone else. Does that person even know it's on wikipedia etc. There's no formal way to do it, and there probably doesn't need to be, but a tiny bit more info would be helpful probably. :) - cohesion 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bungylaunch1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bungylaunch1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wirral map.jpg

If one were skilled at putting text into graphics, especially at angles, one could improve this map by putting "Dee" and "Mersey" in the blue areas that represent these two rivers. Lou Sander 12:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MHD Example

The trivia regarding MHD in action is great. Do you have a citation? --Iantresman 12:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on that. If you could add your calculations to the article as well, it would serve not only as a bit of trivia, but a good example of using the equations for a practical, if slightly unusual, purpose. --Iantresman 10:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shipham & highest points

Hi, You started an article on Shipham which claims Shipham Hill is the highest point in the Mendips, however Beacon Batch makes the same cliam (with bigger numbers). I've started a discussion on the Shipham page if you had any comment? — Rod ^talk 09:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question for an image

Hi, I'm contacting you about an image you uploaded a while ago, Image:V20001.jpg. You may be aware that this is a featured picture, but several users are concerned about the copyright status of the image; specifically that the copyright tag of the image does not match the requirements of the whiteplanes.com site. Since you are the nominator I thought you might be able to answer these concerns better than anyone else. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider, and it would be great if you could participate and help get this matter cleared up. Thanks. Raven4x4x 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age is irrelevant

I would please ask that you do not bring my age into the discussion surrounding the V20001 glider image. It has no reflection whatsoever on the quality of the picture whether a fourteen year old (fifteen by the time this discussion will be resolved) considers it to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. Thank you. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising. I disclose my age simply so people can get a better picture of who I am - witness the userbox 'This user is a teenager, not a stereotype'. Thanks for agreeing, anyway. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email permission

I do not doubt you at all, but an email on the talk page is reassuring to other users and third parties who may want to use the work. ed g2s • talk 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Crowns

Hi Jmcc150,

Hope this works as I'm new to this forum. Anyway, if it was you that removed my "(in a role)" flags on McQueen and Brosnan, you seem to have missed the point. Not only do I agree there is no evidence that Pierce Brosnan is a (glider) pilot, I know of none that Steve McQueen was either. The Duo Discus flights in the 1999 "Thomas Crown" movie were by NY-PA pilots such as Tom Knauff & Monty Sullivan, while Brosnan's appearances were ground-bound against green screen and he probably never even had a "ride" for studio liability reasons. The Schweizer SGS 1-23 aerobatics in the 1968 movie were done by another Elmira pilot, Roy McMaster, it's been said on rec.aviation.soaring. Likewise, Kurt Russell (Snake Plisskin) didn't fly an IS-28B2 in "Escape from New York" either, that was Bill Bartell.

The point is that both Brosnan and McQueen ACTED roles as glider pilots and, since they were seen by millions more than will ever see a REAL glider pilot, I agreed it was appropriate to mention them (vs. their shared fictional character "Thomas Crown") -- but with a disclaimer.

By contrast, actors such as Chris Reeve and Cliff Robertson are known to have been real glider pilots, with Gold badges, personally owned gliders etc.

Jhpc 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Thanks for explaining the difference between wind sports and air sports. I first proposed the merger when I added the german interlanguage link "Luftsport" (lit. "air sport"). I guess I was a little confused myself, as there is only one word in German for the two activities, whereas the two English terms have similar definitions. - GilliamJF 15:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everton F.C.

the article suggested can't happen...as soon as you made it it would be up for deletion. Delron Buckley is still an unfinished matter. If he doesn't join Everton...which is likely...then he will be removed or just mentioned briefly. SenorKristobbal 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that but sometimes people get angry and say it isn't a news site. Lets just see how it goes. SenorKristobbal 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding

Ok, thanks, I just thought it was a bit cumbersome, my comment wasn't aimed at anyone.

On a different note, I would really like to push this article to featured status, it seems pretty decent already, but i imagine there is a lot more that could be expanded in some areas (i.e. the history).

Most critically it needs to be properly referenced. Also i think some material from Glider should be moved into this article (i.e. the sections ==Launch methods== and ==Staying aloft without an engine==), as they are really part of the practice of gliding rather than the glider itself.

Anyway, I see on your page that you are a gliding instructor and have even written a book on it, I haven't been gliding for quite a few years so you'll know much more than me! Martin 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nice work on all that referencing. I think the best thing to do now would be a Wikipedia:Peer review. One minor thing that should be changed is the self-reference to Sailplane & Gliding, a better method would be to reference the magazine directly using one of the other Wikipedia:Citation templates. thanks Martin 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status and possible FA

Oh, you can nominate it yourself (people nominate articles they've done most of the work on for FA all the time). Let me know ... I'd be happy to second it. Daniel Case 01:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's tagged (the one about how many pilots have made 1,000-km flights).

(BTW, thanks for giving me the chance to make this, my 11,000th edit, here). Daniel Case 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I finished my copyedit. I trimmed about 1K total; not a lot but the gist of the article is pretty much intact.

There was a lot of unnecessary repetition of words (If you don't mind my asking, is English not your first language? Yours is pretty good but there are some things, some usages, that struck me as second-language).

There are still some issues that you can probably address that I'll raise later on the FAC page. But it's still a good article (and, of course, a Good Article). Daniel Case 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect I was wrong to attribute the entire article to you. It occurred to me afterwards that the passages that seem a little synthetically phrased might have been written by others, or translated from the Dutch and German articles.

Sorry I haven't gotten to posting a further critique on FAC. Basically, it comes down to some places where we could go a little further with what we have. Daniel Case 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am actually fairly busy this week and that is keeping me from printing out a copy and critiquing it. Don't worry. Daniel Case 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I actually wound up doing another copyedit, and the issues I still have are under the FA nom.

Also, I am putting the FAOL tag on the talk page as per WP:ECHO. Daniel Case 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. However, I decided to check out the image licensing and found that Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg is not up to our current licensing standards. Can you see if the copyright holder is willing to release it for anyone to use like the other images? If not, it will have to be removed from the article if we want it to be an FA. Daniel Case 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking better all the time. I don't mind the Commonwealth spellings ... I think it's policy that on a non-specific subject, we use whichever one a consensus favo(u)rs (:-)) as long as every English speaker can understand it.

Will take another lookover soon and then probably come out and support. Daniel Case 23:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just did it. Daniel Case 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the gold star! I have played a supporting role in other FAs so far but never to this extent!

Now we should suggest it for the Main Page. Want me to take care of it? Any dates in mind that might be of importance? Daniel Case 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's done. See here. Daniel Case 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:BMW507.jpg

[edit] PR

I've given Gliding another brief look through and left some comments. It would benefit from another pair of eyes looking over it - if you can see a generalist giving good advice in Peer Review, you could try approaching them directly (I, at least, normally fall for this tactic!). Yomangani^talk 09:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making Gliding a featured article

Thanks for the review. I have amended the aerobatics at your suggestion. Military gliders are not really related to the sport of gliding, but there is a link in gliders. Any thought on how close the article is the featured standard would be appreciated. JMcC 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it looks pretty good to me. However I'm not really up-to-date on the thinking of the FAC crowd. It looks like you've already gone to Peer Review, which was the first thing I was going to recommend. It can be difficult to judge how FAC readers will respond to an article.

I think you are right about the WWII usage, since it is already menting in glider. On the other hand looking at it from the point of view of the average FAC reader (several have an interest in military history), I suspect many will wonder why WWII operations aren't mentioned. How's about dismissing it with a line like;

Although a few military operations in WWII involved gliders, they didn't require soaring and had little impact on the sport of gliding.

I notice that there is quite a lot of overlap with the glider article, but I'm not sure whether this would be seen as a problem. Another thing is the check that all the links go to where you expect, or have been correctly dab'd. There are currently no red links, so that should be OK. The referencing looks excellent.

Overall, the article looks pretty good in terms of being comprehensive. It would be possible to argue that there isn't much critism of gliding. I'd be reaching a bit to think of critisms - noise complaints over the use of tug planes? Despite being an environmentally friendly form of flying, you can't actually use it to go anywhere, because you can't be sure of reaching you destination :) Perhaps it doesn't really need any critism to be neutral; the general tone seems pretty neutral in any case. -- Solipsist 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of interest in gliding on WP:FAC. -- Solipsist 11:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Haege

I have removed the prod tag you placed on this article and made some comments on the talk page regarding it. I would appreciate your comments as well as others on the matter as I feel maybe this is borderline and should go through an AfD. Thanks -- DrunkenSmurf 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Celeste

Hi. You may wish to note the discussion at WP:RD/M#The cargo on the "Mary Celeste" re your edits to that article.--Shantavira 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Weil

Oops, you got me for sloppy writing on the rotorcraft addition. I've got 79 hours in sailplanes (137 power) and should have written that better! I as thinking of the four forces minus thrust and didn't clarify wing lifting.

[edit] WP:FN and Gliding

Layout and aesthetics are a small part of the FAC process, and a FA should have a self-consistent look. In gliding, about 11 footnotes followed punctuation with a space, the rest not. WP:FN says not to use a space. This may not seem like a big deal, but a space between the punctuation and ref allows the ref to be split off and appear on the next line as a floater. Because (I think) only spaces were removed, nothing is highlighted in the diff. Gimmetrow 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Weil

Glad to add my voice to Wikipedia for the gliding article's worth. A few years ago I started the expansion of the badge area. Glad to see so much more has been added. Now about amateur radio....

[edit] Re: Gliding

If any item is important, it should be linked from the text of the article. If it is linked, hard links at the end of the article are redundant. That's my opinion about "related sports". The lists of national associations and famous pilots should be split into separate pages, which should be linked to from the main page under "see also" heading. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to support, I have to read the article in detail but, with my current business, I don't think it's practicable. I wish you good luck with your nomination. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnard's Star

I think presenting an ultimatum is a less than an ideal way to go about reviewing an FAC. "However if you reverse most of my changes, I will oppose." How about: "However if you reverse most of my changes and refuse to discuss it, I will oppose." If errors have been introduced and the changes occured en masse, I think I have to revert, which I did in this case. You left me three minutes to post a comment in reply. Anyhow, I have commented now and will try to look more closely at some of the suggestions apparent in the edit (I did change the case). Marskell 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I want to do is discourage somebody who wants to "give back" to FAC. Please don't take my first-day-FAC jitters as reason not to participate; it's a great process that can be rewarding for everybody.

You're right in your thinking—I reverted more hastily in this case because I wanted initial reviewers of the FAC to judge it as it is/has been. For instance, your first two sentences do make more sense, but I need to make sure Barnard actually quoted the figure (he did note its "extensive" proper motion); similarly, you picked out the "true velocity" sentence, which needs better explaining, but is carefully qualified at this moment.

In general I don't support or oppose in the first comment at all (unless the prose is top-to-bottom bad). The "oppose until proven otherwise" is probably the most common stance, but I don't think it ideal. Make sure the nominator is engaged, and then engage yourself! Marskell 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth look! I've changed much to your suggestions and decided against a few. Because of its length, I placed the list on the FAC talk: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Barnard's Star. Feel free to go there and comment. Congrats on Gliding BTW. Marskell 10:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding

Well done on getting gliding up to featured status. I know it wasn't easy. -- Solipsist 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome: congratulations ! Sandy 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion, and for the input at FAC. I have incorporated your suggestion in to the article. I will remember that MOS guideline in future.  YDAM TALK 18:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lasham Airfield

I'm beginning to think that we are talking about different things. I thought that you removed the tag because Lasham didn't fit the legal requirements for an airport. The tag is not always there to say the article needs improvment but also to attract people to the project and perhaps help in other ways with other aerodromes. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the listing. While the project name is probably incorrect and it should be "Project Aerodromes" most people see aerodrome, airport, airfiled, etc as meaning all the same things. While I'm not sure of the UK requirement for an aerodrome to be called an airport (or even if there is one) in Canada there is a legal definition for both. Literally almost all of Canada can be classified as an aerodrome, then there are "registered aerodromes" and then "certified airports". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)