User talk:Aodhdubh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Donald Henry 'Bob' Burns, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Donald Henry 'Bob' Burns. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. I accept your case and so I will just propose to be deleted, this will depend of the consensus reached. --Francisco Valverde 17:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I will remove that, Francisco, though it seemed a little unethical to me to do so myself. I've been working on the article, and will continue to do so. At the moment, i'm searching the web for other references. Just located this one: http://agham.asti.dost.gov.ph/1998/5th/fun/peejay/body.htm. Okay. I'll try out the signature procedure...another first, for me.

Seán Pòl Ó Creachmhaoil --Aodhdubh 12:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Supermarine Spitfire

The instructions and directions for where to ask questions if you don't understand how the template works are at the top of the list of specs. If the fields are left blank, they will simply not show up in the output. Deleting them creates extra work for users wanting to expand the specs. Furthermore, the WP:Air manual of style dictates only one set of specifications per page, for the most notable variant which was most definitely not the Mk.XII. Therefore, these specifications have been removed. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda Sea Cadet Corps

Excellent :) I added Template:Naval cadets to it and added in the Bermuda link and flag. Easy template to edit. if you add any more Naval Cadet Organisations please add the template (and edit it to include them). It adds to the Category:Naval Cadet Organisations automatically Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aye, Aye

Right you are. I won't be adding any more Naval Cadet Organisations, though I'll be adding an army cadet one (Bermuda Cadet Corps).

Tapadh leibh. Aodhdubh 13:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Bermuda

Hi, please see my discussion notes, under the header "Black Bermudians" so that we can discuss the passage on demographics. In short, I think a passage in there should be referenced before we can put it into the article. --D'Olivier 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Edits

Hallo. What do you think needs to be referenced, what type of reference would you accept, and to what end do you think it needs to be referenced, and how would the reference achieve that end?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Royal Artillery Cap Badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal Artillery Cap Badge.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tagging

Kindly cease removing fact tags without actually providing support to the associated statement. Note I'm also going to remove the padding you've added to the SAS intro, it can go in later in the article, the intro is not the place.ALR 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you put it in later in the article, or did you just remove it. It doesn't need a fact tag. Any book on special forces, or on the SAS specifically, will say the same.
I've removed it, please look at the section further down the article and make your changes, they didn't suit a wholesale cut and paste. The point requires substantiation from a reliable source, at present it is merely opinion, and that applies to many of the books on the Regiment as well.ALR 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What would a reliable source be, then? If you mean an official government statement, that's not likely to exist. That the SAS has been the model for other forces certainly is part of historical record....the information you refer to further down the page aptly illustrates that. It's quality may be a subjective statement, but it's role modelling certainly isn't.

[edit] Bermuda Airport

I just wanted to thank you for your additions to Bermuda International Airport. They really enhance the page and it's good to finally have some more information on this airport. I made a couple grammar edits to it, but excuse me if I am in the wrong. I also removed the stub templates because they are not needed now. Thanks. NcSchu 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bermuda Airport

You're very welcome. I'd put in pages on the airfield's previous lives as US Army/USAAF, USAF, USN bases, and on the other air stations in Bermuda, and eventually got round to adding to this one. I've trillions of pics as I was an airport policeman there, and I'll get around to tacking more in, perhaps. Aodhdubh 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is your source for Sea Venture construction info?

I really enjoyed your additions to the Sea Venture entry. May I ask your exact source of the information on the ship's probable construction in Aldeburgh in 1608 for £1,500? I am doing a research project on the Sea Venture and have never come across that information and would very much like to know the source. I see you list P. M. Wright's Sea Venture Story as a reference. Is that the source? I have never seen that book (just one library has it in the U.S.). Thanks very much. Seastories 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] source

Hallo. Feel free to write me at my e-mail.

Source is almoste certainly that pamphmlet, though I'll have to check. I've had a lot on my plate since writing that, but it's the only publication I remember checking. I have my own copy, and I'll happily scan it and email it to you (it's small). A late friend of mine wrote a biography on Sir George Somers that you may also find useful, though I'm not sure if it's still in print (Sir George Somers, a Man and His Time, by David F. Raine, Pompano publications). I have a copy, but it's too large to scan and e-mail, I think. I can point you in the right direction to finding a copy, though...

Aodhdubh 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for this image?

Image:Bermuda_sloop_race.jpg could you please add what source you scanned to create this digital image? It looks like it was scanned from a book. Also, what does "(E M Gosling)" mean? Thanks - Davandron | Talk 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Source

The image was indeed scanned from an out-of-print book, "Sailing In Bermuda: Sail Racing in the Nineteenth Century", by J.C. Arnell. It covers the development of sail racing in Bermuda in the 19th Century (which involved racing working sloops on the weekends), and which gave rise to the development of scaled down, dedicated racers known as Bermuda Fitted dinghies. The author of the book collected photographs from many sources, which he credited. E M Gosling was either the original 19th Century photographer, or provided the print used in the book. That wasn't made clear in the book, though the latter is more likely.

Aodhdubh 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Classic Boat article used with permission?

Can you link to the text on the sloop foundation where it says this article is used with permission? It looks great, just want to make sure its not a copyright problem. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erm?

Where it is used here with permission, or where it is used there with permission? I'll have a look, but I'm busy writing a Bermuda Fitted Dinghy article, just at the moment....

Aodhdubh 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry... :^) I see the link now on the front page of the bermuda sloop website, so I assume its with permission. - Davandron | Talk 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed so, also.

Aodhdubh 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International One Design

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, International One Design, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 20 where you can improve it if you see fit. Note that the 20th is the last day of eligibility for this article, so hopefully you'll be around if there are any concerns. Regards, howcheng {chat} 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International One Design, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Diana_Dill-Life.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Diana_Dill-Life.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] puzzled...

Hi Aodhdub, I've seen the interesting Image:Bermudian sloop-of-war Flying Fish.jpg that you've uploaded. I'd like to use it in an article, but I'm pretty confused by the caption. You seem to be calling it both a Bermudian sloop and a Baltimore clipper. Could you clarify? And possibly also with respect to the Navy history? Thanks a lot, Ibn Battuta 03:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick reply

Hallo...sure, but I must be brief, at the moment. The Navy began buying up Bermudian sloops from trade (note the Sting, which became HMS Pickle), as well as having some built to its requirements by Bermudian builders. As it was making a lot of effort at introducing standardised designs as classess, the Flying Fish design resulted partly from the desire for a commonality in these small ships. There was a lot of undeserved displeasure in the Navy with many of the Bermuda sloops due to their small size and lack of armament, and some scathing reports. These were unjustified as most were never intended to be fighting vessels, merely communications vessels, relying on their speed and maneouvrability both to quickly deliver communications, and to evade enemy vessels. In fact, the first three built for the navy (Hunder, Dash, and Driver) were built as fighting vessels, and were larger and better armed than vessels like the Pickle and the Whiting. There was some complaint that some of the shortcomings of later Bermudian-built vessels oredered by the navy were due to the Navy's attempts to design its own Bermuda sloop and have the Bermudian builders build it. It was suggested that, in future, the Navy out to simply issue specifications and allow Bermudian builders to create their own designs. Partly due to the misplaced dissatisfaction in some quarters with Bermudian designs, and partly as a result of the success of American privateers, it was decided to copy a captured Baltimore schooner which had had some success, the Flying Fish (the design of the American vessels had been strongly influenced by Bermudian traditions and boat builders in the preceding century, but were generally optimised for shallower, coastal waters) and the drawings made up from this vessel were issued to builders in both Bermuda and England. That's me writing from the top of my head, but I'll do a bit of reading up and amend/expand this later.

Aodhdubh 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aodhdubh, thanks for your reply. That's really interesting! As for Flying Fish, I understand it was influenced by Bermudian sloops, but was not actually one itself; the boats built after its specifications, however, were built by Bermudian builders, so one might argue that they were, hm, at least "closer" to being Bermudian sloops? ... If you should be writing more on this topic at some point, I'd love to read it! --Ibn Battuta 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
PS: As I'm about to upload the Flying Fish image to the Commons, would you think that changing the original title (containing the words "Bermudian sloop-of-war") to Flying_Fish_Baltimore clipper.jpg would be accurate? Likewise I've thought about changing the caption slightly (to spare you more user questions like mine :o)): Would that be okay?
Architectural drawing of the Flying Fish, a ship used by the Royal Navy.
Bermuda sloops were used by the navy in combatting French privateers, and as advice vessels, carrying communications and important materials. Inspired by the success of American privateers, however, the Admiralty used the Baltimore clipper Flying Fish as the model for a class of sloops, placing orders with boat builders in Bermuda and Britain. Although the American schooner's developments had been influenced by Bermudian vessels and builders, they were intended as coastal vessels, and were shallower drafted than comparably sized Bermudian designs (which were intended for the open ocean). - - - Thanks in advance, Ibn Battuta 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hallo Ibn...sure. I originally uploaded the image as part of the article on Bermuda sloops, but had second thoughts, myself, on its Bermudian-ness, so removed it from that article. If you're interested in the subject, try getting your hands on "The Andrew and the Onions", by Ian Strannack. Just make sure its a later, Bermuda Maritime Museum Press, edition....(I gave mine to the Imperial War Museum, but its now out of print, and the earlier, paperback edition, which I still have, leaves much to be desired).

Aodhdubh 00:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! I've uploaded the image to Commons accordingly... --Ibn Battuta 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BVRC Edward VII Coronation Contingent.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BVRC Edward VII Coronation Contingent.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gust

Hi, there is a problem with your edits to gust and gust Corporation. It sounds good to make a disambiguation on gust and create Gust Corporation but it's not the appropriate way to move pages. As you can see [1], the history of gust incorporation has been lost, which is bad. In order to fix the problem, I've asked the assistance of an administrator [2]. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hallo...I wasn't happy with the relocation, either. It left the page Gust required for a redirect, and so unable to be used for a page on the literal definition of 'gust' - hence 'gusts'. I've run into a limitation of my know-how, and yield to those who know more than I do on this subject. Aodhdubh (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's settled, gusts redirects to gust which disambiguates and gust Corporation has been recreated. -- Cenarium (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant. Tapadh leibh. Aodhdubh (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda

Hi Aodhdubh,

I noticed you added a very large number of images to this article's "gallery" today. Please consider reducing the number, as having more than 2 doz. images in a gallery is really way too much. Thanks, JGHowes talk - 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Road, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.14:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Jeepday (talk)

[edit] Your edits to Virginia

Hi Aodhdubh,

Regarding your edits to the Virginia article: I understand that for a period of time in the seventeenth century the colonies were understood together, however, I strongly doubt the relevancy of that information's repeated inclusion in prominent places in the article. In the lead, the summary of the article, you added: "the second permanent English colony in the New World, Bermuda, was settled as a part of Virginia". While this may be true, I don't think it belongs in the article on the U.S. state of Virginia, let alone in the lead. A note is already included in the History section referencing Bermuda as part of the original definition of the geographic term Virginia. It is not, however, currently considered in the same way, and I will remove the statements about "Bermuda's inclusion within the boundaries of Virginia" to eliminate confusion and off-topic phrases. I strongly feel that this information takes away from the article, rather than adding to it, and would be better included in the History of Virginia article and the Bermuda article. I will leave the note about the Sea Venture in the colony subsection. If you want to discuss, this, let's do so on my talk page or the Talk:Virginia page.--Patrick Ѻ 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bermudian Banknotes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bermudian Banknotes.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)