User talk:NcSchu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: ONE (May 2006-October 2007) CURRENT (November 2007-)
Please start new talk-page discussions at the bottom of this page. Thanks.☺

Contents

[edit] British Airways

Thanks for the clarification on the Manchester Airport situation with BA. Regards, Rudget Contributions 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Response hereIf incidents like "body at wheel well" was common place then so are all airplane incidents and accidents then, isn't it? Then why have that section at all? What strikes me odd is that you're just a student whereas I was there in LAX when it did happen as an employee. You might think this incident is irrelevant but from your thinking then, so was the B777-200 crash as well, since it's common place for planes to crash.User:Vegas07 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Airlines

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --LeyteWolfer 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some research on your hand before you accuse me of breaking the 3-revert-rule. I was reversing vandalism each and every time, and the last time I checked this was not a violation of the 3RR. If you need some explaining, the anon user 67.170.147.184 continuously changed an entry in the article to make it seem like Continental Airlines had Boeing 777-200LR aircraft instead of Boeing 777-200ER aircraft, which is simply not true. The anon user was continuously on the offense in his edit comments, saying words such as "prove it", "idiot", and "wrong" and then when I did "prove" it, he simply reverted it again and said that he didn't care. Fortunately another user corrected it this time, however it clearly shows no wrong doing on my part. Thank you. NcSchu(Talk) 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Response here. --LeyteWolfer 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically when two users revert each other's edits simply because they disagree with one another's edits. That was not the case here, in which I was reverting an edit that was clearly false: Continental does not have 777-200LR aircraft, they have 777-200ER aircraft. I find it absurd that I should ignore the correction of false information simply because of the 3RR. I understand how it could easily have looked like an edit war, but I also had indications that the anon user was a vandal, especially after he/she ignored referrals to sources. NcSchu(Talk) 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester Airport colour changes

In retrospect, I agree. Best, — Rudget contributions 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newark Airport logo

My SVG at 300 pix.
My SVG at 300 pix.
Your PNG at 300 pix.
Your PNG at 300 pix.

Well... Do you still think SVG version is worse than PNG. About that it's on my user page... Look: Nowhere it's said "My creations", but "my contributions" and... This is one.
Javitomad (...tell me...) 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learn some manners

When editing wiki, there's no need to use the summary lines to insult other people & call their contributions "silly". Grow up; you're not a teenager anymore. - Theaveng (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was in fact not specifically calling you silly. If you re-read the edit comment you'll see I was calling the use of abbreviations in general, such as "w/", silly, because they really don't make sense in the context of an article when space-saving is not required. Seriously, "silly" is a very light and comical word to use (unlike, "stupid", which is by far immature). You're over-reacting, especially telling me to "grow up" (no need to insult people, eh?). In fact, you end up being slightly hypocritical by doing the exact same thing you scold me for in your edit comment. I hope there's no need to have this very minute and, if you'll excuse me, silly, incident get in the way of editing. Regards, NcSchu(Talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EWR-AMS

Try going to NWA's website again. No NWA operated EWR-AMS flights are loaded into NWA's schedules. The only flights i have found is Northwest Airlines Flight 8658, which is operated by KLM. Flights from EWR-AMS won't happen for the next 2-3 months. Also check the EWR website. Bucs2004 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the problem, I was using the default dates that the NWA spits out, whereas you were probably using today's date. Doing some date-picking I've found that the NWA flights begin on January 6th. Even though it's in a couple of days I'll still add in the end/begin templates. Thanks. NcSchu(Talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminated destinations

To my knowledge, terminated destinations are NOT relevant to airports but ARE relevant to airline destination lists. Is there a place where a group of people came to a consensus about airline destinations? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Which talk page? And how is "historically relevant" defined?

Anyhow, I make sure that all such terminated destinations have citations (my favorites are those explaining why the routes fell, i.e. BA with Zimbabwe, AC with Delhi, etc.) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin America destinations

I completely agree with you. I've replaced the new article with a redirect to the section you re-instated. I also included a comment that the article shouldn't be re-created without discussion in the Talk page ... richi (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section names

The reason why each of the sections of "Terminated destinations" begins with "Terminated in " is so the sections may be linked.

If I tried to type in British Airways destinations#Asia to get a list of terminated destinations for Asia, instead I would get the *first* Asia section, which lists destinations not terminated.

Also if one finishes editing a section, Wikipedia redirects to the *first* section bearing that name.

In order for a section link to work, the names have to be unique. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bethlehem Steel

You are spending way to much time making sure people cant show their images of bethlehem steel on their own sites rather than contributing to the article. My work is in the Permanent Collection at the Moma, is that notable enough for you? What have you done thats notable except get into college and replicate a few logos? If you dont have anything to add to the bethlehem steel article then i suggest you go back to copying logos. Leave this to the professionals and stop preventing people from having access to images to one of the most important industrial sites in our country. You've over stepped your boundaries and are only looking through a very shallow lens.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanarcheology (talk • contribs) 09:37, January 7, 2008

What you do in your real life is irrelevant. This is not real life, and there are rules. Personal attacks gain nothing, and they won't make your case stronger. I'm not making sure people can't show their images, that's what "Upload file" is for. Linking to personal websites, whatever you may call them is spam, and it's a clear violation of this website's policies. NcSchu(Talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

how about you make a contribution to the page, can you do that? or are you just going to sit there tweaking minor things that get you off on rules. rules are for people like you who are too unintelligent to do anything your self. there are exceptions to rules, except you are not bright enough to figure that out. what do you major in, physical education? Have you ever even been inside that steel mill? Do you realize the importance of those images? Do you realize that photographers find each others work by searching for things they are interested in? Its just an external link, stop being a douchebag. do your self a favor and go inside that mill yourself, you wont because your too weak... you just sit in your dorm room jerking off to you revisions. good luck with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.189.6 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you enjoy attacking people in real life? Actually, if you must know, I'm an engineer, and it's funny because Lehigh University is a few blocks away from the site and I can see it every day if I wanted to. I'm also a photographer. So don't automatically assume that I know nothing. I invite you to look at my contributions to this encyclopedia, because I've contributed a lot more to the encyclopedia than you have, including to the Bethlehem Steel article. I have a life, so I use my "watchlist" to make sure that nobody adds inappropriate things to a list of articles, including Bethlehem Steel. If you have no concern for rules, then I suggest you stop editing this encyclopedia, because you're going to encounter a lot of them. I have, I've dealt with them, you should too. NcSchu(Talk) 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your not an engineer your a student. If your a phtographer get in there and start shooting instead of Starring frm a distance. Time to unpop that collar preppy and start shooting. They are demolishing the EFM building while you sit in your dorm your parents paid for worrying about external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.125.6 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I love how you pretend to know me, but you really don't...at all. Learn the Internets, learn to use spell-check, and have a nice day. NcSchu(Talk) 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ok mister photographer, they are demolishing the electric furnace melt from both sides tomorrow, i'd go down to third street and take a stool so you can shoot over the fence unless you have wire clippers. a picture is worth a thousand words. your not going to shoot digital are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.189.6 (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to ever log in, or just continue to post cowardly? Either way, I'm going to remove this section and anything you post in the future because it's simply a waste of space on my Talk Page. NcSchu(Talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i thought i was logged in. that my comments are a wast of time and that i am a coward is your opinion. i was simply asking you to be what you are claiming to be and that is a photographer. if you really are a photographer, you will go down to the steel site and document what is going on. if anyone has proven they are a coward i think that is you. i dont meat to attack you here, only to point out that you are making claims that you are not backing up. can i see some of your photographs? it seems you are missing the point here, but you will understand one day. in the mean time, stick to your education so that you can at least become an engineer which you are not, unless they are giving away degrees to freshmen these days is that the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanarcheology (talk • contribs) 12:59, January 8, 2008

My how civil you become once you shed the IP address. I would go down to the steel site if we weren't at winter break now. And I think it's a bit too late to claim "you don't mean to attack me" because that's all you've done so far. Don't try to pretend like you're some old, experienced person trying to teach me a lesson, you blew that chance a long time ago. I've backed up my claims, I've backed them up with official WP policies, which you haven't. The pictures would be excellent in the article, but as an external link they look like nothing more than the artist's attempt to advertise his work. If he cared that much about contributing he would have uploaded some and attached them to the article, a much more effective contribution. We have creative licenses for that purpose. Frankly at this point I don't care whether or not it's included because you've taken it upon yourself to have a personal vendetta against me, and I'm sick and tired of wasting my time having to reply to you. NcSchu(Talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

and you still dont back up your claims of being a photographer. that was all i ask and you avoid it every time. your not what you make yourself out to be and you are wasting everyones time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanarcheology (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly is everyone? You? You flatter yourself. I can't show you or anyone else my photos because I don't have a website to put them on. Sheesh. NcSchu(Talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To the anon poster above: please remember to sign in with your user name to avoid problems specified at WP:SOCK. Also aggressive posts are not permitted per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Persistence will result in being blocked from editing. Otherwise, I suggest you continue the discussion at Talk:Bethlehem Steel‎. Tyrenius (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin America

Thanks for your help in cleaning up the VX article, especially my shocking grammar. I swear English is my native language! Travellingcari (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Me again, taking it off the VX talk page to keep the clutter down. I'm curious how you knew the Founding Member ended 12/31, did you get an e-mail? I ask because I'm also a Founding Member and while I get some VX e-mails, I didn't get that one and worried that my e-mail isn't playing nice. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I probably just overlooked it when I signed up. Flying VX again next month and looking forward to wasting more time playing Mahjong :) Travellingcari (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "secret" is safe with me ;) I'd love it if they were to go to EWR. So much closer to home and my office, from where I usually head to the airport. I chose to fly VX in December because it was far cheaper than any of the legacy carriers for a trip over New Years' weekend. It was good enough service/value that I'm willing to trek to JFK. That and the subway/airtrain to JFK at $7 is cheaper than NJ Transit to EWR from Penn. Travellingcari (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for undoing the red link, I'm used to working in spaces where dead links are discouraged. I'll consider doing his page if I need a break from 2002 European floods sometime this evening. Travellingcari (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You almost got your VX wish at EWR. I flew in this morning from LAX and at one point they advised us that they might have to divert to EWR due to poor landing at JFK, but we ended up making it to JFK. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airport infobox

by customary i mean't exactly what you said. ("Airport Diagrams were more of an interim solution in case no suitable photograph could be found"). the reason i did change it is because i felt a better photo of KIAH could represent the airport; as well as changing out of place photo's (ex. picture of terminal E under terminal B)IAH777 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
well, what do you think about putting in a runway section?

IAH777 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CO is not canceling IAH-Gatwick

Check the reservation systems - also the reference provided for Gatwick ending does not mention Gatwick at all. The reservation systems in May indicate the flights CO34 (IAH-LGW) and CO35 (LGW-IAH) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • For IAH Continental will operate two LHR flights and one LGW flight. CO will still operate EWR-LGW, but with 757s. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched in the May timetable and with EWR to LGW I found:

  • CO114 EWR-LGW
  • CO116 EWR-LGW

And back:

  • CO115 LGW-EWR
  • CO117 LGW-EWR

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the approval seems to be here - I removed all of the ends from the LGW flights :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Oops... apologies... Saw your name on the membership list after I posted. Wexcan (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bethlehem Steel again

I would take this to the Bethlehem Steel talk page, but I believe this would be better done in a direct manner. User:Urbanarcheology has been on the offensive one again ([1] and [2]). I've notified the administration who has warned him and temporarily blocked his IP account. Because of this user's continued abusive nature towards anyone who opposes his opinions, I believe it would be best for the Bethlehem Steel article if he were simply cut out. I believe continuing to let him weigh in will only lead to stalemate as he attempts to control the article in his own way. I think you and I can come to a much better agreement that not only fits Wikipedia rules, but also is unbiased in promoting ones own pictures and the like.

I know it may not be the most ideal solution to cut out a contributor, but I honestly would have difficulty in really considering Urbanarcheology much of a contributor in the first place. The359 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm taking less and less interest in this article. I originally added it to my watchlist because I currently live near the compound. I really do not wish for this fiasco to continue to go on (and have less and less desire to routinely visit this article) and I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake to start neglecting other editors, however uncivil and unresponsive they may be. I am very busy and am not able to dedicate as much time as usual to editing, however when I have more time I do intend to get some books and use them to add information the article. But I think in terms of the article itself User:Urbanarcheology has been acting much more in accordance with Wikipedia policies and now when I go to the page I see a much better formatted article. He has been reported and has been warned (though he keeps blanking his talk page) about the incident with your talk page, but the article is just as much "his" as it is "yours" or "mine" and therefore I feel we would be just as guilty of claiming "ownership" of the page as he had been doing when he wasn't allowing any compromises or agreements. NcSchu(Talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Virgin America logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Virgin America logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin America

You may wanna do some updates on the fleet count on the page Virgin America fleet, which I made.

--Limaindia (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LHR T5

Thanks, sorry about the revert - I think the problem is the terminal is officially open just that British Airways are not using it for services until the end of the month! MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda International and the Shuttle

This is the reliable sourcethat you were asking about: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm. Kevin Rutherford 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So I read on about your edits and found this: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/4411/faq-b.htm Kevin Rutherford 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modified Airliner Photos

Hi. Sorry to waste your talk page thingy, but is this Nick from MAP? You've uploaded the Virgin logos! They're cool, but I reckon you should have done them a bit bigger + transparent PNGs. Just a thought. Thanks. Amistry.mistry (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MSNBC logo

MSNBC has not changed their on-air logo to match their online logo. --Mhking (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bethlehem Steel in SF

Why did you remove the link that was recently added about the history of Bethlehem Steel? As far as I'm concerned it only adds to the discussion and the history, describing an important era, and something that is not adequately covered in the article. Are you stifling freedom of intellectual expression? For this reason, I'm re-adding the link. If you have any objections, please take it up with me. --haeber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeber (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it was a suspicious edit, and it violates WP guidelines. The website doesn't seem to be sponsored by any academic institute or organization that would give it notability. It clearly is a blog/personal website regardless of the content. And anyone that starts trying to lecture people on things like 'stifling freedom of intellectual expression' gives me even greater reason to have the link removed given that this is the number one defense by people that post bad external links. NcSchu(Talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you're so easy to jump on the article when it is sourced, referenced, includes images and well-researched, factual information. What more could you ask for? Let the readers decide. Are you the God of knowledge? Would it be better if I slapped a .edu on the end of that domain. Would you be okay with it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.137.214 (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm "so quick" because it's such an obvious violation. I suggest if you are the same person as User:Haeber that you log in when editing, otherwise it looks like you're trying to have sock puppets. I would prefer if the link wasn't just some person's blog. Don't try to throw out labels because it only makes your position seem more hostile. NcSchu(Talk) 15:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Virgin Blue Logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Virgin Blue Logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the change in Richard Branson article

I found the original sentence a little peculiar and was tussling with it. The sentence before you and I modified it was: "The previous record was set by two Frenchmen at 6 hours". Did Branson see his effort as part of a rivalry with France? Or was it just the source of this information that did? Why, earlier in the section, are other record-breakers named and linked, and these not? All small issues, to be sure.

24.130.129.125 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also wondering why the Frenchmen weren't listed by name, but I had 0 motivation to investigate. NcSchu(Talk) 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree removing the sentence "BBc's Top Gear program failed to break the record refering to Branson as "Beardy Branson" when contacted by the british coast gaurd." You give an interesting reason, that failed attempts aren't always worth mentioning. But this started me thinking. If my cat tries to jump on the sink and fails, that's not Wiki-worthy. If Branson tries to jump on a sink and fails, that's not Wiki-worthy. But if Evel Knieval fails to do a stunt, that is Wiki-worthy. (As I just found out.) Food for thought. 67.180.48.127 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Top Gear attempt is good for the Top Gear page and was a rather enjoyable episode, but it's not worth mentioning on Branson's page. NcSchu(Talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Airlines

I saw that you took out the possibility of Warsaw service. I was wondering why this was taken out, if it is a serious and reference possibility, and why you would not do that to Delta Air Lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane nerd (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the DAL service possibility, but I checked out the reference and saw that nothing was said about CO on Wikipedia. I would also prefer it if both references stayed rather than both went. Lastly, this info is relevant, at lesat to me, as seen by the fact that it goes into the destinations section of an airline article and possible routes are often mentioned. THNX! Plane nerd (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VX fleet AfD

I was unaware that other such pages existed. When I find those pages, I will nominate those for AfD, as well. Thanks for the heads up. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha no problem; I'm trying to see what should be done about the SQ and AA fleet pages, as it hinges on whether or not historic fleet information is really that important. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, what's your take on it the other fleet pages? It seems that there is at least one other person that agrees that they ought to be merged back into the main article. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them back into the main pages, then? Those few pages are the exception (I kinda merged the EK, TG, and AA ones, at any rate, and no one's objected to those). So that makes the SQ one the exception, and I don't see what's so special about SQ that allows them to have a separate fleet page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then any suggestions or assistance regarding the SQ fleet page? I've put a merger proposal, but there are no responses; I'll AfD it if the VS and VX AfDs go through, though. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that the Singapore Airlines fleet has already gone through two AfDs and survived both. Attempting an AfD on an article just because it is "an exception" or a direct result of other AfDs appears to be a direct reflection of an WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ALLORNOTHING argument, which is frowned upon in AfD discussions.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And let me point out that the text is redundant to what's in the article, therefore giving the fleet page article little substance (registrations are irrelevant per WP:AIRLINES and the information in the table can be found in other sources). There is no basis for the existence of that page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Care to explain why is the text "redundant"? As mentioned in one of the edit summaries, wikipedia is about collecting information from verifiable sources and presenting them in a way which would make sense to the reader. It is therefore absolutely normal and essential to expect to find information here appearing in another source. Your argument to remove this article is simply not any different from the past two AfDs.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

I've received a complaint about you not being nice to people. Your recent edit summaries lend credence to the complaint. Please try to play nice. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed your comment on my talk page, and yes I was purposely being ironic with the edit comment. But I do find your comments to be rather baseless. I'm becoming more and more curious as to the reported 'complaint' you reference, especially because when I look at my contributions as you so helpfully direct me, I see only a small handful (and a small animal's handful at that) of edit comments approaching being rude. I use my edit comments to list what I change, and if prudent, list why I choose to change the things I change. I'm not being rude to anyone, as the comments are being widely directed to those interested in my thoughts, if you will, while I edit. If one or more users take them personally, then that really isn't 'my problem'. Your comment was rather blunt and unhelpful, if I do say so myself, and yes that was directed at you. NcSchu(Talk) 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heathrow accidents

Why is the Virgin accident non-notable? It closed the airport for half a day, caused damage to the runway, and procedural recommendations were made as a result of it as far as I remember. The report should be available on the AAIB website if you want a read. Mjroots (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, its omission leaves a big gap in the timespan between accidents. An accident does not necesarily need to result in major loss of life for it to be notable (BA038). Are we really saying there were no major accidents at LHR between 1972 and 2008? Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've brought the entry up on the talk page of the Heathrow article. Am willing to see if there is consensus as to (non-)notability. I've also posted a link to where the report can be accessed there. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Arboretum box

No progress that I know of... I'm primarily active on Wikiversity these days though. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)