User talk:Raymondwinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Raymondwinn, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Peter Campbell 04:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your info on the Nephi Anderson article! ukforever 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analgesic

On analgesic you added a newspaper article on sleep-disordered breathing in opioid therapy. This is an interesting finding, and I can imagine it urgently needs to be confirmed in other studies, but it is not the kind of thing I would include in a very general article on painkillers until confirmation is available.

Generally, newspaper articles are not very useful sources for health-related articles on Wikipedia (unless they contain information not available from better sources). In this case, a quick look through the Deseret Morning News archives and the Pain Med website showed that the study we are talking about (doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00343.x) has not even actually been published on paper. This means that many pain scientists will not have had an opportunity to review its findings and correspond about them.

Let me know what you think. I have left the DOI code in the edit summary, so if we decide to stick the study back we can provide a full reference. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft categories

Hi Raymondwinn - it looks like you've been working for a few days to populate some of the "ghost town" aircraft categories like Category:High wing aircraft. These categories haven't ever really been used, and we're having a discussion over on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Aircraft about whether to keep them at all. Obviously you feel they have a place, so we'd love to get your input! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-37

Yeah, your changes were fine for the most part. The minor stuff was just semantics and clarity. You did all the hard work... — BQZip01 — talk 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking common words

Hi Raymond, I have recently noticed your submissions have centred around adding wikilinks to common words such as Machine gun. This is actually not encouraged as only significant words should be wikilinked. FWIW, I realize these are "good-faith" edits but if they do not provide value to the articles, the submissions are considered nonproductive. Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

WP:OVERLINK is a guideline on this subject. --Jtir (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, thanks for your very thorough and insightful comments. I do agree that there are easily compromises to be made in the area of wikilinking and you will note that in the last article I reviewed that I used a lot of the submission you provided. Please be aware that I value your efforts and hope to work again with you on topics of like interest. Like yourself, I am located in North America, frozen half. Although there are many commonalities in language for Canjans and Amerikins, you are quite correct that there are many non-English speakers who still would like to participate in Wikipedia, will appreciate links to unfamiliar words and terminology. Keep on rockin,' it was nice talking to you, electronically. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] AfD nomination of Dave Marinaccio

An editor has nominated Dave Marinaccio, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Marinaccio and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Them extra spaces

Hi Ray, I have recently noticed that you have added a space after the title headings in aviation articles. These extra spaces are not needed as the Wiki format looks fine without them and adding additional spaces means longer load time. FWIW ,some editors do like to add an extra space when an image note appears right after the title but that is only for convenience in editing. Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Aviat Husky

Hi there, thanks for your note. I don't know if I improved it any, but at least I tagged where it needs refs! It still needs a bunch of work, I just have to dig up the refs! - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - just in case you aren't watching this article, I just did a bit more clean-up on it. Feel free to dive in! - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note - glad that you think it is improving. If I can find a better reference I will add more! - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Hi again - just a courtesy note to let you know that I've just nominated eight categories based on unremarkable aircraft features for deletion, as per our discussion back in December. The categories in question are:

Cheers. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of feet and inches

I have brought up your changes to the use of feet and inches in aircraft specs at WT:AIR#Use of feet and inches. Feel free to present your reasons there. It would be nice if you stopped making these changes until the matter has been settled. Same goes for the categories. - BillCJ (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming specs

Please be very careful when trimming lines out of specifications sections. In doing so, you're making the template code insert the word "each" after single-engine types. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm only just realising the extent of the damage you've caused. Could you please go back and clean up after yourself before you "fix" any more articles? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it then that you're not intending to fix the articles your edits broke? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking

Please only make links that are relevant to the context. It's simply not necessary, and indeed counterproductive, to link country names that are familiar to most English speakers (eg, Netherlands) and common English words like engine, biplane and probably even flying boat. In the case of "engine", you've also been creating "Easter eggs" by piping the link, which is also generally considered to be undesirable. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed an instance where you "easter-egged" the description "all metal" to aluminium, when there was no actual indication in the text as to what metal(s) were used in construction. While of course aluminium was a safe bet, we simply don't know on the strength of the source material whether, for example, the aircraft may have had a steel frame or steel spars and whether, therefore a link to aluminium was accurate or not. And, of course, it's fairly safe to assume that most English-speakers know what aluminium is, making this another example of overlinking. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

I've noticed that you've included external links in some articles that seem to be there (at least principally, if not exclusively) to provide a picture of the aircraft in question. While I strongly sympathise with your intentions (one thing WikiProject Aircraft desperately needs is more pictures), this kind of link creates a problem for Wikipedia if the website displaying the photo is not the copyright owner (see the External Links policy page, under "Restrictions on linking"). This will probably be the case on most privately-published websites, and links to such sites simply to provide pictures should be avoided. Of course, when such a website is used as a source of information for an article, I'd say that the requirement to cite sources would trump the copyright consideration. This tension is just another reason to avoid linking to such websites when other sources of information are available. Highly ephemeral links like this one are problematic for their own reasons as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principal and interest guaranteed security

You need to bring up this comment at the AfD discussion as a Keep opinion (they're not votes), not on the article's Talk page ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)