User talk:Rehnn83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Rehnn83, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Helens

Stated in your edit summary that you reverted to a different model, due to vandalism by myself, please elaborate Londo06 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on you talk page. --Rehnn83 11:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atmel AVR

Hello - you appear to be experienced in Wikipedia, so I hope you won't mind me asking a couple of questions? Otherwise please just let me know and I'll search elsewhere.

I put a link under Atmel AVR to a wiki entry about BASCOM (an AVR BASIC compiler), which I thought just about satisfied Wikipedia conditions - in truth I may have been taken in by the section on "BASIC & Other AVR Languages" and blithly added a link to a description of something I find useful - but you have removed that link. I understand that it is borderline whether any of the links should be there, but I am curious about why you have left, for example, the link to 'AVRco Embedded' in the same section - for what reason does that qualify to stay while the link to the BASCOM wiki entry doesn't?

Also, you marked your edits as minor although they don't appear to qualify according to the minor edits help page - since I haven't spent much time here, could you let me know if this is accepted practice or a slip on your part? Thank you in advance, Jcswright2 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Reason I removed the BASCOM wiki link was that it linked to an open wiki. The Atmel/AVRFreaks Wiki is fairly new an not yet fully established. See WP:EL . If a suitable link to a BASCOM site could be found it would be great. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood - thank you. I asked the makers of BASCOM for a permanent link to a compiler information page, which I'll add to the Atmel AVR page shortly - hopefully it will be suitable, if not then perhaps you or someone else will be able to change it appropriately. Jcswright2 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Lyons

This is Daniel Lyons, why did you call my editing my own wikipedia page nonsense when it isn't? I do believe I am the authoratitive source on myself.

If you are Daniel Lyons (which I do not believe is the case) then you should avoid editing the article - following the guidelines on WP:AUTO. As for the page being nonsense - have you actually read what you've written - the text reads like it has been written by a five year old. If you wish to positvley contribute to the article please do so - but please restrain from added nonsense and garbage. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

--- Why can't I write my wikipedia page my own way? The difficulty is, there are these other prestigious people with my name that somehow seem to be caught up in some sort of mistaken identity thing that's a bit annoying. I do actually have the copyright on my life story, in all honesty. There's an "automatic" copyright on things like that.

First of all please sign your posts. It's fairly simple - if your notable enough people will write your wikipedia entry for you - if other people don't it meands your peers do no believe your are notable for inclusion in an encylopedia. If you want to put up your own bio, the best place is your userpage. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devoshane

Might have better luck reporting him at WP:AIV. --Action Jackson IV 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made the block, but yeah, WP:AIV is dedicated to vandalism and you'll get a faster response there. Unknown people tend to show up on your talk page if you report vandalism on WP:ANI. =P There's a list at the top of the ANI page that tells you where certain kinds of reports are supposed to go. ··coel acan 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll go to WP:AIV next time. Cheers -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an unknown person who's showing up on your talk page because you reported vandalism on WP:ANI 151.197.14.35 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kkachi

Thank you for your advice on how to add references. It was kind of you to let me know. I have made one more change to the page on Airplane spin. The reference I found says that the plane levelled out at fifty feet instead of five. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kkachi (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cutty Sark

Thanks for engaging in the talk page and providing an explanation, rather than just deleting the link. I'd argue that during a rapidly changing situation a site citing authoritative sources is acceptable - as effectively created from authoritative sources, and conforming to "be bold". People have had knowledge they would have missed otherwise.

Anyway, they've caught up now and material is available, so I'm going to start building a paragraph with authoritative references.

Will you visit the talk page to work with me on this?

Cheers

julianduk (talk)

Yes I'll continue the discussion on the talk page, -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design News

I have a problem with your choice to delete my editing on Design News. If you consider this "Blatant advertising" perhaps you should consider removing CNN and NY Times from Wikipedia as this is OBVIOUS advertising considering NY Times has each issue posted on their page, their current website, masthead, and so on.

First of all be so kind as to sign you posts. I didn't delete the article Design News - I simply marked for deletion as it was blatant advertising. If you actually read the CNN & NY Times articles, they don't dedicate the article to writing about themselves, and they are written my independeant editors. It is always best practice to avoid writing about your own company as this creates a conflict of interest see WP:COI. For a more general overview about what Wikipedia is not please review WP:NOT. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] airlinequality.com

Could you please join the discussion about airlinequality.com (also known as Skytrax) on the WikiProject Airline discussion page here. Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Al Transatlantic

Its citated in the El Al article - the famous advert is found here Image:El Al ocean ad.png Flymeoutofhere 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comfort (Fabric Softener)

Hi thanks for moving the title. Please can you also mover the Comfort fabric softener page (which I created by accident) to Comfort (Fabric Softener)? I can't do this yet as I have only been a member for a few hours. Many thanks! --Rebecca Michael 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca - Done it and I've replied on your talk page.-- Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Award Londo06

Much appreciated, fleshing out wikipedia at work makes the day go alot quicker. Nice to hear that the work is appreciated. I have also seen your callsign in many of the articles. I would be more than happy to repay the Barnstar favour, if someone hasn't already done so. Londo06 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think most of my RL contributions tend to be minor edits rather than big edits or creating new articles. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between TCC and RCC

Thank you for your message. There is indeed a huge difference. The pope is the leader of the Catholic religion. The eastern churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome by whatever tradition, still regard him as their spiritual leader, by whatever name they call their liturgical traditions, e.g. Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Chaldean, Syro-Malakar, etc. The term Roman Catholic Church AS USED BY THE HOLY SEE, would NORMALLY refer to the Latin Rite churches, which the pope, as the western patriarch, governs. As for the eastern patriarchates still in communion with Rome, the term RCC is a misnomer. They DO NOT NORMALLY refer to themselves as RC - trust me, I've met eastern Catholics: Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Ukrainian and they don't NORMALLY refer to themselves as RC. Regardless, all believers of the religion who sees the Bishop of Rome as essential and head refer to themselves as CATHOLICS.

The term RCC is more or less an Anglo-centric carryover from Encyclopedia Britannica. I am of the camp that respects the objections of the agents of the Catholic Church, i.e. its priests, that is to say, that it identifies itself as merely the Catholic Church. I also subscribe to the argument of other WP editors that the naming convention of WP be fairly applied to the CC and hence name it as such. Other editors of WP would object of course and can definitely find sources of instances of the term RCC being used but it is not the same as that being taught by its hierarchy. If you talk to Eastern Catholics, they would definitely object since they refer to themselves as Catholics, definitely, but not Roman Catholics (e.g. Maronite Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, etc.). A few editors in WP seem to monopolize an article and such is the behavior of most articles in WP. The term RCC is unfortunately an Anglican invention with an originally derogatory connotation (anti-papist) during the 18th cent. onwards and has unfortunately been applied by the British to the CC and hence infected wholescale the English language - but that's history for you. In sum, it is unfortunate that the terminology being used is incorrect and misleading although gaining acceptance. This is one of the weaknesses of WP since articles are made as a product more of consensus than objectivity. This is true whenever an article is an article of the humanities. Since no subject under the humanities can ever be objectively presented, everybody would just have to accept, including you, the realization that it will always be subject to change unlike a subject under science.

The Catholic Church is led by its high priest, His Holiness Benedict XVI. From an objective evaluation of what it calls itself (and that should be the reference point) it calls itself simply, The Catholic Church, capital t, capital c - centuries before Constantinople, before there was an Ecumenical Patriarch and before the general councils even existed. And it is known unambiguously by that name and its members who follow the Pope are known as Catholics - obedience to the Pope is a very defining feature. I will ask you to perform an experiment: ask an ordinary Orthodox, Anglican or Armenian Apostolic church member if they are Catholics. I tried it, and fortunately they were still civil. The Orthodox reaction is the most interesting(but don't be within arm's reach when you do this). I'm an equal opportunity offender. I'm politically incorrect and I consider myself objective. I call a spade a spade. So should you. I still stand by the position that the proper name under Wikipedia should be Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. Dr mindbender 01:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Ther are many Christian groups who identify themselves as Catholic who are not in Communion with the pope in Rome. The term "Catholic Church" is often interoretted as encompassing all Christians, who believe in the Holy Trinty (as asserted in the Nicene and Apostles creed). I myself identify as a member of a Catholic church - I believe in one Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Chruch - but I am not a Roman Catholic. In spoken English the word "Roman" is often dropped and just the term "Catholic" used to refer to Roman Catholics. However this is both ambiguos and technically incorrect so in an encylopedic article the term "Roman Catholic" should be used. This is where, I believe, you are getting confused. The word Catholic originaly comes from Greek where is mean "Universal" so it is easy to see how "Catholic" encompasses all Christians. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, I think you're the one confused. A detached study of history shows that the followers of the religion who view the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as final arbiter of that religion since the early centuries, even prior AD 313 - Edict of Milan, have been consistently and unambiguously called and referred to as Catholics. The heretics and schismatics from the religion professed by the Roman Church also wanted to call themselves Catholic, but are never accepted as such. The fiction by the Anglicans that they are Catholic have been repudiated by the Roman Church itself. The meaning of the title Catholic Church should be defined by that organization that has right to that name, not offshoots. For example, who should rightfully own the name "Prince of Wales"? -- the Prince of Wales of course (currently HRH Prince Charles), if some idiot tries to hijack the name 'Prince of Wales' he can of course call himself as such but the name would properly belong to the British monarchy. Second example, suppose a bunch of idiots want to call themselves or refer to themselves as part of the British nobility; who has the right to define their claim? Simply claiming you are one doesn't make you one. Or suppose the British monarch grants a hereditary title to family "A" then later on, the title is transfered to another family "B" and the first grantee ("A") is denied the use of the title, who is the legitimate title holder then? Who then properly owns the title? Furthermore, if the monarch prohibits "A" and all their descendants from using the title, isn't that proof of a final decision on who owns the name? Get the analogy?

Respectfully, Dr mindbender 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think that is a rather intoverted view? Just because Group the RCC says that not RCCs can't call themselves Catholics, does not make it fact. The fact is there are lots of people who call themselves Catholic who are not in communion with the Church in Rome. You can discount one person who call's themsleve the Prince of Wales but when several billion people call themselves Catholic who are not in communion with the Church in Rome, that is hard to discount. It is true many Roman Catholics do not count those not in Cominioun with Rome as Catholics. Returning to the Original point, the reason that on Wikipedia the Pope is refered to as The Spiritual Leader of the Roman Catholic Church is to avoid this debate (on Wikipedia). It is a fact that The Pope is The Spiritual Leader of the Roman Catholic Church, some people would argure that the The Pope is The Spiritual Leader of the Catholic Church and some would argue he is not. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it is obvious that you failed to understand the concept of the argument or its analogy and I will leave it at that. No further reply nor discussion is necessary. Numbers do not imply validity to an argument but rather the correctness and validity of reasoning. No further reply from me is forthcoming.

Dr mindbender 18:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply (??). I fully understand the Concept of an arguement - however I don't follow your arguement. It seems you are claiming that Catholics in Communion with Rome should have an exclusive use of the term catholic, whoever you give no reason for this (??). It is generally accepted that Catholic Christianity (or Nicene Christianity) formally came into being at the First Council of Nicea which predates the formal begining to the Roman Catholic Church (which was formalised by the Roman Emperor Theodosius). The key term is Catholic not Roman. Catholic means those who believe in one God. (Dervived from the original Greek meaning Universal or Singularity). It is true that in common parlance "Catholic" is used to refer to those in Communion with Rome. However it is not true to say the the Othrodox, Anglican Chruches etc.. are not Catholic. (The claim of all Christian Churches to the use of the term Catholic is no greater nor no less than the Church if Rome). Hence the reason that where appropiate on Wikipedia the difference is made. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Nazi

I have replied to your contribution to the article I created on my own talk page --John Stumbles 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight planning removal of 'Trivia'

I notice you've removed the note about flying below sea level. Could I ask for your reason(s) for doing so.

Perhaps I shouldn't have labelled that section as 'Trivia'. It is rumoured that several US military jets have come close to crashing when their on board computers crashed on flying below sea level in the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Certainly any flight planning system which covers flights to Amsterdam must cope with below sea-level flights.

Murray Langton 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A general guidline of Wikipedia is to avoid trivia sections. The single item of trivia is not particulalry notable, flying in these locations will mean that your altimeter reports a negative altitude when using QNH (use QFE and this is not a factor). This trivia/fact is a bit like writing, in an article on train scheduling, that a train scheduler has to cope with a train arriving early as well as late (Rare - but it does happen). Also as a general guidline Wikipedia should not include Trivia sections (See WP:TRIVIA). If a verifibale source for this "fact" can be found then it should be included in the very few planes that is effected (although I suspect it is similar to the Urban legend that the US spent millions on a pen that would work in space while the Russians used a pencil).

I'm getting away from the topic, basically I don't believe the statement in notable. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand your reasoning, thanks. However, some flight planning systems have fallen over when faced with negative heights, so I'll see if the info can be put in some more appropriate place. Murray Langton 05:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit slow getting back to you. I notice you put the section back in. I think it now flows a lot better (well done). However I've tried to word it to put the emphasis on the fact that this will result in a negative altitude. I'm not sure my wording is the best - so please re-word it if you can put it better. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your wording is fine by me, thanks. One problem I had when writing this article is references - most of the ones I know of are company confidential (I work for a major flight planning vendor) - so if you come across any useful references feel free to add them. Murray Langton 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 767 cruise speed

I noticed you removed all velocity speeds and listed only mach speed. I'm wondering why...unfortunately, what you have done is now removed information that some readers might find valuable, thereby reducing the useability/value of the article as an encyclopedia article. It should be our goal to serve our readers as best as possible by including such information, not removing it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rehnn83 stated some reasons for this on my talk page here: My talk page (See "Removal of mph/kph in 787" at bottom). -Fnlayson 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is clearly a controversial topic I have decided to start a discussion on the mattter at WP:AIR see [1] -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Edit to Tommy Williams

My edit to Tommy Williams‎ Thanks for reverting my edit to Tommy Williams‎. When I added the {{db-nonsense}} tag I must have been viewing an earlier version of the page. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was going to give you a warning, but realized that it must have been accidental. So no harm done in the end. Cheers! --tennis man 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hopkins-Nanjing Center

Hey -- Rehnn83 ^Talk and good morning to you from here stateside. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in that I did remove the “Speedy Deletion” tag from the Hopkins-Nanjing Center article. I agree with you 100% that the article does need a complete rewrite and I have notified the author of the situation. I have placed the article on my watchlist and will keep an eye on the developments to make sure the appropriate changes are made. If the original author or some charitable editor does nothing within the week, I’ll start the rewrite to meet Wikipedia standards. Have a great day. • ShoesssS ^Talk

Thank you for reviewing the article. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PolkaSpots Speedy Deletiion

Hello,

WOuld you be able to explain why you chose to delete my article on PolkaSpots Limited. Before writing it, I checked on other companies similar to PolkaSpots and copied their format. Have a search for the cloud...

I don't see why you regard this as blatant advertising?

Whilst wikipedia is supposed to be a forum for open speach, it actually seems impossible to write an educated article on something one finds interesting. I am amoungst a number of people that have written articles before, all of which have been deleted.

What do we have to do to get something published?

First of all Please Sign Your Posts. Ok, I did not delete PolkaSpots - I only marked it for deletion. It was marked for Speedy Deletion under Criteria for speedy deletion - General Criteria - Item 11 - Blatant Advertising. If you read the article you would have seen that the text in the article seemed solely to promote PolkaSpots. The second reason for deletion was Notability - what makes the company notable? Why does it warrant inclusion in an Encylopedia?

Wikipedia is most definitly not a forum for Open Speach. A read of WP:NOT would be helpful (especially Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

If you wish to create an article on Wikipedia it would be helpful to read WP:ARTICLE. Also the article provided no independant & reliable references or sources. (See: WP:REF and WP:V. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 12:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you expalain therefore why 'The Cloud' have not had their article removed? See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud

Again Please Sign Your Posts - I have no idea why it has not been deleted. It has now been nominated. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valete

I think i improved my Valete article a bit more. Could you please give it a look and tell me how I can make it even better so its not deleted? Thank you so much. --Iluvlipstick 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Valete article is now much improved. It now has references and an assertation of notability. Well Done -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of London Parachute School

A tag has been placed on London Parachute School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Goochelaar (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I stumbled upon that page while patrolling random articles. Do you think you might be able to add some third-party information (say, newspaper mentions or the like, as required by the guidelines on notability)? Presently only the official webpage of the school and an advertising-sounding page ("A huge drop zone with fantastic atmosphere - more facilities and aircraft coming, fun people...") are cited. Thanks, happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)