User talk:Rsduhamel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Meelar 06:14, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. I moved the text you created at La Jolla into the already existing article at La Jolla, California and made the former page a redirect to the latter. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for not sumarily deleting my page, as others have done. I incorporated my work into the existing page. Some of the edits made to my work inspired me to do some research and resulted in aome more information and corrections. -- Rsduhamel 02:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi - just wondering why you think that "Mizar" is the correct spelling for the roadable Pinto? I confess that I can't find any reference to this aircraft in my print references, but "Mitzar" seems to be the more common spelling on-line? Cheers --Rlandmann 05:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The first hint is at Mitzar, Flying Pinto? where it states, "The Mitzar, which takes its name from the next-to-the-last star in the Big Dipper..." Being a long-time amateur astronomer I know that the star described is named Mizar. Then I noticed that this very page, and the other flying pinto pages on the site, alternately use "Mizar" and "Mitzar". I concluded that "Mitzar" must be an error introduced over the years as the story was retold, rewritten, scanned and OCRed, whatever. I would like to see the original article in Peterson's Complete Ford Book. -- Rsduhamel 07:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Just noticed that the NTSB report calles it "Mizar". -- Rsduhamel 07:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! Makes perfect sense. :) If you're interested in contributing more aircraft articles, you might also like to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, the informal effort to try and co-ordinate these efforts on the 'pedia. Cheers! --Rlandmann 12:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I added my name to the list. I'll create my user page soon. I have been making my best guesses as to how to format information and letting guys like you clean up after me :). -- Rsduhamel 16:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Glad to have you aboard. Also happy to see another "wingnut" with a taste for the unusual... :) One more tip - it's usual around here to reply to comments by posting to the other person's talk page - that way, they'll know that there's a new message waiting for them when they log on. --Rlandmann 22:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Talk pages etc

Nothing else to know that I can think of! Different people handle talk differently - you'll work out what works for you...

General wikipedia questions should go to the Village Pump, specific WikiProject Aircraft questions and issues are currently getting discussed on an external web-board at aeronaut.ca/wikiforum, since the project's own talk page was getting far too cluttered for anyone sane to keep track of what was going on. :) And of course, most project participants are all too happy to answer questions as well --Rlandmann 00:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] USS Pipefish

After seeing your spelling correction, I put up the DANFS article on Pipefish, but please add any further information you have on your father's patrols. --the Epopt 04:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Cuyamaca

I listed Cuyamaca and Cuyamaca, California to be merged because "Cuymaca, California" doesn't have much information on the village. If there's a sufficient amount of information about the village to add to "Cuymaca, California" then the articles should remain separate. Otherwise, I propose "Cuyamaca" to be merged into "Cuyamaca, California". -- J3ff 21:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VOR

Thanks for letting me know. Wasn't aware of VOR article. Fg2

[edit] re: vandalism

I don't really know what is going on with that IP, but I strongly suspect it may have something to User:Mr Treason, a known vandal; see his "user page" for info on him.

I, like nearly everyone else here is a volunteer, though I am not an admin. The message I gave was a standard greeting that anyone can give to any newbie. So please don't feel intimidated! The standard greeting is {{welcome}}, but {{test}} should be given to folks who create silly pages as test, and there are a few others or you can customise your own. Most newbies can be picked up on a special:recentchanges/special:newpages patrol. Dunc|☺ 12:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know has been updated

Hi there! I've just updated "Did you know". One of the articles you started is now on the front page in the "Did you know" section. Enjoy! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 15:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Tank power plants

I am glad to see that tank power plants are the subject of such dedicated work, but don't you think that those historical power plants should be in the Tank History article instead of the main Tank article? --AlainV 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AMC Gremlin

Thanks for the posting the picture. It's quite a good one. RivGuySC 22:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


[edit] Village and town are legitimate designations

Copied from User talk:Rambot

I object to Rambot systematically changing all references to "vilage" and "town", etc. to "Census Designated Place" and "CDP". Town and village are legitimate names for unincorporated areas of appropriate size and are certainly more colorful and descriptive than Census Designated Place. References to "town" and "village", etc. should be left in initial descriptions of communities and CDP be used for census references. Rsduhamel 18:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(1) No references to village have been changed, so please do your homework before complaining. If you were correct, an example would be pertinent and would probably indicate a bug, not a purposeful change. (2) There are a number of states/locations/counties where the term "town" refers to a specific legal entity and is not valid as a generic term. There are other places where town is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, while local citizens may call a location a town, it may not be legally defined as such, and it would only be accurate to state a note to this effect on the page. The fact of the matter is that the rambot originally labelled the locations as towns and it is only changing them to the most accurate term. Of course it may not be pretty, but it is accurate. If the state or local government of that location has labeled it as a town, then and only then would it be appropriate to merge the CDP and town labels into the article. Otherwise a more generic and/or accurate term should be used, such as "unincorporated place" or "community", as appropriate. (3) The inaccurate data was fixed on the request of a number of other users over a period of time. This is not a unilateral change on the part of myself. (4) If you feel that the term town is accurate, please provide references to that fact and add the most accurate term the article. (5) Do not change the term CDP in the demographics section to anything else unless it can be proven absolutely that the CDP is co-terminous with the other term to be used. If they do not directly coincide, then equating them would introduce error into the article. RM 20:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your comments on Rambot's talk page and saw a few of your edits to the CDP articles. A couple of suggestions, which you may or may not find helpful and which you are free to ignore or to modify to suit your own tastes. 1) Instead of linking unincorporated community, you can link to unincorporated community, which is a little more specific than either of the other two. 2) When you move the phrase "census-designated place", you might want to put (CDP) after it as the abbreviation is used throughout the census data (I thought that Rambot was putting the abbreviation in, but I just noticed that it is not). For some other ideas about phrasing, look at Argentine, Michigan, or just about any of the CDPs in Michigan (I think I've edited many if not most of these articles). Best. older≠wiser 21:33, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't know the article on unincorporated community existed. I agree that putting "(CDP)" after census designated place is a good idea too. Rambot didn't do this and I was simply following its precedent. I also like what you did to the Argentine, Michigan article.
Do you think this matter could have something to do with the confusion of the population count in Parkfield, California? I (and others) tried to clarify this but found references ranging from 18 to 900. Could this be because the "hamlet" of Parkfield has a population of 37 but the census designated place has a population of 900?
I do not see any census data reported for a place called Parkfield in California -- there is no CDP defined with that name, so I have no idea how the population figures are derived. I imagine it may be possible to examine individual census tracts and select the ones that approximate Parkfield, but as there are no official boundaries, there could be differences in the tracts selected for inclusion. The American FactFinder may help with additional research. older≠wiser 15:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Canyon Picture

Yep - That photo was made from putting 3 overlapping photos together. --mav 10:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, please fill in edit summaries with a description of your change. Wikipedia:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field.

(Emphasis in the original.) While I'm at it, I see you flagged your changes to WP:RfD (among others) as a minor edit. Use of this flag for that edit was inappropriate. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that flag; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says:

consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option

so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. Noel (talk) 14:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

[edit] Dihedral

Hi! I took up your remarks at Talk:Dihedral. Your comments got me thinking about it and I dug out some references which I then quoted (possibly at excessive length!). I wanted to show that the "sideslip theory" is in fact the generally accepted one. There is also much in what you say about the pendulum effect that I also totally agree with, which is also pretty intuitive - I'm not really sure what the original poster to the talk page was trying to show, since on re-reading it, his argument is both false and self-contradictory. Anyway, I hope you don't feel that my lengthy reply is going at you too strongly - but I think it's right that the sideslip theory is given as the true explanation and just wanted to back it up. Stimulating stuff (for me at any rate!). Cheers. Graham 01:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more merit the sideslip theory has, in my mind. I don't want to go into a long-winded explanation here but I'm going to write something on the discussion page for dihedral.
I have one major problem with the sideslip theory. It is going to take some time for the aircraft to accelerate into the sideslip so there will be some delay before the aircraft rights itself. This means that by the time the aircraft rights itself it will have lost some altitude and changed heading. Maybe this is what actually happens. However, the fact that dihedral raises the center of lift means the aircraft is more stable in the first place. This will moderate the onset of the bank and accelerate the recovery.
BTW, I've found at least five different explanations of how dihedral works. I can't tell you where now because someone cleared the cache on my computer and I'm having trouble retracing my steps. I found one explanation similar to your explanation (but not exactly). Another sideslip theory says the sideslip acts on the raised wing. One explanation says the bank changes the wing area (???). The most common explanation says that the lowered wing produces more lift because it is more horizontal (which makes no sense to me whatsoever).
I'll give you some references when I can find them again. Rsduhamel 17:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll copy this discussion to your talk page - it's easier to follow a thread if it's all in on place.Graham 23:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kermode also mentions that the sideslip may act on the raised wing. I didn't bother quoting that part, since it also says that it's very dependent on the design - a low wing will probably be partly blanked by the fuselage, etc. The explanation of changing the wing area sounds like another way to talk about the "horizontal projected area" theory, which we know is rubbish. That just leaves the "raising the centre of lift" theory as a possible alternative. I believe you're right that this has an effect on stability (for the better), but I just don't think that the effect can be very great. Consider a typical design such as the Piper Cherokee, or Spitfire. The centre of lift will be roughly located along a line drawn through the central part of the wing as seen from the front. The dihedral raises the position of this line slightly - but only a few inches even in the case of the Spit, which has a fairly pronounced dihedral. This still leaves a huge Merlin engine ABOVE that point, so the centre of gravity would appear to be above the centre of lift here. This apparent instability is probably deliberate in a fighter of this type, though in the Piper probably undesirable (but with its much smaller, lighter engine, far less of an issue).
I also wondered about the aircraft taking time to accelerate into the sideslip - this sounds like it would be the case. However, I think a more rigorous mathematical analysis would show that this is not really necessary, because the normal flying position of the aircraft turns out to be at one of the minima of the sum of all the equations (I'm no mathematician so this is probably not the right language for this, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at). It takes some additional energy to disturb it from this position, therefore it will fly stably in the absence of an external disturbance. If there is an external disturbance such as a gust of wind, this supplies the energy and the sideslip ensues, righting the plane with a small change in its heading and/or height as a result. This is borne out by experience - flying a stable aircraft in totally calm conditions will show it doesn't constantly roll about righting itself - it just flies straight. In gusty conditions this is not the case, with much rolling and righting, and consequent changes of direction.Graham 23:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specifications survey

Hi again Rsduhamel - I'd really appreciate your input in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of WikiProject Aircraft's standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft specs policy

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 06:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Pilatus.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

24.9.10.235 deleted it. I restored the information.Rsduhamel 21:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gremlin mid-size v. compact

I have reverted your addition to the Gremlin article that mentions a mid-size Hornet. The Gremlin was was a subcompact, and the Hornet was classified as a compact in 1970 based on the Government (and insurance company) standards of the day. I suggest that you add the mid-size discussion as a footnote, noting that based on current "day standards..." Stude62 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is correct (and I'm not disputing it) the articles on car sizes should be clearly edited to note the changes in standards over the years. I'm basing my arguement that the Hornet was a mid-size car because the wheelbase is the primary standard cited in the Wikipedia articles. Consistancy would help. Rsduhamel 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Popular Local Toponyms

Throughout the world there are local toponyms (place names) that are popular for businesses, schools, park, etc. that are used nowhere else. The following is a list of such names. Generally, these toponyms are based on regional geographic features, plants or animals.

[edit] Names based on geographic features

[edit] Names based on plants

[edit] Picture

This is really an excellent image that you uploaded today! How did you take it, with some kind of panorama of several pictures taken and joined together (e.g. from some digital cameras that do it or manually editing) or is it a picture that has been cropped? huntersquid 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I answered you questions on the photo's page. FYI, the MGI PhotoVista came as a freebee with another camera. With a little searching you may be able to find a cheap/free copy of it. I used to make panoramas with The GIMP but PhotoVista makes things a lot easier. Rsduhamel 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm looking forward to the re-upload, cause you can see the bars that kind of separate each part. It really doesn't do your pic justice. huntersquid 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Wikiproject: unincorporated communities and census-designated places

Note: This project will make significant changes in the make up of articles about unincorporated communities and possibly cities across Wikipedia. There is a wide range of opinions about how or whether this should be done. Before the scope and goals of this project can be defined there needs to be some discussion and a consensus reached. Please read the background and general goals below and your input is welcome.

[edit] Background

Some time ago Ram-Man used a robot named Rambot to create articles or add census statistics to most articles about cities and other communities in the United States. Part of what Rambot did was split articles about unincorporated communities, that the U.S. Census Bureau had split into multiple census-designated places, into separate articles. For example, the article about Lakeside, California was split into two articles, one about the Lakeside CDP and the other about the Winter Gardens CDP. In other words, the article about Lakeside is now only about the eastern half of Lakeside.

This is not the correct use of the term census-designated place. The U.S. Census Bureau does not set the boundaries for communities and cities. In California it is various Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs). According to the San Diego LAFCO Lakeside includes the the Winter Gardens CDP (mail sent to Winter Gardens is addressed to Lakeside, California). The article about Lakeside should not have been split.

Furthermore, Rambot labeled every unincorporated community as a CDP. For example, the article about Borrego Springs, California begins "Borrego Springs is a census-designated place...". My apologies to Ram-Man but I find this offensive. I don't live in a census-designated place. I live in a neighborhood called Bostonia and I take offense at my community being reduced to a three-letter acronym. Furthermore, the neighborhood of Bostonia is mostly within the city limits of El Cajon, California. The Bostonia CDP doesn't even cover the area that most people (and the USGS)consider the center of Bostonia. CDPs are for the convenience of the Census Bureau for statistical purposes. CDPs do not define the boundaries of named communities and can change from one census to another. Calling a place a CDP is only appropriate when that place doesn't have an identity as a single community, such as Casa de Oro-Mount Helix, California.

I am proposing a project to clarify the areas covered by cities and communities and the role of the CDPs in those areas.

[edit] Goals

  • Find named communities that are labeled as census-designated places and call them something less acronymish. I propose "unincorporated town" for communities that most people would call a town and "unincorporated community" for isolated communities too small to call a town. Neighborhoods should be called neighborhoods, etc.
  • Find named communities that have an identity as a single community but have been carved up into two or more CDPs. Change the article about the CDP by the same name and correct it to reflect the nature of the larger community.

[edit] Other proposed Goals

  • Where a large community has been split into two or more CDPs, Merge articles about several CDPs into a single article about the larger community. Or...
  • Move all articles about CDPs to articles about the CDPs. For example, the article about Spring Valley, California could be moved to "Spring Valley, California (census-designated place). A new article about Spring Valley as a whole would be created to take its place.

My personal opinion is that there is no need for a separate articles about every CDP in the U.S. This is like a separate article about every neighborhood in the U.S., whether the neighborhood is notable or not. Many CDPs cover unincorporated parts of cities. For example, El Cajon, California is an incorporated city. However, there are four CDPs where the people receive their mail addressed to El Cajon, California. Two of these CDPs (Bostonia and Granite Hills) cover neighborhoods that comprise land both inside the city limits of El Cajon as well as unincorporated county land. I have edited the articles to denote that there is a difference between the neighborhoods and the CDPs but it is rather clumsy. I think it would be better to include the CDPs in the article about El Cajon. In that article the greater El Cajon are should be covered as a whole and then the CDPs covered separately and briefly in the demographics.


(to be continued)

[edit] Spanish Broom

Hi Rsduhamel - checked up, it is an introduced plant on the Canary Islands (Flora of the Canaries). Sad to say, but it is far from the first time I've found US Forest Service not to have accurate info on European plants; much better to trust local sources who are in a better position to know - MPF 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject query

Hi there, I am doing some clean up on the list of proposed WikiProjects. I noticed that Unincorporated communities in the United States has been listed for more than 60 days. Unless you object, I would like to remove it from the list since it is unlikely to receive further feedback. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unincorporated communities in the United States

Description: To consolidate articles about unincorporated communities that have been split into multiple articles about the census-designated places within those communities, or, to write new articles about such communities reflecting their identities as single communities. Also to rewrite the opening of articles about unincorporated communities to say something other than (for example) "Borrego Springs is a census-designated place".

Temporary project page: User:Rsduhamel/cdp

User: Rsduhamel 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name):

  1. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AE123

[edit] Focus stealing

Hi there, Im doing some cleanup and I notice the article you created Focus stealing is a dead end. Do you want to categorise it and place some links in it to improve the page? "Snorkel | Talk" 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Science Museum bernoulli exhibit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Science Museum bernoulli exhibit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarantula Hawk Quotes.

You added The "Sting" subsection to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantula_hawk and I'm unable to find any sources for the quotes, could you please add them if possible? They're funny, but need a citation to stay. Irashtar 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A resistor needed

You have to connect a resistor in series with the zener diode on the circuit diagram of an op-amp current source. Circuit-fantasist 08:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hughes

He indeed deserves greater recognition for transmitting and receiving radio waves, but I don't think he used that term, and it is misleading. I believe he was the one who used a clockwork to make a train of sparks (broadband and untuned) which he could pick up some distance (a block?) away, perhaps with a telephone receiver. It was definitely called "induction" all though the naysayers had only the vaguest idea of what they meant by that. Thomas Edison in the 1870's did similar work and sent out "etheric forse" signals from an induction coil or buzzer, and detected them as sparks between points in a darkened viewing chamber, and that was also dismissed incorrectly as "induction". Joseph Henry sent spark signals in the 1830's from the basement to the attic of a house. All three of these were high frequency untuned electromagnetic wave transmission and reception before Hertz did his work, but they were not coming from the math of James Clerke Maxwell as was Hertz's work and they were not made into an effective communication system as did Marconi(and to a lesser degree Tesla). Edison 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed article deletion of Dmitri Dmitrievich Maksutov

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Dmitri Dmitrievich Maksutov, 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 "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 13:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unincorporated Commuities/CDPs and other things

The problem of the use of CDP for towns, etc. lies with the U.S. Census Bureau (which has long exceeded its Constitutional authority, but that is another issue) which has divvied up the country into these statistical areas which may or may not have any meaningful relationship to the communities within them. So you have the Census Bureau place and the politcal place. The problems arise when attempting to apply Census Bureau data to a given town, city, etc.

I would prefer that articles be written, as you say, about communities and when citing CB stats, indicate that the stats are for the CB's CDP and not for the community. This will, of course, require determining the boundaries of the CPD so that this can be noted and readers can see just what the stats actually refer to. In the case of communities which lie within multiple CDPs, that becomes very important.

I live in the unicorporated town of Hungry Horse, Montana, and the HH CDP covers a much larger area than does the town itself, and the ZIP code area is different still, so stats become pretty much meaningless. Just how many people live in Hungry Horse? Well, it depends on how you define "Hungry Horse" and that is the problem.

So, write about the community, cite the stats that apply to the appropriate CDPs and note what the stats apply to.
Glacierman 00:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 625 mph

re Image:Sign Road Work Ahead.jpg, what's the joke? Vees 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disney aviation accident

Rather than simply revert your edit due to improper citations, if you could (a) rewrite those sections so that they follow the same general format as the other sections in the article; and (b) more importantly, as WP does not use newsgroups or discussions areas as valid sources, if you can find and verify the specific accident(s) in a verifiable 3rd party source, such as a published book or newspaper article, and then include those properly formatted citations --- then that would be swell. I know I'd appreciate it. Thanks for your contribution. SpikeJones 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the references -- if you could put them into format listed at WP:CITE, that would be helpful. Also, we need specific page numbers from the book(s)/reports mentioned.
I've added some thoughts at Talk:Disneyland Park (Anaheim)#Disneyland Helipad section. The information feels out of place in the Disneyland article. —Whoville (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Bbaron58.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bbaron58.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:CL-215.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:CL-215.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mahler's Third Symphony

Sometime in the 1970s, two amateur orchestra/chorus combinations in San Diego, California--The San Diego Community Orchestra and chorus from San Diego Mesa College and the orchestra and chorus from the music department at the Universigy of California at San Diego--once combined forces for a single reading of Mahler's 3rd. I played string bass (Community Orchestra) at this reading. I fell in love with the work and it is still one of my favorites. Too bad we never carried through with a concert. Rsduhamel 22:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sixth movement is well...amazing!
Yes, it definitely is, very sweeping and emotional. -- Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 17:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New England town center CDPs

Hi. You seem to be familiar with U.S. Census Bureau geographic definitions so I would appreciate comments from you. I have suggested merging town center CDPs articles into the town article. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont#Merging town center CDP articles into town articles and Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont#CDP change for details. I'd like to hear your comments about whether or not the town center (CDP) and the town should be treated as two different places. Please see St. Johnsbury, Vermont (my most recent version) for an example of my proposal. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Soaring Magazine January 1972.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soaring Magazine January 1972.jpg. 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) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Famous last words (expression)

An editor has nominated Famous last words (expression), 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/Famous last words (expression) 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) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem: Photoengraving

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Photoengraving, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.photo-engraver.com/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Photoengraving and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Photoengraving with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Photoengraving.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Photoengraving/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Photoengraving saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We've established that the material is yours. Because it also appears on another site, we need to get official word from you. That word is not as simple as you saying here that you wrote it.
Send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org" (See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions).
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Photoengraving with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Photoengraving.
Please follow these steps. Kingturtle (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Moller_M400_hover_test.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Moller_M400_hover_test.jpg. I notice the image 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Spin (flight)

Hi Rsduhamel! Thank you for your prompt and detailed response on my User talk page. I have offered a detailed explanation of my position and posted it on my User talk page. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)