User talk:Mark83/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Rolls-Royce
I think the entry in Rolls-Royce for RRMPO Ltd was significant in that the nuclear reactor research & production is quite different from the other activities mentioned in the article. I agree that there may be many other subsiduaries of R-R and they cannot all be mentioned - in fact most others probably do not merit their own article, but I think RRMPO does. A previous discussion on the R-R talk page noted the absense of any mention of Rolls-Royce & Associates, something that I've tried to rectify. Would you be able to suggest a better way of including this reference into the R-R article? Thanks. - MightyWarrior 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I agree that Rolls-Royce overall is not handled in the very structured way in Wikipedia, especially with current article naming; and that it could indeed be improved. I don't have a good enough all-round knowledge of the various companies to do this, but you sound as though you do - maybe a possible project sometime? I do however know several people who work for RR&A (now RRMPO Ltd) so I felt it was important that this aspect of the company was mentioned somewhere. (In fact I live only 1½ mile from the nuclear reactor!). - MightyWarrior 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've commented on RR on my talk page. GraemeLeggett 08:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CVF
Yeah, no one updated that page in ages. Old information operating on overly-optimistic deadlines. I think we might be looking at as late as 2015 for ISD, if the Labour pricks keep putting off main gate. John Smith's 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'll thank them when I see 2 CVFs and T-45s numbers 7 & 8 confirmed! John Smith's 13:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EADS
- Hey, did you have a look at the EADS entry on the German wikipedia, it is exactly as I said... Hektor 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion
Regarding the article Image:Shaws.gif, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "created and uploaded with vandalism as the sole purpose", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not clear how this image is vandalistic. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:IFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I fully accept what you say and will follow your advice. However I would just like to explain my reasoning. The image was used to replace a company logo in the article infobox. Plus it also uses that company's logo. While people can have certain points of view regarding the ethics of companies this is not the place for it (unless unethical conduct is a fact). You must surely agree that it is at the very least unecylopedic! Regards Mark83 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I fully agree, and this means the image should probably be deleted. However, it should not be speedily deleted, at least not for five days (after adding {{subst:orfud}} or {{ifd}}<). Speedy deletions are for things that are completely uncontroversial. Thanks for your message. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blue water navy
Hi, there's this Chinese nationalist troll that keep insisting the PLAN is blue-water, when I've posted information saying otherwise on the talk page. Can you do me a favour and take a look? If you could remove the PLAN from the list that would be great. If I do it again I'll 3RR. Cheers, John Smith's 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, new idea. I've put up sources justifying the Indian Navy, Australian Navy and Canadian Navy. Also the French, US and UK are fine. If you could put the revised list up for me I would appreciate it. It isn't about the size of a navy, it's to do with how well it can project its power. It's just that if I do it tomorrow he'll keep rving, because he's obsessed the Indian Navy is the "same" as the PLAN. John Smith's 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hopefully he'll be happy with the current edit. If he isn't I would appreciate your coments on the talk page so that we can resolve the matter. John Smith's 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vauxhall
- You said;
- Hi! It's not incorrect to say Vauxhall is a private company, it is. From what I know of the infobox the options are public or private. Vauxhall Motors Limited is a private company, wholly owned by GM.
I see, I just thought that 'subsidiary' would be a bit more specific. 'Subsidiary' is used on the Opel Page. -Aled D 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vickers VC10/VC-10
The manufacturer's designation was originally V.C.10 and (by 1960) VC10. Do check with Jane's and Flight International. The VC-10 is the RAF's internal type designation. You have moved the page from "VC10" to "VC-10"; please restore it, with "VC-10" as a pointer. Thanks Livedvalid 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. Apologies for the solecism, now repaired. The VC10 mover is a mystery, in this case; on my screen, it showed your signature, which is now gone... (On the question of my editing remark, you should have seen the entry as it stood! Nothing personal, of course...)Livedvalid 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Selected articles on Portal:F1
Hello again.
I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).
Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).
You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Sainos edit
Fair point on the attribution, I'll get some references in a moment. As for your second point, the original version sort of made it sound like Sainsbury's was trying to get its customers to be more diverse in their tastes, rather than simply to get them to buy more things. Dunno if you get my point there, kinda complicated. JoeBaldwin 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That's about it, yes. I think the point about the obvious new somethings should go in as well; it is a valid point (at least in my opinion...) JoeBaldwin 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-Jeremy Clarkson
Hello Mark83, I wasn't criticising you at all, I'm sorry if you thought so - that paragraph had been appearing about 14/15 times before from an anonymous editor before your edit, and various people had reverted it because it didn't really say anything useful and was written in capitals.
It seems that you found the correct quotation and rectified it, so thanks for that. I removed the "turnip face" bit because it didn't seem that relevent, and moved your corrected quotation into the controvery-foreigners section. The comment was not directed at you, but at the anonymous editor. I wrote the "if we are to have this" to hopefully stop the anonymous editor adding his incorrect section again. Once again, thanks for finding the correct source, and my apologies if you thought I was referring to you. Bob 20:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blair Force One
Hi. I agreed with its deletion but I'm just wondering why you merged it into Air transports of Heads of State? It seems to me there is a clear majority for renaming the article Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom (or some variation). Did you choose to ignore it or had you some other reason? I intend to create the article and create a {{main}} link at Air transports of Heads of State. Any objections? Regards Mark83 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- This was very redundant to the heads of state article, in that around 80% of the information in BFO was already in Heads of State, unlike the squadron article. The suggested name, IMO, seems very long and artificial, when we already have an article about Air transportation of various heads of state. What I would suggest is placing a {{splitsection}} tag in that section, and discussing it on the talk page, and polling for a consensus. At least, that is what I would do. -- Avi 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- But there is a consensus on the AFD listing. I know the title is a trainwreck, but it's important to note that the aircraft (past, present or future) are not for the sole use of the Royal Family or the executive, but both. So maintaining the standard of Air transport of.... Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is the shortest, most correct title available IMO. Mark83 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't both the Prime Minister and the Queen considered heads of state? Also, if you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Force One, while there is a consensus to merge, there does not seem to be a consensus on the title. Some say to heads of state, some to the squadron, some to the new article, and some do not make any mention of a title, which is why I merged it to the one that it most logically resembled, in my opinion. As I do not think there was a consensus on the name, I would suggest using the {{splitsection}} tag, and if no one makes a fuss on the talk page in a few days or so, go ahead and split it out. -- Avi 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- But there is a consensus on the AFD listing. I know the title is a trainwreck, but it's important to note that the aircraft (past, present or future) are not for the sole use of the Royal Family or the executive, but both. So maintaining the standard of Air transport of.... Air transport of the Royal Family and executive of the United Kingdom is the shortest, most correct title available IMO. Mark83 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox "if" parameters
Hi Mark, the problem seemed to be that "|" has to be escaped (by a template such as Template:!) if "|" is inside a template. I've edited Template:RAF Squadron accordingly. Hope this helps. Shawnc 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Shawnc 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] image
u want me delete alonso and jordan image?? so i must be delete alonso and jordan image mark???--Heboy 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
i agree Image:Fernando Alonso 650 22 p.jpg must be deletion but 2 image others dont deletion from the article or this site. U can answer me in my talk mark.--Heboy 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CRJ
Hi, I just noticed your removal of the CRJ-705 image from the page about the Canadair Regional Jet. What was your reason for removing it? --KPWM_Spotter 15:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I see that now. I wasn't exactly sure what "poss imgvio" meant when I first saw it. --KPWM_Spotter 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It all makes perfect sense now in context. Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United Kingdom
I agree on the 'one reference per point' theroy, particularly if others are provided for any dissenters in the history/talk pages.
Its interesting how many people argued that the UK is NOT a country, based, I think, on the idea that England/Scotland/Wales/(Northern) Ireland are also countries. Also, the conflagration (is that a word?) of 'country' and nation confuses things; I think the people arguingn that the UK is not a country had argued that it is not a 'nation', but were using the two as synonyms.
Anyway, if you're really interested there are two pages of rather repetitive talk archives just on the 'country debate' to look over ;) --Robdurbar 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BAe 146
Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.
Hi you moved the above page, citing WP:Air naming conventions. However the move you made is actually in contradiction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and is incredibly clumbsy; British Aerospace BAe 146 is repitition. What you are calling it is the BAe BAe 146! Mark83 18:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I had thought of that, but similar patterns can be seen throughout aviation history, as in the case of the Lockheed L-1011 or the North American NA-62; likewise, pre-7x7 Boeings are often referred to (erroneously) by such names as Boeing B-314. The most pertinent example is almost certainly the Hawker-Siddeley HS121 Trident, which is part of the same designation sequence as the BAe 146.
- The real problem here is that it's not entirely clear how BAe named their aircraft. Were they doing like Boeing, calling their aircraft by [[{manufacturer} {model number}]], and simply using an abbreviated form? Were they doing like Lockheed, North American, and Hawker-Siddeley, using the abbreviation as a kind of stopgap so their planes wouldn't be just a number? Seeing that the DH.112 and HS.121 follow the latter system, I find it much more likely that the latter system is the case. However, no firm answer can be found until more research is done. Ingoolemo talk 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- May I be so bold as to suggest that given that it is not clear, it was very rash to change it with (as far as I am aware) no discussion. Clear or not the MOS states that the name should be the most common usage, which is BAe 146. Regards. Mark83 19:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BMW Fins:"Twin Towers"?
Note: this is a copy of a message I posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Formula_One/Formula_One_news
In a recent edit, it was stated that the editor (you) had not heard "Twin Towers" in reference to BMW's vertical fins. However, I know that I have heard it, maybe not in an official source, but certainly by fans. They are actually named after the Petronas Twin Towers, as Petronas is a major BMW sponsor. Bduddy 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 787 UFO order
There are five UFO orders on BCA's orders sheet. Two of them are through BBJ (a BBJ 787? wow...) and one was ordered several months ago. That means that there are two new UFO orders. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hello
Oh, see it however you want to. Tony 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) And I was in a bad mood, so I'll take it back. Tony 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to help if I get time. Tony 16:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Gaule96.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gaule96.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 23:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Gaule96.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gaule96.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. John Smith's 23:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mark, I would just leave the tags on. If some joker tries to cause trouble, then by all means list for deletion. Otherwise save yourself the effort. Thanks, John Smith's 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Stc-600.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stc-600.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the purposes of justifying its use on Wikipedia, it has no license information. If you find it is available under a free license, or want to use it under fair use then please edit the page accordingly. ed g2s • talk 22:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BAE
I guess I'm wondering why you've done this article. Perhaps you're an employee? Here are my comments.
- It's not very interesting (sorry).
- Some of the paragraphs are very short—I've merged some, which you'll need to check for logic and flow.
- It reads like a company document in some ways.
- The criticism section, and the wider social/economic impact of the company, need to be explored more. How is it positioned in the British military–industrial complex?
- More financial info about turnover and profits would be good. Why not a few graphs? An image of one of the company's installations?
- PS Do they make land-mines? If they do, I'd be very disapproving, and would like mention of the fact in the article.
Tony 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British Shipbuilders
Hi! Thanks for your kind words about my diagram showing the evolution of British Shipbuilders. I amn't 100% sure about when NWS and Swan Hunter were denationalised, hence the faded transition. If you have any information on this then I would love to know so I can tweak the diagram. Emoscopes Talk 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: BAE
First off, best of luck on the article. I really do think it's an excellent article, and most of the improvements that need to be made are simply expansion. As far as a photo, I would love to help, but I'm sorry to say that I (between my house and those of my only close friend who's home for the summer) have absolutely no access to a digital camera. I'd suggest asking around and seeing if anyone else who has been heavily involved in the article could aid you on that front (though, if not, the lack of another image or two is one of the very, very minor issues with the article). Cheers. -- Kicking222 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, if you put us together, we could take a picture of BAE!... or, we could have access to neither BAE nor a camera! Unsurprisingly, BAE is also serious about not allowing cameras inside their buildings (as in, you can get fired on the spot, even if you're not an intern like I was); they actually bought my father a cell phone just for work because his cell phone has a camera in it. Anyway, once again, best of luck with the article (and, of course, in general). It's obvious you know where you're going and what you want to do with it. -- Kicking222 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course you meant a picture of the exterior of a building; I was merely commenting on their indoors policy. You're doing quite a great job on an article about a company that doesn't even have offices near you. -- Kicking222 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BAE
Sorry to see that your nomination failed. Tony 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, pity PR is so lame on WP. It's a major structural problem. Tony 14:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sony Ericsson logo
I changed it to a bit smaller version. However, it is far from print resolution which I assume is prohibited. ---Majestic- 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvios in Blasian
I noticed that you removed the section in Blasian based on my tagging of it as a verbatim copy. However, another user had rewritten the material in their own words since then, and it's not a copyvio anymore (it was referenced as well). Are you disputing the rewrite or the original? ColourBurst 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Casino Royale etc
Oh yeah, I'm excited. Technically I read Tomorrow Never Dies by Raymond Benson before I saw the film so this will technically be the first Fleming-based film that I've read ahead of time. I'm pretty sure TLD was the first 007 film I saw, but I didn't read that short story till just a couple of years ago. For "Bond related disputes," I'm actually looking for a consensus on character article titles - the ones that are in both the films and Fleming's novels and are named differently. Example: In Fleming's short story "For Your Eyes Only" the Bond girl is named Judy Havelock. Clearly she was adapted for the film of the same name and her name was changed to Melina Havelock. There are others like Enrico Colombo (FYEO), Honeychile Rider (Dr. No), the Masterton girls (Goldfinger), Domino (Thunderball), etc where they were adapted for film and their name was changed. I started a discussion on this at Talk:James Bond.
I'm thinking of starting a Bond WikiProject because there are so many Bond articles (specifically characters) that need a lot of attention. A good number of them are poorly written, stubs, questionable as to whether they should even have their own article, etc. It was just a thought that occurred to me. I haven't really made any plans to implement this because well if I did I don't want to be the only one :P K1Bond007 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] copyrights from .gov
Hi Mark. To answer this question, no, not all content on .gov web pages is in the public domain. Works created by employees of the U.S. federal government as a part of their duties are PD, but publications by state and local governments (which often use .gov too) are generally not. To make things even more complicated, we even need to be careful with publications of the federal gov, as they may contain content copyrighted to contractors or included under fair use. Take a look at WP:PD#U.S. government works for more info. All the best. ×Meegs 03:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Hi, Mark. Can you clarify why you signed my name to a post in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Poster claims permission? Thanks! Medtopic 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification! -Medtopic 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eurofighter
Hi Mark, Thanks for telling me about the deletion I made on the eurofighter page. I will be more careful. rasmusdf
[edit] So you see
- [1]
- You are always throwing outdated documents at me. Why ? This web site is just too old. You can see from the link I sent you that the company is now named ASTRIUM SPACE TRANSPORTATION in Les Mureaux, that's cristal clear. Can I move the pages now without your starting to revert everything ? Hektor 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Renault F1 team.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Renault F1 team.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Alexj2002 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A gift from my Dad
Hi Mark...I noticed you did not edit a page I created, but completely deleted it? explain...it was a bio on world champion mountain bike racer Leigh Donovan. User:shoptangerine
[edit] Troubles edit - Ballynahinch
Mark - There has been enormous debate about adding troubles incidents into towns/villages articles, which I had started off doing. I then got beaten all over the place (eg should it only be incidents of 2 deaths, or 5 deaths or whatever) - see Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board - Violence articles and death statistics in towns. As a result I was forced to create articles on Troubles incidents separately (73 created so far), but linked to towns/villages articles. The Ballynahinch edit is consistent with this policy. Hope this explains the position. Ardfern 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk: Richard Hammond
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Madchester 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hammond/Charity
The story is one of the lead stories of both BBC News and Sky News today. Also been mentioned in some of today's papers. I'm stunned that you believe a charity appeal that has lead to an air ambulance service announcing it would use the money for a second helicopter is not encyclopedic. Mark83 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I view it as a form of advetising for the charity. It may be a strict interpritation but I view the rules on wikipedia advertising strongly and enforce them strongly, sorry if you disagree. I agree that If a sperate page for the cahrity was set up, then that would be encyclopedic as long as It Is wrtten from a neutral and objective point of view.--Lucy-marie 23:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This is directly copied from user: lucy-marie's talk page.
[edit] BA Orders
Yes, whilst I completely agree, and I apologise. The briefing wasn't confidential, but I appreciate your concern, I'll keep that in mind when contributing.Benny45boy 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Shumaker 3rd Opinion
You're welcome. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Hammond 'Charity appeal' section
Hi, hope you're well. I'm a little confused with the revert. 'Treatment and recovery' to me suggests details of Hammond's hospital treatment and recovery as a result of that treatment so I'm not sure where you believe the charity appeal falls in line with that. I had a second reason for seperating it from the rest of the sub-section and that was that, in itself, this information is unlikely to be expanded upon where as information about Hammond's state of health is still on going. Surely it would make greater sense if we weren't always pushing the charity information further and further down the page adding changes to the middle rather than the end of the section. I realise it would be a small sub-section, however there are no Wikipedia rules against this that I'm aware of. Alternatively the charity information could be placed in it's true chronological position within 'Treatment and recovery'. What do you think? ~~ Peteb16 11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WilliamsF1 article
Sorry to bother you Mark, but please can you help me out with this guy who keeps reverting the bit of the Adelaide '94 incident of the article. I'm sure when you see who's done it you'll know how to handle it. Anyway, thanks for taking your time in reading this messege.--Skully Collins 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Edit summaries
I added the comma, changed Williams to Williams F1 and corrected the spelling of Mario Theiseen to Mario Theissen. I didn't mean to criticise your edits, sorry.--Diniz 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: User Ernham
Hello, just wanted to know if you wanted to start an incident report on the behavior of user Ernham. I probably wouldn't start one just for my brushing with him, but if you feel it might help others, I would gladly oblige. I guess I'm just looking for a second opinion here and you looked like you'd had some dealings with this user yourself. Either way, I would very much appreciate it if you let me know. Have a nice day!--Ramdrake 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply and your insight. Indeed, at this point you are probably right that adopting a "wait and see" attitude is the best thing to do, as his actions must by now have been noticed (for better or for worse) by several admins. I'll continue monitoring the situation and contact you again if it changes. Please also feel free to contact me as necessary or as you see fit.--Ramdrake 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
