User talk:Mark83/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 2006 Monaco Grand Prix 2 BAE/Airbus 3 Ernham RFC 4 Yep 5 Ernham again 6 Ernham admin complaint. 7 UK bias 8 Briatore 9 HIGNFY 10 CVF Article 11 Image:MT30 low res.JPG 12 Image:Bae125jburford.jpg listed for deletion 13 K790i Images 14 Michael Schumacher 15 Eurofighter-Typhoon 16 FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier 17 Eurofighter Typhoon variants 18 BAE Systems 19 Your edit to Casino Royale 20 I need your opinion 21 Re:BAE FAC? 22 Ernham 23 Schumacher refs 24 Typhoon T1/T1A 25 AH, oops. 26 'Youngest podium' 27 Image:FSTA.jpg 28 Brabham 29 Thanks 30 EADS Space 31 BAE Systems 32 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tornado GR1 test firing Brimstone.JPG) 33 SuperHeroHype.com 34 Goldeneye Women 35 Bond women tables 36 James Allen 37 As above 38 Re: From Russia with Love 39 Goldeneye: Sockpuppet? 40 Ma'am - rhymes with “arm"?? 41 Re:Casino 42 Image:AS90.JPG 43 Discussion on my talk page 44 Hughes Helicopters 45 Operation Bolo 46 Douceurs 47 Trident replacement 48 BAE Systems organisation 49 Million/billion 50 Re: Infobox defunct company. 51 Help! 52 Royale clean up 53 Trident 54 Re:CR 55 Stop Contacting me 56 Proposed deletion of Bell Green, Sainsbury's 57 F-35

[edit] 2006 Monaco Grand Prix

Hey Mark - Sorry to bother you but please can you have a quick review of my edits for the article on this year's Monaco Grand Prix and check that the main talking point isn't bias against Schumacher so that you-know-who doesn't start editing/insulting the article.--Skully Collins 07:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You.--Skully Collins 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE/Airbus

No problem. Thanks for the improvements. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham RFC

Thanks for the notice. I put in my twopence' --Ramdrake 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said earlier I was reluctant, however the personal attacks are at the very least as bad as ever. Mark83 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yep

I do understand - I read the user's talk page and a fair few diffs when I was looking at his "unblock" request. I think the other editors restraint was commendable. I wanted to share an approach that has got me out of flame wars before they started in the past. It is easy to see "our" point of view - i.e. that of an established, experienced editor, when looking at this type of dispute, harder to see that of a relative "newbie" we don't know. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 14 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Ernham again

Mark, I'd like you to look at [1] and tell me from your point of view if this belong on the talk page of the article, or even if this should be considered a personal attack. I think this is starting to look like a smear campaign. Yous feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!--Ramdrake 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

About that edit summary: I was just curious as to what his reaction would be if he was given a small taste of his own medicine. The "scare quotes" were trying to convey the tongue-in-cheek character of this remark. But you're right and I can swear to you this is the one and only time I'm using such language in this kind of situation.--Ramdrake 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham admin complaint.

I've looked at the diffs you've put on my talkpage and I agree with you that the first edit was not a revert and therefore you stayed within WP:3RR. I don't understand what Ernham's rationale for claiming his first edit was an ordinary edit, as it was clearly a revert. As I assumed good faith, and Ernham accused you of breaking 3RR, it seemed unfair that he was blocked and you were not, but it now seems evident that he did it, not you. I don't think I have recklessly maligned you anywhere, but apologise if I have done so. I will go and post accordingly on WP:AN. Thank you for personally bringing this to my attention. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, it's certainly not true. My apologies. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, if you enter a dispute you have to take the knocks. If he doesn't stop after the RfC expires, we'll need to arbcom him. There's nothing worse than an editor who won't listen to reason and project his own rule breaking onto others. Dev920 (check out this proposal)

[edit] UK bias

Ciao! It looks you're the main contributor to Tornado article in last period. I'm not so into the argument, however I can notice that the material is largely referring to the plane's UK employment (a an example, ALL picture are RAF ones). Can you do something to extend the article also to ITA and GER use? Good work! --Attilios 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you! If you wan help with the Italian article, I can translate something (I'm a fan of aircraft, but write a little here 'cause I don't know exactly all the technical terms). Did you like the profile? I asimply jumped on a site and asked the artist if I could use some of his profile. I agreed, so here our Encyclopedia can have really a more professional appearance. I think here we are also missing a lot technical cut-offs, not only in the aircraft fields. Any idea to solve the matter? Ciao and good work. --Attilios 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briatore

Ah well, I'm an engineer by education (if not by practice) so I'm more of a purist than Flav when it comes to racing! I have this crazy idea that if we just let people build really fast cars and race them hard, that it might be enough of a show! We could do with less money in F1 anyway. Sadly I find it more interesting reading about racing in the 1960s and 1970s than I do following this season (a couple of races aside, admittedly!) Briatore running F1 -Yikes! Under the coming regime I can't see Bernie's replacement being much more than a promotions manager, we're all in the hands of the banks and big business for the future of the sport. Cheers. 4u1e

Fair points all...ah well we can only hope for better, although I'm not all that convinced the new rules will help much. Whatever the changes they always end up favouring the big teams. Never thought I;d see the day that Williams would be a midfield runner at best - with little prospect of improvement - their decision not to be bought out by a manufacturer seems to be costing them heavily! --4u1e 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Have a quiet evenings editing ;-) --4u1e 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HIGNFY

Thanks for your explanation. You are probably correct. I will take a further look at the article in the coming time and help to give it a good rewrite. — Gary Kirk // talk! 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CVF Article

Just wanted to say the CVF discussion/argument under 'The title of this page...' was absolutely hilarious. As a relatively pro-European (that is, prefer them to the US) I find it rather amusing that they have such dilusions. Also, considering that the argument contained the idea of 'protecting national industries', which by its very definition is anti-European, seemed rather contradictory. I would have thought free market principles would be more pro-European than assuming if the French protect their industries everything goes down awefully well. I mean, which country has more expeditionary warfare experience in...the past 300 years? A very good laugh and masterfully handled =) Roche-Kerr 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MT30 low res.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:MT30 low res.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 free image could reasonably be found or created. 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}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. I think that under Wikipedia's strict guidelines, we still can't use the image, since it would be possible to recreate the image. On the other hand, some might disagree. If you like, you can add the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag, and let the admin who deals with it decide. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bae125jburford.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bae125jburford.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC) - Sherool (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K790i Images

Hi. You nominated the three K790i images for deletion stating that they do not fall under fair use umbrella as free images can be found. But the images are from a pre-release kit, and was uploaded when the phone was just announced, before its launched. As such, it was a pretty good candidate to use the fair use rationale. Now that the phone is launched, the images can be deleted. But for the sake of the article its better to replace them with free images before deleting the fair use images. As such, it is better to tag them with {{Replaceable fair use}} and include a {{ToDO}} on the talk page to draw attention of the editors that the images need updating. Thank You. --soum^সৌমোyasch 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher

Thanks. That's the easy bit, mind.....

No reason why it shouldn't make FA if we keep on at it, but it may be a long slog :) --4u1e 18:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurofighter-Typhoon

Hi, I have set up a smalley thread to discuss the issue of whether cost increases can be described as 'very large'. It is at [[2]]. Regards Springnuts 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies but I was called away before I could put the thread up - it is there now. Springnuts 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit - thanks. Springnuts 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier

Please help me with a WIKI article related conflict in the India-Pakistan section of FN CHarles de Gaulle. There is a user (UberCryxic) who keep on reverting unilaterally to sections that involve unverified claims (in my opinion). What are the WIKI rules? If you can help and/or express your opinions on the points made in the discussion page please do. It will help us mediate and arbitrate. I do not know how to call for an arbitration. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.136.70.167 (talk • contribs). 12:02, 25 October 2006

Is there anything that anyone can do about UberCryxic. He is being a nuisance on the FN CHarles de Gaulle discussion page and frustrating everyone.Natobxl 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic wants to maintain the 'disputed' section which is currently locked on the FN CHarles de Gaulle article page. There are 3 of us (BillCJ, Chanakyathegreat and myself) asking for justification on why this section should remain. To quote from Wikipedia site : 'Because Wikipedia is a wiki, and open to collaborative editing by anyone, assessing its reliability requires also examining its ability to detect and rapidly remove false or misleading information". To rest the case for content removal, I quoted from Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources : Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public. Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites associated with reliable publishers.

1. With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.
2. Sources where there are multiple steps to publication, such as fact checking and editorial oversight, are more reliable, other things being equal, than those without these procedures.

We also tried to refer him to "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) since this section refers to an allegation. Our questions were : "Where are the exceptional pieces of evidence ? (Current Status : None given). Where are the multiple credible and verifiable sources of info required especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues (quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources)? (Current Status : No where to be seen/found). Where is the Liberation article ? (Current Status : Not found). What did it the JED article exactly contain ? (Current Status : Don't know since it cannot be found). We need to ensure that this article will not get locked up for the foreseeable future. So, given that there is no consensus, can you give an opinion on the path to take ? Thanks. Natobxl 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For your info, I also posted this on the talk page this morning : "We are starting to sound like a political blog with claims and counter-claims. What a pity especially if our common interest is to make Wikipedia a global 'encyclopedia'. We can go on like this forever and only (1) waste our time (2) do less constructive contribution and (3) the 'stalemate' situation will only ensure that the page remains blocked. My intention is not to try to get into an argument of hypothesis (what may have happened, why, etc.,). The case for deletion of the section is best argued from the Wikipedia content submissions policy guidelines that I have outlined and refered to repeatedly. This is all that matters to the mediators. They are not interested in the hypothesis and will only review the facts for evidence. As per Wikipedia rules & guidelines, every editing conflict has to follow an escalation path as described in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. So, we will let outside independant monitors to review the data/info and provide the required illumination if we cannot de-escalate the situation' through consensus by ourselves."

In the light of what yuo see, can you kindly give a 'third-party opinion' ? Thanks. Natobxl 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for commenting. I asked for a 'third party opinion' opinion and you give me one. The opinion is well received and your points are noted. Am interested in contributing positively to the Wikipedia community. Therefore, all feedback (good/neutral & bad) is welcome. Initially, I did not take kindly to the 'revert war' that he initiated despite the numerous 'please' and 'kindly' in the texts I posted. I had asked for a discussion on the talk-page but he (and others) just kept reverting. This is why I was quite disheartened that instead of discussing, there was a revert war raging on the article. It is so frustrating when you set goals on quality and have to lower them because of all kinds of allegations that make it to the article page. That is there were suggestions put up that we concentrate on talking about the ship and it's reliably verified features and missions. Without any progress on the substantiated information front, UberCryxic started to bully us with his 'irrelevant' and 'original research' quippings. Anycase, this is my perspective. As you will have seen, I've taken a more 'peaceful' approach to the matter in my latest postings.Natobxl 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, are you sure you unprotected the article? I still can't edit for some reason.UberCryxic 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I just wantd to link Arabian Sea.UberCryxic 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we as I suggested 'hold' the content till it is verified ? In fact, Wikipedia points out that only verified content makes it to the articles page. I think that it is only fair to play by the established rules. What do you think ? Natobxl 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, despite all our various proposals and disagreements, I think we can all agree that the JED article should probably be the decisive factor in settling the affair. It costs $5 to access it. I am willing to get it, but I wanted to get your impression on whether you think that article is enough to quell the dispute if it claims what a site that cited it says it claims. That means no dispute tags, no warning messages about how this is unverified or authenticated, and so on. What do you think?UberCryxic 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's fine I'm willing to leave the situation as it is for now. But, if I were to get that JED article, I would copy the relevant section on the talk page, so no one would really have the problem you suggest.UberCryxic 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did what I could, but I'm not sure I helped. Just reading that gave me a damned headache, Mark83.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I think it helped. The issue now seems to be more of general content inclusion—although I can't really see why the point is so objectionable—than one of sourcing. Kirill Lokshin 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that some others have expressed their opinions, what do you propose we do about the disputed tag? I was thinking about a straw poll, but I wanted to gage your thoughts first.UberCryxic 02:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for voting. Just to clarify, we are not discussing that sources have to be online. We are polling to know if we are to keep the DISPUTED tag in light of the absence of multiple independant VERIFYABLE and RELIABLE information which are Wiki policies. If I may, What made you go for a 'remove' the DISPUTED tab instead of a 'keep' or 'neutral' ? Again, thanks for voting and your opinions were welcome.Natobxl 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If you see the history of the posts on the discussion, I'd point out that UberCryxic lacks courtesy by adding material where ever he feels instead of placing it at the bottom of the stack or creating a new section. I'm surprised that he gets away with all these provocations. Disappointing. Really.Natobxl 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain what is happening more clearly: in the Straw poll section, when Nat created a list of quotes regarding Wikipedia policies, it appeared to me like the ones that Nat favored got heavy inclusion. Nat also went first, so there was no chance for me to get any in there. Then I went in and put two other quotes on top of the ones that Nat placed there originally, and it appears they are important and foundational (more so than the others), so they should stay on top. I'm willing to compromise though. Since Nat started first, the first quote can reflect that, and then we can go back and forth (well I only added two).UberCryxic 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic consulted no one on the discussion and waited for replies on when and how the straw poll should be done. His provocations just continue on and on ... Natobxl 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if you feel that you have been provoked. It was not my intention at all.UberCryxic 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If Nat had been provoked Mark, not you. Hopefully I haven't done anything to provoke you haha...UberCryxic 15:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurofighter Typhoon variants

Thanks for your efforts with this. If you think that resolving the issue of mutliple pages for the Typhoon was hard, try looking at the articles on the variants of the Dassault Mirage! Makes the Typhoons and Tornados look easy! All the best, Mumby 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

Hiya! No point in another Peer Review... best just we address the concerns in the FAC, and resubmit in a month.

Cheers! --PopUpPirate 11:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Casino Royale

In regard to this edit: Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your opinion

Hello again, Mark. Since Ernham has come back, I made the unfortunate move to revert one of his edits (on the basis it was editorializing, at the Michael Schumacher article:[3]). Since then, he has gone onto three articles which I edit at times, and made reverts, two of which are really questionable, one at Intelligenco quotient: [4] questionable - where he asks for sources when he could have just gone to the main article pointed to in the section header, the second at Creation-evolution controversy[5], very questionable - where he asks an editor to Cite every scientist/journal in the world, and the last at Carleton S. Coon [6] puzzling and show he didn't read the talk page - where he reverted the removal of a long passage which had been demonstrated in talk was a copyvio (with the comment Who says there was no permission?) and an explanation that added a cite to the article. I'm not sure if this can be considered harrassment, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (asking for the name of every scientist in the world sounds the part), or maybe both. So, I'd like your enlightened opinion as to what, if anything, I shoould do now. Thanks in advance for your time.--Ramdrake 23:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, Ernham had previously edited Intelligence quotient but never either Creation-evolution controversy or Carleton S. Coon. While I have no desire whatsoever to launch a crusade against this user, I have found his knee-jerk type of reaction to everything he conceives of as a criticism against him or his work to be highly disruptive. I'll stop here for now. I'd just like to understand what goes on inside his head, mostly so as to be able to work here without setting him off.--Ramdrake 21:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Ernham (twice as himself, twice as an anon that can be traced to him because he edited some comments from one of his previous unfounded complaints) has just broken the 3RR rule again on Michael Schumacher. I'm still pondering whether to report him or not. If you fele like reporting him, go ahead and please don't wait for me. He's so predictable I'm almost finding this funny (not really). You know what I mean. Until later. Drop me a note if you wish.--Ramdrake 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:BAE FAC?

Mark, it looks like you've done an excellent job with the BAE article. In all honesty, I'm not in the mood to read through the entire article right now (I'm feeling a little too ADHD for such an arduous task!), but my quick look showed tons of improvement to a great article. When I'm up for it (a.k.a. at some point tomorrow), I'll give it a good once-over and let you know what I do and don't like. I can say for sure, though, that you should be proud. -- Kicking222 01:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham

Hi Mark. Yes, I know, but seeing as I am active in F1 editing, it is best that I do not land the block, and seeing as I have had disputes with him in the past. Also I have reverted his latest revert. So it would look bad. He has done 7 reverts, including the self confessed IP, so somebody will block him surely. He'll probably get banned soon as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, I realise once you get involved in reverts you can't get involved in the block. I was just updating you. Best regards Mark83 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to ask you to have a prayer for me as I have reverted him for a 4th time in 24 hours. I just can't stand this "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what" attitude of his. I'll take the blow for it, and gladly. He's not all there up there, if you get my drift. Sincerely, Ramdrake 01:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for understanding the situation and updating youre report accordingly. Like I said to Blnguyen, Ernham has a way of getting under my skin. I'm glad I have colleagues on Wikipedia such as you and Blnguyen to call me back to reality. Thanks again, and please don't hesitate to call on me if I can help in any way. I'm usually quite active in field of science, particularly biology and anthropology.--Ramdrake 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)o

Hey, I know what my gesture must have put you through, and if the processing admin sees fit to penalize me, it's on my dime - only. When all is said and done on this 3RR episode, how about we bring this case to Arbcom???? Let me know. BTW, I again want to stress I appreciated your intervention to convince me to revert myself, and I certainly don't hold you responsible for any consequences that may ensue. I don't bite fair-minded people - ever.--Ramdrake 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schumacher refs

Thanks for fixing the cite style on the 'Wheel to Wheel' ref - and there was me complaining about others. Although at least mine was a footnote, not a direct weblink!

While I remember, I think I saw a comment from you somewhere (Skully's talkpage?) recently to the effect that '50% of people think Hill was at fault for Adelaide 94'. I'm very happy to balance the article closer to that view (contrary to what some people might think) - it's one I have some sympathy with anyway - but everything I look at says 'Schumacher drove into Hill'. Do you know of any refs that 'blame' Hill?

Looks like you guys had an eventful night's editing yesterday! 4u1e 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Hill/Schumacher - that's not the edit I was thinking of, but thanks anyway. No matter. I completely agree (see the Schumacher talk page) about the two major points of view to be represented - I'm just struggling to find appropriate references. The Alan Henry one is the best I have found for summing up the anti-MS view, but does leave something to be desired. We should perhaps have something stronger for the racing accident view. Saying the race stewards saw it as a racing accident could be viewed as a sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink - they say it was a 'racing accident' but we all knows the truth kind of comment, I suppose. 4u1e 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typhoon T1/T1A

Thanks for exapnding on this part of the article Mark. You may have noticed that I edited the Conversion of RAF squadrons to Typhoon table, adding a bit more detail about what squadrons fly what variant. It would be useful to know whether or not 17 Sqn and 29 Sqn have a mixture of T1s and T1A's, or if for example 17 Sqn has all T1s and 29 Sqn all T1A's or vice versa. It's a minor detail really, I just don't know the best way to address the issue in the table. It might be a hard bit of information to dig up and supply a decent reference for. Mumby 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean and your definition of OEUs/OCUs is about as much as I know. Put it this way, all four squadrons (3, 11, 17, 29) fly the single seater, 17 and 29 fly the two seater as well. My edits to the table reflect this, I hope. My question is, does 17 Sqn fly the F2, T1 and T1A; or just the F2 and T1; or just the F2 and T1A? The same could be asked of 29 Sqn, all we know is that they fly the single seater and the two seater. That is what I meant about the 'breakdown' of the T1/T1A in the squadrons. At the moment the table seems to suggest that nobody flys the T1A, which obviously is not correct. I could ask someone I know who works at Coningsby, but I'm not sure how I would reference that.Mumby 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good list you got there, where did you get that info from? I'm relieved we finally got this enormous show-stopping issue resolved :) Mumby 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I hope you don't mind but I borrowed that table from your user page and made a copy on my user page, it's useful for future reference. I'll stop filling up your talk page now, goodnight! Mumby 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AH, oops.

Sorry, I didn't realise that. I read about it on wikipedia and was under the impression it was usable. My mistake. Must be my inability to read. --ArmedAndDangerous 20:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Youngest podium'

Hey. In regards to this on Kimi Räikkönen. The "youngest podium" referred to the total age of the three drivers on the podium; Alonso, Montoya and Räikkönen. I didn't add it there, but I remember that this bit of info was covered on F1 news sites. It could've used a cite and clarification, but there was really no reason to remove it as it was perfectly legit. Thanks, Prolog 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FSTA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FSTA.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. 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}}
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 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. --– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham

On the assumption that all has now gone quiet on the Schumacher front (we can hope.....) I'm trying to get back round to my pet project: Brabham Racing Organisation.

It's currently GA, but I'm hoping to push for FA some time in the next week or three. However, I've spent far too much time editing it to see its no doubt numerous flaws and failings. Grateful if you could spend five minutes having a looking at it and either edit or comment as you see fit.

Feel free to be frank in your comments, I'm just interested in getting a good article together so am happy to deal with criticism, no matter how harsh!

Cheers. 4u1e 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot more of it, anyway! 4u1e

Ta - I'll work through those. If you thought that was complicated, you should have seen the original version of the quote, which I'd already compressed..... :D There's something I rather like about it, though. Maybe I should find a shorter version of the story. 4u1e 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Time flies doesn't it! I've addressed most of your comments and summarised my approach on my talk page, which on reflection is probably not the best place for it. I'm also working my way through the article really nailing down references (I may be getting obsessive about this...). Interested to know what you think. Cheers 4u1e 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Dont worry. I appreciate you writing to me. Its been a difficult day. Its very easy to criticize on wikipedia and very difficult to defend. How ever dont worry! Take care You do a lot of great work. I give you a barnstar. --Bangabalunga 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Bangabalunga 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EADS Space

Sorry to bug you with this old story, but please have a look at the following page, and its combination of names and logos. I could not believe it, I think the EADS Space / Astrium PR have gone bezerk ! Hektor 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

My primary reason for adding the B-class assessment to the above was that it seemed to me to be close to GA, but hadn't yet officially become one. Having said that, I would try to remove, one way or another, many of the redlinks, primarily in the section about the Board of Directors, try to find some other way to differentiate BAE and BAe, because their similarity is so close as to make it hard to know if one is or isn't a typo of the other, possibly in general just lengthen the article a little, particularly in the shorter heaadings, and make a few small grammatical changes ("for example" replaced with "including", that sort of thing.) That's all I can think of right off the top, though. What you might want to do is request a formal assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Assessment#Requesting an Assessment, and following any further guidelines they might have there. Otherwise, it struck me as being basically a solid article, and congratulations on the good work. Badbilltucker 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tornado GR1 test firing Brimstone.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tornado GR1 test firing Brimstone.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperHeroHype.com

There is a difference; Google News will pop up different headlines for the same topic, where SuperHeroHype.com doesn't repeat itself. It's more orderly, so to speak. It's a decent movie news aggregator that covers information about franchise-based movies (superheroes, 007, etc) very well. And Google News only keeps headlines in its index for 30 days, didn't you know? SuperHeroHype.com can have headlines right from the beginning of production years ago. Its archives go deep. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And you'll have to excuse my "Um, no." I was somewhat in disbelief to see a valid external link removed as opposed to some fanboy's freely-registered blog. I guess I assumed common knowledge about SHH. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldeneye Women

Oh, I removed the section twice as well (both times it was reinstated) so I posted on the talk page. I can't be bothered to get involved in a revert war, so I'll see if your support (thanks, by the way) convinces him and if he persists, I'll put up an RfC or something. Trebor 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to the game here, but I just want to affirm that I didn't care for these sections either. There's no reason we need a section solely for the women. That is no doubt redundant with a proper cast and character section and for most - if not all Bond women, they tend to have their own article anyway. The two main girls for GE do as an example. K1Bond007 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what I said :) but it's not a secret that I don't care for The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day. It's not to say I don't get some amount of enjoyment from them, but yeah, definitely not my favorites, DAD especially. Casino Royale was different because 1) it was based on a Fleming novel 2) it actually had an actor in the role (no offense to Brosnan, but he pretty much played himself - note many of his other movies like Thomas Crown.. same thing), 3) Paul Haggis 4) did I say Fleming? I'm a huge Fleming fan so for me especially, Casino Royale was everything I had wanted since I became a fan. More Fleming, less camp, and blended with the good high octane action that Bond is famous for on screen. How could I not love? :P I just hope they can do something as good as CR with Bond 22 and if they play their cards right (no pun intended) they definitely can. I like how things are shaping. K1Bond007 04:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bond women tables

KenL 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)You missesd Licence to Kill and Never Say Never Again.

[edit] James Allen

Hi Mark, I remember ages ago (April 4) you wrote to me concerning Martin Brundle. I'm thinking of adding a "Quotes" section to the James Allen(F1 commentator) page, listing some of his comments on live TV which people have found amusing and/or controversial. I have videos of all the races (and some qualifying sessions) in question, so I'll be able to quote James word-for-word and will make sure there's no bias or POV. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddos 1983 (talk • contribs).

[edit] As above

Hi, yeah you're right about e.g. the politics and how you can express POV without realising it. You're a much more experienced Wikipedian so I appreciate your advice. What I want to do is add to the page without disturbing the NPOV balance. I'm still inexperienced at using the NPOV approach so would appreciate the assistance of more experienced users if I unwittingly get it wrong. Regards Eddos 1983 Eddy 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: From Russia with Love

Nice work! You're a credit to Wikipedia. Sum0 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldeneye: Sockpuppet?

Yeah, I saw them. I hate to assume bad faith, but perhaps someone is trying to make point. Anyway, cheers for the reverts - I'll keep an eye on it. Trebor 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I posted on AN/I here after more inappropriate reversions and refusal to communicate. Trebor 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'am - rhymes with “arm"??

Yes, the British pronunciation does. Had you bothered to click the link in my post you would have seen that. Xargon666x6 28 November 2006

Ack! I am so sorry! I didn't mean to post that here! Wrong user! That comment was for a different user that edited my post rather than just responding to it like you did. Apologies x 10^100^100. Xargon666x6 28 November 2006

[edit] Re:Casino

It's one or the other, and either way you don't create section heads for 4 sentence paragraphs. Just like you have to have enough information to support a page, you need enough to support a separate section, and as far as the "Box Office" is concerned everything is usually separate via "Domestic" and "Foreign". Now, those two terms may vary where you are, but you can't play favorites when it comes to detailing how much money it makes in each place. If you want to list where it makes in each place, that's one thing, but you can't pick and choose..even if the character is British. If there was more information for that section I could see giving it its own section. Now, if you want to name the entire section "United Kingdom and other foreign countries," that would be better than making two separate sections of little information, especially the "other" section. Come to look at it, I don't see why "US and Canada" should have their own either, it should probably just be all in the same section, no subsections for any of them. It's "Box Office," that should include everyone; no need for these subsections. The paragraphs are so small you can clearly read each without losing sight of which area of the world you are reading about, and it isn't a problem to edit either. Bignole 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you changed it. I was reading what I was writing and thought the same thing, that having "Domestic" would not make it clear what you were talking about...and having US/Canada would be kind of prejudice because there are plenty of other "english" speaking nations. Bignole 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AS90.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:AS90.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. Chowbok ☠ 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I very much appreciate the kind words. —Chowbok ☠ 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on my talk page

Mark, I answered your statement on User_talk:Alan.ca. Please continue the discussion on that page if you feel it neccessary. Alan.ca 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Another update.Alan.ca 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you may want to read: Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Alan.ca 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a reply to your statement on my talk page.Alan.ca 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hughes Helicopters

Alan.ca slapped a {notability} tag on the Hughes Helicopters article. I removed it (to get his attention, as some people don't read the talk pages), and posted comments on the talk page also. I don't know what his problem with the page is, but it might be that it's unsourced. He just put the unreferenced tag up today, so it's not like no one won't know that's a problem. Can you take a look, and see what you think? This is my first time dealing with an issue like this, and I really don't know what the problem is here. Thanks. - BillCJ 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Bolo

I stumbled accross this article a few days ago. It appears to have been created by a high school student who does not seem to understand Wiki policies and copyright restrictions. Other editors have tried to explain things to him on the web page, but to no avail. I tried to explain citing sources, but he asked me to say it simpler. For me, it was simple! I can't go simpler than that! Anyway, can you take a look here? Maybe you or another administrator can talk on this guy's level. He keeps reverting most attempts by editors to improve the page, seemingly because he wanted it to sound like the documentary he saw on the topic, such as Now sit back and enter the cockpit of Operation Bolo! Thanks. - BillCJ 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not quite sure what you meant in your last post. Back and fro with who? I did engage in discussion with Alan on his page. As to asking for help, with Alan, I asked 4 editors who had edited on the Hughes Helicoptors article for help, including you, as I figured you all might have sources. Later, I realized if I had read Alan's talk page first, I would have seen you had dealt with him on a similar issue before.

Second, on Operation Bolo, I realized I was in over my head with this guy, and specifically came to you for an administrator's help on this. LWF has been attempting to improve the article today also; when you see Tu-49's response to his edits, I think you'll better understand why I came to you. Thanks for the help and advice. - BillCJ 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, he removed your clean-up tag. - BillCJ 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I just totally missed what you were saying there. I knew I was missing something, but not what. Thanks for your help! Thanks AGAIN for your help! - BillCJ 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douceurs

Hi. It wasn't vandalism, but a simple spelling mistake. Douceurs is "French, from Late Latin dulcor, sweetness, from Latin dulcis, sweet."[7] i.e. in this case used to mean what we would call "sweeteners" in English. I see you used Google? I'm not sure how you have it set up but my search returned "Did you mean: douceurs?" at the top of the page. Mark83 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Nonetheless, the edit was confusing enough to draw my attention. Sorry. Poeticbent 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: By the way. A fair portion of all edits made by User: 86.128.27.221 between May 18 and June 16, 2006, was disruptive, misleading or just plain malicious. I run into the article on Al Yamamah while trying to trace back his edits, otherwise I wouldn’t have attempted to correct the mistake. Poeticbent 02:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trident replacement

Thank you for your work on the replacement article. I agree that both the SSBN and replacement pages are fragmented, although this is more my inability to add/modify more content than inherent faults. Hopefully both can be expanded when more information comes to light in 2007. The SSBN article will have a future then (as per other RN programmes), if possibly renamed. As to whether the replacement should be merged into Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom, please see the talk page. Clue 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems organisation

You reverted the changes made without checking the reality of the evidence...watch this space on org changes on monday! Cheers, --Pperera 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)--pperera

Hi. Thanks for message. You said "You reverted the changes made without checking the reality of the evidence.." -- I reverted to the facts as currently publicly stated regarding the company's formation. You say "watch this space on org changes on monday" - that's great, look forward to updating it, but I don't have a crystal ball. Information must be verifiable, i.e. a link to a company press release etc. Also I have my doubts about some of the changes, for example "BAE Systems Selex" - how can BAE rename a company to include their name when it is the minority shareholder? 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Million/billion

Ah, what I meant was that the target audience of English Wikipedia are mostly from the Anglosphere, ergo we should utilize that nomenclature. I believe the user in question actually interpreted the period as we would a decimal, and that's why they changed it to "billions." I'm not entirely sure about Franco-German standards, myself. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Infobox defunct company.

Ya, sorry about that, I was meaning to fix it but had to run off and do other stuff. Kc4 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Mark I need you to lock the page David Nonis. It is becoming an edit fest. A list was created to list a general managers moves. Very simple list with no POV. However, 2 guys have hijacked it and are now deleting it every 5 minutes. Thanks a lot!--Bangabalunga 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mark, things have calmed down because I and the other people have backed down. We would like to place the table back. Its a very simple table that outlines the moves of the general manager of this hockey team. But these two people are saying its useless information. That is their only concern, calling it useless information. I dont believe so. I would like to put the table back, however, I am at the point of giving up. To see the table go about 2-3 edits back, you will see the last variation of the table. Thanks Mark for your help! --Bangabalunga 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royale clean up

I was thinking we could/should condense the "Search for" sections into "Casting" under the "Production" section. By condense I mean remove all uncited, and rumor based information. I think, unless Sony specifically mentioned someone was in the running, then it should be removed. We've had this problem on other articles, like The Dark Knight, where there were so many "in the running" to play the Joker, when in fact there were just rumors. What do you think? Bignole 14:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll read through it and remove who doesn't have a source. Then I'll try and view the sources, being at work limits the sites I can view. Then I'll go from there. Bignole 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two together, placed them in front of the "filming" subsection and removed what I thought of as irrelevant information (parts where it says people were confirmed but there was no fruitation to that confirmation, or anything that said "rumored"). It still needs work though. I don't know what to do with the "teaser poster" image. There isn't a promotional section, and it doesn't belong in the "development" section either. Bignole 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trident

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I see your point regarding proportionality and Trident. Do you have source where the British Government has said that it will only use nuclear weapons when another state is threatening to use the same? Although I don't accept the argument of the British Government on this (Vanguard-class subs have been manouvered into striking distance of various states that are being uncooperative but have no proven WMD capability) I think it should certainly be part of the argument.

In the meantime I'm going to tidy up the stuff about international law in the British replacement of the Trident system, as the way I've written it makes it seem to be a clear, specific condemnation of Trident by the ICJ. However, the ICJ Advisory Opinion was actually about all Nuclear Weapons. I'll also see what I can dig up re: proportionality and Trident in particular, as I'm sure that the British Government's argument has come up in an English or Scottish court in the last few years. --Jim (Talk) 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a little tidy now on British replacement of the Trident system, and have also noted your comments on Talk:Trident missile regarding the existence of an article on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. I didn't know the article existed (I guess I should have searched for it), but now I do know it exists I think your suggestion regarding having some kind of boilerplate summary of the ICJ advisory opinion on every page related to nuclear weapons is an excellent idea.

The only thing to work out now is what the boilerplate summary should say? Maybe something along the lines of what I originally wrote on British replacement of the Trident system (i.e., a summary of the ICJ advisory opinion)? Then any caveats specific to particular nuclear weapons (e.g. the possible non-applicability of the rule of proportionality where Trident is considered) could be added below this text. Could this be done with some sort of template to avoid forks?

Sorry for not Being Bold but I don't agree with WP:BB in all cases, especially not in those which are sensitive, as it can lead to instability of pages. I'd prefer to get a bit of consensus first so the simpler arguments are sorted out before pages are changed. --Jim (Talk) 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:CR

Thanks. I've been meaning to do more, but I'm home for the week (christmas) and won't be on the computer that much. Bignole 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Contacting me

I didn't read the crap you or Trebor posted on my talk page, so I don't know why you insist on contacting me. You are wasting the five minutes or so of your life typing your "awful" and "dreadful" tripe. I do not read posts or messages from those who engage in personal attacks on others. At the very least, I contributed screenshots to the Bond pages, some of whom were used by others in related entries (as the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words). All you and Trebor contribtued so far are your self-deluded infatuation with your "dreadful" and "awful" writing. Do not answer this message for I do not want a reply, nor do I expect a reply. KenL 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your message on my talk page. Unfortunately some of its content and some of the principles you state in it are in contravention of Wikipedia policy. I will be happy to elaborate if you so wish. Feel free to contact me any time about it or any other matter. Thanks again for the message. Have a nice day. Mark83 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Bell Green, Sainsbury's

As far as I know, there is only {{prod}} and {{prod2}} templates. I guess if you very strongly feel like it should be deleted you can either nominate it for speedy deletion (if you know the right category), or even add another {{prod2|description of why you agree here}} after the existing prod info. However, no matter how many people agree with the prod, all it takes is 1 person to disagree and it has to go to WP:AFD. Hope this helped! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-35

No problem, and thanks. We can't remember everything all the time, so that's what fellow editors are for. - BillCJ 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the new image? All the other images are under the license of US Government. X360 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, the old image that was moved down the page was uploaded by you, that explains it. ;) X360 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have put the image back further down the page and changed the licensing. Your image is still up the top. X360 00:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you say that JSF.mil images are fine to use, then can I get the exact same image off it on put it on Wikipedia? [8]

I can just change the image source link since they are both exactly the same. X360 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find your image in the gallery, so I can't hover the mouse over it. I thought they all said Lockheed Martin when you did this. Its just annoying that we haven't got one image of the F-35 actually flying. Oh well. X360 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just hovered my mouse over most of them and they all have a tag. Most of them are Lockheed Martin, but some are Northrop-Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS. X360 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)