User talk:Ndsg

RIP

The person who used this account has passed away, and this userbox was added by a friend, relative, or fellow Wikipedian.

Much ado about Turkish et cetera

I posted a response on my page [yet again]. I haven't made many edits for the last few days, and a lot of my time has been spent trying to find refs for Sinhala alphabet as well as commitments off-wiki. We'd love to hear some input from you regarding the article there—it always pays to have a third pair of eyes! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam FAC

I read through the FAC and the related threads on the discusison page, as well as the first third of the article. You brought up a point about the etymology and construction of the word "Islam" on the talkpage—would it be more appropriate to list the root (s-l-m) instead? Without going into semitic template conjugation/inflection and whatnot, we may want to mention that the word "Islam" is not directly derived from the verb, but the consonantal root (or maybe my linguistic tendencies are blurring my judgement :-P). I added a note about the definition about aqidah, but the magnitude of the article and my lack of knowledge in the field of theology is preventing me from making any major edits. Is there a specific section that you would like me to look over? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed originally a reference to s-l-m; but I got rid of it as it seemed a bit pedantic in this context. As for the derivation of islām, it is in fact the verbal noun of aslama (form IV), so the statement in the article is correct. I'll put in a link to Arabic grammar#Verb, though, for those who want to know more!

No, I didn't have any specific section in mind—just a general perusal. I haven't been that involved in this article anyway, apart from some copyediting, correcting transliterations, etc. In general it seems pretty good. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make some more in-depth edits, but first I need to get out my RFA thank-yous. I don't want a week to pass by without me reaching out to the people who were involved! By the way, have you thought of submitting Gwoyeu Romatzyh to Featured article of the day? I'll write the blurb if you don't want to—I think it would be great on the main page! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA for GR & Turkish

Yes, it had occurred to me, but I haven't got round to doing anything about it. It might be good to get it to coincide with some memorable date (anniversary of Chao's birth, setting up of the Chinese Republic—that sort of thing). In fact, I'll suggest the same idea on Talk:Turkish language‎ too.

PS I'm still interested in knowing what your main activities as a sysop are going to be! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I now see that Turkish is already in the TFA queue. I think we need a (slightly?) adapted version of the GR lead section, so I'll go ahead & start on that while you produce a suitable blurb. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Chao photo will be more acceptable for this purpose than your 4 versions of guo image. Do you agree? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my first draft when you have time. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good, I might shorten it a little though. Three paragraphs is a lot for the main page! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I condensed it down to what seems like a pretty good level. Feel free to revert my changes or change the content, but mind the size. Check out the other articles at WP:TFA and see what we can get away with having for size. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've tweaked it a bit (you'd cut out any reference to alternative tonal markers such as accents or numbers!), & shortened it slightly. It's now a reasonable length for TFA. I'll be away from this computer till Tuesday, so feel free to go ahead with the request if you want to: there's a template on the request page, which ensures that eg the image goes on the left. If you're too busy to do it right now, I'll do it on Tues. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS It would also be useful if you could draft a short blurb for the request. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my edit. Also, I'm not sure if the picture of Y.R. Chao works the best—if you want, I can make a smaller image that simply has one form of a syllable and its symbol. With a script or writing system, I think it would be better to show an example. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right; my feeling was that a "human interest" angle might be better (and having Chao's autograph on the photo is a plus!). But I'd be happy to keep the script image if you think that would be more relevant. My inclination would be to edit the one we've got by removing either all the traditional or all the simplified characters (the distinction is only a distraction in the context of a TFA).

If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting having just guo, for example, & dropping gwo, guoo & guoh. Definitely not: misses the whole point of GR! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your human interest angle, it's just that I think that visitors unfamiliar with the topic will immediately associate the words "Gwoyeu Romatzyh" with a person and not a system, which can be a bit misleading. I agree that the symbols need to be cut down, but perhaps we could use symbols which are identical in both simplified and traditional characters, as wikipedia doesn't choose between the two systems, and it may be considered biased to choose one over the other. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose the casual reader might assume that the picture was a photo of Mr. G. Romatzyh ... Then let's go for the reduced image. It might be possible to come up with a syllable all 4 tones of which are identical in trad. & simp.—but life's too short! Use guo with trad. characters (these are acceptable in China, whereas ROC readers might possibly object to simplified characters). Ie simply delete the simplified characters from the existing image.

I'm going to add a short sentence restoring the remark about the possible use of GR in language learning. Then we're ready to go! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS We still need a short blurb. I don't mind writing it if you don't want to. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a blurb & applied the template. Seeing it now in context, I find the original image too cluttered—which confirms my preference for dropping the simplified characters. Please do the editing whenever you have time.

As soon as you feel it's OK, just copy everything across to WP:TFA/R. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't been on wikipedia for the last few days, but I'll try to do some work ASAP. I already skimmed thru it and everything appears to be in order, but I'll take some time to review it in more detail. I may not be on wikipedia for the next to days (please forgive me, but it's been one of those weeks) :-( The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I added my own note about why it deserves to be on the main page, and I uploaded a cropped version of the image. Tell me what you think. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine, except that you've overcropped, leaving only the first 3 tones! Could you please restore the 4th tone? I presume this was unintentional (there are still references to 4 tones in the text & the image caption). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on GR

Some new user dropped by on the GR talk (here's the diff [1]). Should I redirect National Romanization to Gwoyeu Romatzyh?--Clyde (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ikroid

Pretty much so, or at least one would hope so. An extended wikibreak is better than... wikiretirement, eh? Try e-mailing him. —Anas ^talk? 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. Clyde notified me ex encyclopaedia that editors were looking for me, and I thought you deserved to know the latest. My life is going through a lot of changes at the moment (thankfully not bad, but still nerve-racking) and I'm starting a full-time job that has exhausted me mentally. I am going to come back, but not for awhile. My leave was somewhat hasty and cut off a lot of things that I was doing, and I'm truly sorry for dropping the ball with the GR main page blurb.

On a more positive note, I noticed that Islam made the main page today. I do hope that the article won't fall to vandals and editors who want to skew the article's perspective. I must admit that when I first read it, I put it in a group of articles including New Coke and Daniel Brandt that would probably not get featured, due to different views. Islam is one of the last FAs that we have on a major world religion, and it stands as a testimony to what editors can accomplish here.

I'll let you know when I start regularly editing again, but at the moment I'm just going to play catch-up with the messages on my talkpage. Best wishes, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing me up to date. Wishing you the very best of luck in the new job—& looking forward to welcoming you back to the fold when the dust has settled a bit! I've become fairly wiquiescent myself recently too. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable glider pilots

There is a proposal to delete the List of notable glider pilots. Please register your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable glider pilots. I think it is an interesting list and useful when publicising the sport. JMcC 09:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Hi Nigel, it's Ikiroid. I've gotten back on the wiki (looks like I finally have time again!) so drop me a note if you're working on anything interesting. I hope you're not gone, you're one of the best editors we've got! Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, & thanks for the kind words. I haven't exactly gone (hence my reply), but—as in your case—I've found that real life has intervened recently ...

We're still waiting for GR to get to TFA. In the meantime, it might be a good idea if you could produce a pared-down version of the image for WP:TFA/R. I suggest eliminating the simplified characters (the leftmost column): the image looks a little cluttered for the Main Page IMO.

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't have the original pic (I'm on a new computer) so I'll just get it off commons and crop it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, stay tuned in--GR is TFA tomorrow! The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—your image edit seems to have done the trick! But I was surprised to see that the text in the TFA version has reverted to the wording of the lead in the main article: is that normal practice? I'd imagined that the main page would have the same text as the WP:TFA/R. No matter: it's the principle that counts. I'll publicize the fact on the relevant project pages. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I presume Raul did this. It's had the rather annoying consequence that two of the links don't work, since they are internal to the article itself. Is it too late to ask him to use the text that's been on WP:TFA/R for at least 2 months? Your request will carry more weight than mine! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the text and dropped a note on Raul's page. Let me know if this is satisfactory, also feel free to leave a note under mine on Raul's talkpage. There's truly no reason why my words would carry any more weight than yours—in fact, your heavy contribution to the article probably gives you more of a voice. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added my 2 cents' worth, stressing that the original TFA/R text was intended to be more accessible to the general reader. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good. Another note too, something you are already probably aware of—an article's exposure on the main page attracts a lot of criticism, vandalism, copyediting, et cetera. Keep a sharp eye and be emotionally prepared for this stuff. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I see what you mean: about 70 edits today—& counting! I'm fairly relaxed about this, actually: it's amusing rather than worrying to see all these wiseacres coming out of the woodwork to modify an article almost no one has read so far. I suggest we leave the article until it returns to its much-deserved obscurity tomorrow ... --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great article on GR

Nigel, thanks for acknowledging my edits to the GR article, which were all minor, and style- or punctuation-oriented. It is one of the cleanest articles I've ever seen. Very, very professional. Preston McConkie 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words: praise such as yours makes me feel that all those sleepless nights were not in vain!

BTW It wasn't all my doing: I had constant help & encouragement from User:Ikiroid. So please let him know you liked the article too. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good resource discovered

I discovered this online book, which could really be a helpful resource for anyone researching romanization (such as you and me). Tell me what you think of it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access it. What is it? Your tantalizing link simply took me to JSTOR. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down. It's a book photocopied onto the webpage. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down where? Which webpage? I suspect you have privileged access to JSTOR. Can you give me a different link, please?

Sorry. Apparently I have access due to the computer network I'm on. I've never been on JSTOR before, I wasn't aware a person had to log in to access it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Euboea NE.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Euboea NE.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Gliders and Gliding

In an effort to streamline the subprojects of aviation, and given the fact that the Glider task force has four members and a total of 51 articles tagged under its scope and the Gliding project has 7 and 56, I'd like to mere the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Glider task force and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding into one project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Gliding task force. Any objections? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Lo again

Hi Nigel, good to hear from you again. I'm flattered that you read my userpage—to tell you the truth, I thought that most visitors would breeze over it and go straight to the guestbook or index of links. Anyway, I really should update that—the subjunctive does not bother me too much anymore (in general), only some of its idiomatic usages and irregularities irk me, such as how it doesn't come after certain verbs concerning emotion or uncertainty (such as 'croire' in French) and the ambiguity of its tense forms in colloquial Spanish. For example, all of the Spanish speakers I know in the U.S. never use full imperfect forms, instead opting for the imperfect of 'estar' plus the present participle (i.e. "Estaba hablando," not "Hablaba"). So, does the same usage follow into the imperfect subjunctive? Maybe, maybe not, but the usage of "book forms" like the traditional imperfect can serve as a shibboleth that indicates how much of a chicano/gringo the speaker is, something that subjunctive forms can complicate.

The French subjunctive has a pretty minimal range grammatically, and I have most of the irregular forms memorised there, so it isn't a problem. Other languages I know like Chinese don't really have the subjunctive at all (unless I'm mistaken) so I'm not too worried. By the way, do you know of any good sites on the Internet for learning Arabic? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estaba hablando & hablaba may overlap in some cases, but the distinction between progressive & habitual is pretty important (eg cada día hablaba con ella couldn't really be *estaba hablando—at least in Spain!). In general the Spanish tense system is quite rich: it rivals English in this respect.

You're right about the absence of subj. in Chinese. Even in Russian it's rather a bogus mood indicated by the use of the past tense + бы.

Sorry, I don't know of any Arabic courses online. The links at the end of Arabic language might be useful, though. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the tenses does confound me a bit, but from a linguistic standpoint it's not unusual at all. Of course, the creation of tenses is always more exciting (i.e. AAVE). I don't know about England or the rest of the UK, but you run into a lot of weird vocabulary mixes in the States, where people treasure liberal borrowings from any and all languages, viewing it as cultured or educated.

I guess I would be learning MSA or classical—the next largest is Egyptian, but it's too much of a divergence from the standard, and I don't have any specific intended scope yet. England has a rather large Arabic-speaking immigrant population, doesn't it? Do you know of any specific sound shifts or vocabulary unique to English Arabic? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish language

Hi there! I'm happy to help and sorry I didn't have time to do more--I will try to check back with the article later and do more copyediting. I put a question that came up during my edit on the talk page. On the "commonly" vs. "widely" debate: if pressed, I probably would have chosen the former over the latter, but I doubt it would have jumped out at me as a glaring error in prose during a copyedit. :o) Galena11 01:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books on Mendip Hils

Thanks for your message about an alphabetical list of books on Mendip Hills - but I can't really think of any advantage - why do you think it would be a good thing?— Rod ^talk 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following Wikipedia:Citing sources, putting an alphabetised list of books would just duplicate them & why should we treat books in this way rather than as apart of all sources?— Rod ^talk 12:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horace

Nigel, thanks for your note. I see there are now no links to translations on the Horace page. If anything of your man Michie is available, maybe you could add a link to it - my library doesn't have his Horace. John Wheater (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse pulley launching

Thank you for the offer. I have no objections in principle but there are three potential problems. The article is fairly crowded with pictures in that area, it would have to be a good photo to show something additional to the text and the copyright would have to be arranged. JMcC (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple map

Hello there,

You have messages at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Simple_map.3F! I hope they answer your query. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressing markers

User:Ndsg wrote:

Is there any way of completely suppressing the display of location markers? On my map I'd like to mark only the principal location, while adding names—but no markers—to various surrounding towns, which are already shaded in on the map. So far I've resorted to shrinking the markers down to 1px, but the little dot is still just visible in each case. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20-Dec-2007: The coding needs to be changed to omit a marker, when each mark#size=0. I have noticed the same problem, of tiny 1-pixel black dots, and agree that completely suppressing each mark is a better solution. I will try to change the code, today, to skip each marker when the corresponding value of mark#size=0. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished changing Template:Location_map_many to skip any marker when the corresponding value of mark#size=0. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermals

Happy New Year. Thanks for the suggestion. It is good to see you are looking at my club's web-site. Look at the Committee of Management page and you will see me. I think the lava-lamp analogy for thermals is quite good, though they are a little too short lived to be an exact representation. However I am unsure whether we need it in the article to explain thermals. Let me think about it. JMcC (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Dynasty

Hmm...I rather like this idea of yours Ndsg (with the type of citation that labels the scholar in prose parenthesis along with the year number and page number of course); that type of citation is used in the article for the Battle of Red Cliffs. Should we try it out?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I didn't mean convert every citation in the whole entire article to that! I was simply talking about converting those first two citations in the lead to that style; I agree, using the Harvard reference citation type would seem blotchy, messy and would interrupt the flow of the article. But having it in that one spot in the lead makes sense for your suggestion "Estimates vary from 160 million (Scholar#1 1990) to 200 million (Scholar#2 1995)". I'll be doing that now if you have no objections.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just converted it to Crefnote style; check it out!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just converted the Cref note to footnote style, as you (rightly) suggest.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder if Mr. Campbell knows anything about the Ming Dynasty (not that it has anything to do with his name), lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! I'm glad it finally passed; the effort was worth it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar award

		Barnstar of Diligence
		I, PericlesofAthens, award you Ndsg, this barnstar for your outstanding diligence and patience in reviewing the featured article candidate Ming Dynasty.Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little thanks for a lot of help that you provided in helping me to improve the Ming Dynasty article's lead section. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman

Thanks for the help Nd, much appreciated. --A.Garnet (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Aviation

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wexcan Talk 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add him if you want

thanksRankun (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atom

Congratulations on the FA status. Thoroughly deserved! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was expecting to have a little more difficulty getting it through the FAC, but it went fairly well.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed to fly

Doesn't the same calculation also apply if you are heading to a turn-point, not just a final glide? On an into-wind leg I would want to get round the TP as fast as possible, even if it meant getting a little lower, so I could climb on a downwind leg. I have to admit that I am not a great theoretician, but that's what I do. JMcC (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not used for original research. If you can find references for what you write, you can include any concepts that you wish. I really need to sit down with a piece of paper and an ice-pack on my head. Clearly with the standard MacCready ring you do not dial in anything but the strength of the thermals. I have not used my electronic vario in the manual mode where you input the wind instead of using the output from the GPS. I suppose that this shows the danger of leaving all the thinking to the equipment. JMcC (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will raise the white flag. JMcC (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardising articles on gliders

There has been some discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft about using the standard template for aircraft for articles on gliders. To understand what was expected, I asked one of the prime movers to change one of the existing articles into his preferred format. Please have a look at the changes to Schempp-Hirth Discus. Are the supposed benefits of consistency with other types of aircraft outweighed by the aethestics of having all key data in one table? Post you opinions to the WikiProject Aircraft Talk page. JMcC (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hapisane-Hapishane TDK

Yr-chao image deletion

Images which are permissible on Wikimedia Commons are generally transferred, and then the Wikipedia copy deleted (see WP:CSD#I8 for the section of the speedy deletion criteria which allows this). Commons is an image repository which all Wikimedia projects (like other language Wikipedias, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, etc.) can draw images from. Commons is also set up to better categorize images, making it an easy-to-browse central repository of free media. (Commons is a bit stricter about what it allows than Wikipedia; Commons disallows fair-use media, which Wikipedia accepts. That's why images are permitted to be uploaded to Wikipedia still.)

Your image hasn't been deleted outright. It has merely been moved to Commons, where it was renamed to Image:Zhao Yuanren.jpg. Though the image is on Commons, you can still use the image here exactly as if it were still here on Wikipedia. I hope this helps, and feel free to contact me if you have any further questions! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the deleting admin (i.e. me) or whoever did the transfer will migrate all instances of the image over to the Commons version. However, many of us are kind of wary about editing in other editors' userspace, so that's probably why that particular usage wasn't switched out. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airbrakes

The article on Gliding is about the sport rather than on the aircraft. However the Glider article is about how they work. There is already a link in glider to the article on spoilers, which gives a brief explanation of their use as they affect gliders. What else could be added? JMcC (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cook photos

Hi! I noticed you uploaded several photos attributed to Stephen Cook. Is this you? If not, could you provide more information about the licensing of the photos? One of them mentions the Cotswold Gliding Club website, but I could not find the photo (nor any mention of Stephen Cook) on the website.

Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. You should mention that explicitly on the image description pages, so that it will be clear to others who might look into them down the road.--ragesoss (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for pointing this out. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA in the UK

I did think you were working me hard, but the realisation that we were having article talk page discussions on the FAC page made things a lot clearer on that front. You prompted a significant improvement to the gliding sports para., and identified some critical points which, when addressed, enhanced the article and assisted in its promotion. I am most grateful. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not only am I not all that fussed, an understanding of how to make the request eludes me completely. I'm happy enough to get it to FA. --FactotEm (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

attributive verb

Hi,

How does okan şiir differ from okuduğu şiir? It would be nice to keep the words short so the morphology is transparent. kwami (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 1549

It might be best wait for adding further comments about Sullenberger. From what I can see no US glider club has 'claimed' him and I can see nothing that suggests that he is a current pilot. I guess his previous gliding experience might be revealed in the inevitable interviews, but it might be a while before anyone from Soaring could get near him! I suppose all glider pilots will fondly imagine they could have made the same decision by eye-balling the glide angle to the nearest airport and deciding against it. JMcC (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to the gliding

What are your thoughts on the proposed changes to the Gliding article in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding? JMcC (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some very sad News

I am very sorry to tell you that Nigel was killed in a gliding accident in June. Ausseagull (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:PW6 landing.jpg

File:PW6 landing.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:PW6 landing.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:PW6 landing.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Pw6u.jpg

The file File:Pw6u.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]