I prefer to keep each conversation thread in one place. So:
If I left you a comment on your talk page or on an article's talk page, please respond there. I'm watching it.
Otherwise, I will normally respond here to a comment you post here; you may want to watch this page until I answer you. If you'd like me to respond elsewhere, I'll do so happily; just say where.
With that in mind, I would certainly agree that the new article ought to be nominated for deletion, seeing as how it's almost a verbatim copy of the other article that was deleted.
I'm also concerned that the editor who created these two articles has been uploading images for which he/she does not have permission to use. Take a look at some of his/her image contributions and I think you'll see what I mean. (Some of those images I know I've seen in the local newspapers...)
Thanks for this revision. I missed that someone had an intervening edit between my reversion and the nonsense I was trying to remove; I'm glad you caught it. Kurutalk22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
modified graphic notation to indicate negative/inverted on the spin. My first contribution to "the community" - giving a heads up in case I didn't do it just right. Always open to input/feedback.
Hi Daedalus65. Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry to report that the original language in Aresti Catalog was correct: the spin depicted is upright (positive), catalog number 9.11.1.4. It begins on an upright horizontal (positively loaded) line, which transitions to a negatively loaded line – really for drawing purposes only – because of the 90° downward pitch change. The spin symbol itself is not colored in, which it would be in the case of an inverted spin. (Were everything else the same and the spin negative, this would represent a cross-over spin. Such spins were once permitted in competition but are no longer; they appeared in Family 4.) I've reverted the change, but please don't let this put you off from further contributions. Glad to have you aboard. If you have questions or would like to discuss, just leave a note below; I'll see it and reply here. Best regards, Jim Ward(talk·stalk)18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bzuk. Indeed Mr. Gann was an aviation writer. But one of the American aviation writers – a non-distinguished subcategory of Aviation writers.
(I may be about to tell you something you already know; if so, I apologize – it's only to explain my rationale for the change, not to be pedantic.) In Wikiproject Aviation, it appears to be the broad intent that if a subject S belongs to category X, and category X is a proper subset of category Y, then S is added only to X and not to Y. This follows the WP:SUBCAT rule concerning non-distinguished subcategories. The best case in point is Category:American aviators being a member of Category:Aviators by nationality, which itself is a member of Category:Aviators. Following a couple of small fixes last week, no individual article is a member of Category:Aviators. Before I put my fingers on this today, this was almost always (yet imperfectly) the case for Category:American aviation writers and Category:Aviation writers; my change to the Gann article and a couple of others made this categorization method uniform.
I saw the change, but my original contention is that Gann transcends the category of American aviation writer to have a status as an international literary figure. FWiW, don't worry about sounding pedantic, you don't know pedantic (hint: look up my user page) Bzuk (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I concur wholeheartedly that Gann was an aviation writer of high international stature. That's likely WP:V'able without breaking a sweat. I wonder if you'd agree that it comes down to the semantic of the category title: does "American aviation writer" mean, "an American who is or was an aviation writer", or does it mean, "an aviation writer whose predominant audience is or was American"? Following extant WP:Aviation examples, I apply the former interpretation. Conversely, St. Exupéry's American audience may have surpassed in size his French one, though I suspect he'd toss in his watery grave were some Wikipedian to propose that he be called an American aviation writer! (Oh, and on the pedantic thing: in the few months I've been contributing here, I'm beginning to discover a netherworld of pedantic-ness that I had never before imagined existed. I have a healthy fear that on my worst days I add to it, rather than facilitate its demise.) Jim Ward(talk·stalk)02:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for vandalism-fighting! However, your message to Bavlard came over an hour after s/he had vandalised, and an hour after s/he had been warned for it (the warning was in the {{welcometest}} note I left him/her). No harm in that, but we try not warn more than once and try not to warn long after the vandalism in question. Also, you didn't sign your message. Keep up the fight against vandalism! ➲redversthrowing my arms around Paris14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy guacamole, Redvers, right on all points. I so know better than to edit before consuming the proper amount of coffee – not too much, not too little – but cast that little tenet to the wind this morning. Thanks for catching all. (I'd realized upon hitting Save page that I hadn't signed, but Sinebot was faster than I was this morning.) Regards, Jim Ward(talk·stalk)21:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael. I see your changes and think the article is substantially improved; nice going. Granted, the guy is a working actor, yet I'm still trying to reconcile Fox's body of work with WP:ENTERTAINER's requirement for significant roles in multiple, notable productions. Can you provide some guidance to that end? Thanks, Jim Ward(talk·stalk)16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. I have responded at the AfD and just hitting a few highlights, believe I was able to show a few examples to address your questions. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 10:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)
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. - TrevorMacInniscontribs00:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 220. (May I call you 220?) An article on the U.S. National Aerobatic Championships may be appropriate and even overdue, though I don't see myself writing it in the near future. Have at it if you're moved to do so; some reference material exists online The Giles 300 is/was, to the best of my knowledge, a one-off that Bob & Marta built, derived from the G-200. As such, I don't think it passes muster for inclusion in WP, so I'll de-wikilink that reference. Enjoy! Jim Ward(talk·stalk)23:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am who I am (220 etc.) until I get a username! Agree with de-link of Giles 300 (might need a citation on that wp:OR!) ;-) . Don't think I have the background to write an article about aerobatic aircraft. Then again may make NPOV easier? May you land as many times as you take off ! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
