User talk:Mark83/Archive 3

Disambiguating Queen

 * Hello there... You are forgiven for altering my Userpage, since I do prefer the link for Queen to go to the band, not the article on Queens. I just wish you would have dropped a note on my talk page. Thanks for being clear however in the reason for the change. Have a nice day! Lady Aleena | Talk 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a big deal. I have also gone through and disambiguated a few userpages in my time here. I know the trepidation. The user pages are edittable by anyone like everything else, so if something is wrong on my user page, then I would prefer it get fixed then to stay wrong. As long as you continue to be clear with the reason for the change, you can edit my page if I am ever in error anytime. Lady Aleena 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my Queen link. ADman 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello...it's a shame that it can't have the band name as one thing (Queen) and the link to another (Queen (band)). Sorry for this, but I'm going to revert it, I prefer the old version. Andymc 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ta for the Queen link fix, too. - Wezzo 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:John Reid photo.jpg
Thank you! Compu te  r  Jo  e 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Spirit AeroSystems
Some of the articles on it only mention civil stuff. If the Eurofighter had been involved, I think they would have mentioned it or that BAE Systems and Lockheed would still be a customer. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What surprised me was that this group was not included when Airbus was converted to SCE form. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but there are Boeing divisions (Jeppesen, Boeing Australia, and Connexion by Boeing to name three) that supply Airbus. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Signature
It's very easy. Wanna know how? Compu te  r  Jo  e 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell no, it wouldn't be copying, most Wikipedians do it. And also, you still just use ~ . Compu  te  r  Jo  e 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Type45sampson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Type45sampson.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Dethomas 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. Since you left your message another user has added the appropriate tag. While I fully admit it was an omission on my part not to add a tag it seems to me that the information I provided (source and the fact the images are intended by the owner to be used for publication) was more than enough for you to add a tag &mdash; although you'd be right to argue that it isn't your responsibility to clear up my mess.


 * The upload was back in my very early days here and if you look at my more recent uploads you will find I always provide source info and appropriate tags. Regards Mark83 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad it got fixed. My Google site searches of type45.com didn't turn up anything about reuse of the images, else a fair use tag or something would have been apropos. Dethomas 07:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Strike
Please don't make it a redirect page -- it really needs to be a dab. BCorr | Брайен 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem is that while that may be what the majority of wikilinks are referencing, I think that people looking up "strike" will have a wider variety of meanings in mind -- I can't prove it, but it's my gut reaction. I won't re-revert you, but I think that it's better to pipe the references to "strike" to the appropriate page than to make Strike about labor actions. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again -- you've been very patient -- and I now understand what you did and much better see your point and "withdraw" my concern -- I've put it back the way you did it. I'm sorry if I came across as a bit imperious.


 * With thanks, BCorr | Брайен

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Interesting
"Worse than that is your edit summary on the F-16 page:  "RV MORONIC VANDALISM BY STUPID ASSHOLE FUCKWANK"  In my opinion this is worse than the relatively minor vandalism the user in question is guilty of. Mark83 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"


 * How is this worse exactly? His edit messed up an article, and damaged the encyclopedia. My edit fixed it. My language might have been strong, but his edit demanded a robust response. The only people who'll see the language I used are those who get into the metadata and start editing, I'm sure they can handle it. His edit was a part of the article, and made parts of it nonsensical.


 * So I lost my temper. So what. It makes me angry when vandals get better treatment than editors who are trying to improve things. I notice you're attacking me, and not him. That's not equitable.


 * But what the hell. Open a RFC on me. Hell, go for ARBCOM. Appeal to Jimbo to have me blocked immediately. Obviously I'm a liability to the project because I dared to call a vandal a nasty name.


 * I've made a lot of useful contributions, but hell that doesn't matter, because I insulted a vandal. Let's start a witch hunt. I shouldn't be allowed on wikipedia. I'm bad for the project. I'm a waste of space. Block me already. exolon 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, we're on the same side &mdash; we both think vandalism is wrong. I wasn't "attacking" you, I just wanted to raise a flag with you that the language in question should be avoided. There are many templates to produce warnings available at Vandalism.


 * I don't have the power or wish to block you or raise a RFC. I've had a look through your contributions and you're right, there is a lot of good work there. Mark83 11:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Navy images
Greetings. I figured they were adequately dealt with because the CrownCopyright tag was added. If this tag is incorrect, then I guess I was wrong. But if it's correct, I think that should be sufficient. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg
I didn't realise the Army placed such a restriction. I will claim fair use in Akrotiri and Dhekelia page in that case. Thanks for letting me know. Astrotrain 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find it disgraceful that UK public sector organisations are placing such restrictions on such material that has been obtained using taxpayer's money. If the US government can release all federal government images and media into the public domain, I'm sure the UK can as well. Anyway, I will have a look at the other crown copyrighted images I may have uploaded. Astrotrain 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CrownCopyright
Actually, although I did the edit, it was at the request of User:AJR. See Template talk:CrownCopyright. You contact AJR regarding this. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gaulalongsidethumb.jpg
I have no idea how the copyright tag got removed, but the image is Crown Copyright and is taken from the public documents of the official inquiry into the disaster. It is perfectly safe to use it. Icundell 17:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the image that was released with the press pack and used in pretty well every report of the inquiry when it was published (as well as in the original 1970s inquiry). Make of that what you will. Icundell 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Deal_bombing_1989.jpg
I admit that I was thrown by the CrownCopyright Tag when I originally loaded that image. I apologize for that. -- The KoG | Talk 16:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems
"Paraphrasing

Just a quick note to say that your paraphrasing of the Westinghouse Electronic Systems official history is, in my opinion, not thorough enough and could even be described as a copyright violation. The changes seem to amount to integrating the headings (years) into the text, changing the tense of several words and changing instances of "company" to "division". For example the section below is from the Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems article, I've highlighted in bold the characters that are different from the original:

Westinghouse more than doubled its manufacturing area in its Baltimore location to accommodate production of the then highly-secret SCR-270 aircraft warning radar. In 1941, an SCR-270 radar detected the December 7th attack on Pearl Harbor; its warnings went unheeded because of high-level uncertainty about the new technology's reliability. The first ground-based radar built for the Army Signal Corps, the SCR-270 proves to be the only model to stay in action throughout all of World War II. Also, even if the paraphrasing was satisfactory, you should still have referenced the Northrop Grumman website. Mark83 22:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevekaw"

'''Appreciate your well-intentioned comments and edits. I work at Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems and feel somewhat proprietary about related articles. However, as a Wiki newbie I respect any efforts to improve the organization and quality of these pieces.'''

BAE Systems
Hiya, much better, could still do with a bit more "brow-beating" to advertise it's achievements. The article is technically flawless, but a few superlatives wouldn't go amiss! Good luck if you decide to submit to FAC! --PopUpPirate 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

About the chart "BAE Systems Land evolution": Alvis Vickers never was the name of the whole company, it was the name of the former Vickers Defence, renamed to "Alvis Vickers" when bought by Alvis, in the same way that Hägglunds Vehicle was renamed to Alvis Hägglunds. Alvis Vickers and Alvis Hägglunds was owned by Alvis PLC, and I think that the "original" Alvis and Alvis OMC also was owned by Alvis PLC (not sure of the names of these companies, though). 195.198.88.2 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it seems to be official. I think their next move is a merger with a second-tier U.S. contractor, such as Raytheon or General Dynamics. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I found it on airliners.net before I put it here. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Formula One organisation.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Formula One organisation.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unable to understand your question. Are you talking about Image:Chillinghamcastlemorris edited.jpg. If not, then please let me know the image link. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing out this confusion. Really sorry for bothering you. Shyam  ( T / C ) 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

F-35
You're obviously more clued up than I am, I thought it was into full production! Thanks for clearing that up :D --PopUpPirate 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I really can't believe that the US is unable/unwilling to grant a waiver (as Canada has been granted) to the UK. Particularly with regard to the investment of BAE (and MES) in the US defence industry and the massive contribution of UK forces in Iraq & Afghanistan (regardless of my opinion over "right" or "wrong" in that respect). - Seems strange to me as well, but maybe its because the British JSF will be altered to permit the better MBDA Meteor - which would then make the British variant theoretically be the better craft. :D Also odd is that BAE are providing the computer systems?! --PopUpPirate 21:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Mark83
 BD2412 would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact BD2412 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Bam! :-) BD2412  T 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I have added a set of questions to your RfA, when you have a minute I'd appreciate if you took a look at them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops - you've got an oppose based on your email not being set - I should've suggested that (i.e. I should've checked). You need to set an email account in your preferences because, as an admin you may block someone, and emailing you may be the only way for them to contest the block. Cheers! BD2412  T 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark, looks like you are going to be the 10th member of The Society of Abramson :-). NoSeptember   talk  23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Cadbury Schweppes/Temp
Hello there. Well, the copy-vio notice is supposed to be replaced with a valid version. If you feel that the above temp page is the remedy to the copy-vio, you move its contents to the mail article. Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 11:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A copyvio tag is not a deletion tag, it is a tag used for letting other users know that a page may be in violation of a copyright law. I noticed that the page was copy & pasted from another website, I did not know if the user had permission or not, I left it for a more qualifided Admin to sort out. Taging a page with {copyvio} was just a notifaction possable plagerism :)

Betacommand 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're an admin. If you wish, you may take a look at the free advice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. You're going to make a great addition to the janitorial team. Best, gw e rnol 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, lad, ye done well. BD2412 T 21:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I am happy for you and good luck for the future! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  07:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You derseved it. Congrats! (^'-')^ Covington 19:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people have Esperanza links in their signatures. I think you followed two of those links when you were sending out Thank yous. 1 2. Oh, and congratulations :-). NoSeptember   talk  12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me too, and may the mop be with you. Good luck in being a Janny. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BAES_Astute.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:BAES_Astute.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Claiming fair use Mark83 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BAE_Spearfish_torpedo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:BAE_Spearfish_torpedo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Tallahassee StMarks Railroad.jpg
Go ahead and delete it. Up the Orange. Noles1984 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tags
I'll go ahead and create my own image to replace Doak Campbell Stadium Layout.png so feel free to delete it. Noles1984 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

cite.php
I'm well aware of that - I love cite.php. I was more curious about his wrapping the tag in a div with style information. That's structural / non-semantic markup that could easily be accomplished by a change to monobook.css. It doesn't make sense to leave dozens of &lt;div style="font-size: 90%;"> tags all over the 'pedia when you could change it once. ericg &#9992; 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pdp11,70 640x507.jpg
Hi - I noticed you tagged the image with nosource. I suspect it comes from (the rather massive) http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/historic-computers/png/pdp11,70.png (resized as a jpg) - credited here as http://ftp.arl.army.mil/ftp/historic-computers/ being a US-Army photo - thus actually not gnu but public domain (US-Army). The actual user who contributed is I suspect away from wiki. Megapixie 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tannin's images
Hi. Could you catch me up about the problem with Tannin's images. Is it just that he/she just can't find a licence acceptable to both him/herself and WP? I started deleting them as the deletion process was followed correctly, but I just think it's a shame an appropriate tag cannot be found to allow us to keep them. Thanks Mark83 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. Tannin licenses his photos under cc-by-nd-nc.  A year ago, Jimbo decreed that "All images which are for non-commercial only use ... are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_".  I agree it's a shame, but Tannin hasn't been willing to release his photos under the GFDL.  User:dbenbenn 01:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego Response to Mark83's RFA
I expect a little of Leonardo da Vinci in the Admin. Small counts of Wikipedia 234, Wikipedia talk 9, User talk 365, talk, 139. 0 forums. Being a little sociable, is practical, it's part of the job to respond to others on line. Masssiveego 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to fixated on quantitative measures rather than qualitative. Nearly all my talk page edits are full discussions/comments/responses. You have 537 talk page edits - most of which were in March 2006 - any what where they? Overwhelmingly welcome messages. We would both agree that this is an important duty, but still, I don't think you have the right to denegrate my talk page contributions. Adding a standard template is less sociable than engaging in discussion and debate with fellow editors. Regards Mark83 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I may seem "denegrating", I believe, the edits were well made. I agree on engaging in discussion and debate. Masssiveego 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your help
I really would like to ask you to make me a favour: please unblock User:ROGNNTUDJUU! I think that is a mistake and this user needs a second chance. Best regards, StabiloBoss 12:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff
Since you claim the existence of public domain images of Jack Abramoff, I hope you'd be willing to add one. Thanks! --User At Work 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Abramoff SIAC 20040929 2.jpg is public domain and already in the article
 * Image:Time Cover Abramoff.jpg is not public domain but there is a very thorough fair use rationale for its inclusion.
 * Sorry if I've caused you any stress or problem by deleting the image. Mark83 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a comment on this. I notice that you (Mark) removed Image:Abramoff.JPG. I noticed that this came about because Mineralè put copyvio on the image (rather than imagevio) and did not add it to WP:IFD or WP:CP. I explained to them that, although I was not the uploader of the image, I noted that it was not being justified under fair-use because there were no other images of Abramoff, but because the article was engaging in critical commentary on this particular image (the borsalino hat Abramoff was wearing was the subject of a Salon article.) I assumed that no further action would be taken unless Mineralè corrected the IFD nomination, but apparently a bot scooped the image up and put it on WP:CP where you processed it. I'm somewhat ambivalent on the deletion, and for what its worth I was the one who located and uploaded a (low quality) public domain image of Abramoff (Image:Abramoff_SIAC_20040929_2.jpg, but from the standpoint of doing the right thing for the right reason, this probably ought to have undergone review for the fair use justification in context (since the article now contains no content about "the hat", which although somewhat trivial, lends some insight on Abramoff's persona). KWH 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, just working from WP:Copyright Problems, I didn't know the wider context regarding the image's deletion listing. Had I known I would have been reluctant to go ahead with deleting the image. I was basing my decision on the simple principle of fair use requiring no free alternatives, but as you say, there are wider considerations (commentary on the hat etc.) Mark83 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments -- I think that what you're doing is absolutely right in general; the fair use concept isn't really compatible with the GFDL (legally or in principle). Just try to notice if you're deleting text when you delete an image--that's what bothered me. --User At Work 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Images for deletion
Hi Mark. Yes, it is a shame, but the policy is quite clear. I am happy to make my images available for non-commercial use; Wikipedia now insists that all content be commercial. It's a stand-off and deletion seems to be the only possibility. Best -- Tannin 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Albert-einstein-theory-relativity.jpg
Hi, thank you for your interest in this matter, but I think you misunderstood the facts. I have replied to your message on my own talk page. ---CH 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  18:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

typhoon infobox
As far as the ordered number goes, you're right - I was just going for consistency. I suppose don't really see a problem with what was there before. Maybe a good solution would be to first list the 'as of 2006' built number, followed by the orders on a second line. I was going through the new items on 'what links here' for the infobox, and cleaning up as I felt appropriate. To be honest, I don't have any specific interest in the Typhoon article (if I did have an opinion, it would be that it's just yet another pork barrel project with no practical reason to exist, like the rest of the new fighters), so have at it. :) Also, thank you for your opinion - I've found myself (despite my earlier statements) adding the infobox to a couple of articles myself. ericg &#9992; 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank Luntz
Hi Mark, I see that you nuked this article. I agree that it had MAJOR problems but is this SOP in the project? If so, I would LOVE it if you could check out Tom Metzger and my "battle" with TheKingOfDixie and nuke it also. I have started the Luntz article over. Does he meet the definition of notability to even be included you think? Anyways, have a pleasant day. Tom 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers
Thanks for the comment Mark. As I usually don't make edits in areas like that, the thought never crossed my mind. Sorry for the inconvenience and I'll keep it in mind in the future.--RWR8189 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The West Wing is one of guilty pleasures. I've actually read a few media reports saying that producers had planned to have Vinick win until the untimely death of John Spencer, but I don't know if I believe it.--RWR8189 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely apologize as well, the spoilers were inadvertant. However, how far back are you because both the spoilers in my edit summary were from at least 3 episodes ago. I will try to keep the spoilers out, though. Staxringold 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More BAe 146
Thsi section is copied from my talk page.--Matthead 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summaries, talk page edits and contributions on this subject are incredibly intransigent. I've learnt on WP that the best initial response is compromise, which is why I was willing to leave "often also called Avro 146". I notice your 'revert' edit was to concede that the BAe 146/Avro RJ is "sometimes also Jumbolino". I'm happy to restrict the discussion to this page if you wish to claim a "victory", but would encourage you to consider compromise before conflict in the future. Regards --Mark83 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you haven't learnt on WP, as your inital response was to revert my addition without giving a reason. Besides, there are no compromises to be made on facts. The company gave its planes two names, the public mixed these two and added a nickname. It's not yours to decide what other people use de facto. And it's neither your private article. --Matthead 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a fact that the BAe 146 is "often also called Jumbolino" which you have conceded by changing it to "sometimes also Jumbolino." As long as an edit summary adequately explains what you did most people won't argue with it. Yes you could argue that it didn't explain why but I think it's pretty clear that I reverted your edit because it contained at least one factual error. Finally I do not claim any sort of ownership of the article. --Mark83 11:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Brosnan
Yeah, I saw it when it first aired (I watch the show pretty regularly). He was let go over the phone (or so the story he tells goes), which he, I guess, found insulting. I don't really think it's that big of a deal given the nature of his business. He didn't have a contract with them at that point so it's not like he was owed anything. I think he's just upset that he was replaced. I don't know what he was expecting. Maybe a farewell party like Moore. There is an interesting interview (I think it was in Playboy or something) where he pretty much fumed about it all in a ... well.. not to nice a way (essentially targeting everyone). Heres a short summary with a quote or two. K1Bond007 04:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

F1 portal featured article
The F1 portal (in which I assume you have some degree of interest, as your name is listed on WikiProject_Formula_One) is intended to have a regular rotation of a 'featured article'. I've swapped a few in and out over the last couple of months, but I think it would be better if there were more of a community attempt at deciding this, proposals, votes, that kind of thing. So - why not pop over to Portal_talk:Formula_One and make a suggestion. Ta. 4u1e 00:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)