User talk:NcSchu/Archive 3

Olbermann article
I understand your rationale for deleting the criticism of Hillary section of the Olbermann article, NcSchu, but are you applying it consistently? By the standard you are using here the criticism of the Bush administration section should likewise all but disappear, since everything in it except the last line is based on Olbermann-generated sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me; I don't see the benefit in having what is essentially a list of things somebody said at certain times. I much prefer educated analysis. I just deleted the Clinton section because I was looking at edit changes and was like, "wait, there's actually nothing useful in this section..." NcSchu ( Talk ) 18:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gatwick airport
Yep - it really is that difficult to add a couple of [seasonal] tags - it might require extra effort on my part ! :-) Pmbma (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma

Logo help
NcSchu, I noticed that you have worked on a few logos for artcles on Wikiepdia.

I don't have any image editing programs on my computer and was wondering if you could help me out...The FedEx Express logo, Image:FedEx Express.svg needs to have some of the blank space cut off on all sides. The blank space might be casuing spacing issues for the artcle and infobox. Let me know if you could do this or if you know someone who could help out. Thanks, Spikydan1 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, I can give it a little trim. Just give me several hours; I'm supposed to be studying. NcSchu ( Talk ) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done; it seems the original SVG file had a white background attached to the back which was significantly larger than the actual logo. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It looks a lot better now. Spikydan1 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is newsbusters not allowed?
Please explain your logic. Thanks. Fru23 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

KO Talk Page Archive
Consensus was pretty clear that the user who started the thread was disrupting to make a point. Switzpaw (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin group
I've added the reason to the talk page. thankies 安東尼   TALK 圣诞快乐  11:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Category: Self Made Billioners
hi. I want to re-create this category which you have deleted, and seperate it from the self made millioner category. Can you help me create it to your criteria?-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it; I removed it from a page because somebody else deleted it. NcSchu ( Talk ) 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow
I understand what you're getting at, but when we're dealing with a single-purpose anon editor, who is making the same change across a variety of articles, has been reverted every time, and already has been warned four times in 24 hours for edit-warring on the topic, I'm not going to be quite so lenient. In any event, the anon liked my position enough that within an hour they were editing other articles using precisely the same edit summary I used... *shrug*  Warren -talk- 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Susan Estrich edit
NcSchu,

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles about various political commentators, and took note that only conservative commentators have the term "conservative" in front of "political commentators."

In an attempt to make Wikipedia more consistent (and I hope more unbiased), I added "liberal" in front of "political commentators" in a format consistent with what was done to those on the other side of the political spectrum. Anyone who watches Susan Estrich on Fox News knows that she is a liberal commentator, but that is not allowed to be revealed on Wikipedia?

No offense, but your editing reveals YOUR own bias and is not becoming of the Wikipedia community.

Cheers, eobrock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eobrock (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your cries of a liberal conspiracy will get you no where. NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

London Heathrow Airport
Hey - you recently reverted a change I made to the tables in the Heathrow article, citing WP: Airports as the reason. Where in there is a table structure listed? I couldn't find one. Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRPORTS created the template that you removed in order to simplify the destination table. There's about three discussions about it right now on the talk page. NcSchu ( Talk ) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC HD
Well how bout I put something like "although other HD versions of channels that NBC Universal owns are in 1080i, the resolution of MSNBC HD has not been confirmed."? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. NcSchu ( Talk ) 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA
Your addition of template is completely inappropriate: As such, it's been removed. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Single purpose accounts are, by their very nature, accounts (not IP addresses).
 * 2) That particular IP has contributed to a wide range of topics.
 * 3) The request is completely reasonable and proper.
 * I've seen it used plenty of times for IP addresses when appropriate
 * The address has been active in only a few different topics in its short existence
 * The response was completely out of the blue and I don't think random floaters will help the discussion at all.

NcSchu ( Talk ) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your amendments to Continental Airlines
Good afternoon,

By way of introduction, I am a retired officer of Continental--one who worked his way up from loading bags onto DC3s and Viscounts. In addition to that, I was a friend and close associate of founder Robert F. Six, and his wives Ethel Merman and Audrey Meadows. My career with the company spanned nearly 50 years (I also worked with Frank Lorenzo, which had its ups and downs). Moreover, I am the only surviving 2nd generation CAL person, since my father was employed with the airline almost from its beginning and worked there many years. You might say, we are the ORIGINAL Continental Airlines family.

I have extensive (probably insuperable) personal knowledge of this company's HISTORY, which is why I confine my work principally to that section of the Wikipedia article. I don't suppose there is anyone alive who has my detailed knowledge of the company in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s--or, if they are, they, too, are friends of mine who survive yet today.

In my possession is a collection of over 30,000 photographs and negatives (many taken by me, either as a hobby, or in my official capacity as a senior mgmt person, or as "unofficial" company historian for Bob Six. I have virtually every timetable, marketing brochure, postcard, matchbook, swizzle stick, and piece of serving china, etc. that Continental has ever issued.

My memory is perfectly intact, and I suffer from neither Alzzheimers nor dementia.

I think that we can agree that my credentials are impossible to meet or exceed.

For that reason, I would VERY MUCH appreciate it if, in the HISTORY section of the Continental article, you would NOT delete, relocate, or otherwise amend the nature or content of the significant contributions I have made there. I have two observations on this, which I address here:

1. You argue that the article suffers from "crowding". Now, where I come from that is what we call a "personal opinion" and a "subjective judgment". As a fellow with three university degrees in history, I think I am a reasonable judge of how well history is taught--whether by image or by textual material. In this case (and, once again, I harken back to my hard-to-beat knowledge of the subject), I make the argument that Continental's history is best told with BOTH accurate text (I have written over 90% of the history section in my own words, correcting numerous errors in the process, and alleviating a pedantic preoccupatin with irrelevant things like the details of airplane paint schemes) AND with numerous well chosen archival images. You can satisfy yourself how vastly superior the Continental article is by merely reviewing the articles on United, Eastern, TWA, and American, for instance which, while each of them was far larger than Continental until very recently, have much stodgier and lifeless articles. Although an abundance of good historical resource material and photographs are available for each of these carriers, their Wiki articles suffer badly.

2. Please do not attempt to put yourself in the place of judging how someone with my knowledgte of the subject chooses and arranges the images which illustrate the historical narrative. In particular, your penchant for removing photographs of Denver facilities (current Continental employees have little if any understanding of the fact that Denver MADE Continental what it is today, enabling substantial profits from the highly logical feeder-route system that existed until 1994. The Denver hub is that which impressed the CAB so considerably--it was Continental's "secret weapon."  It is not mere hyperbole, and certainly not exaggeration to state that "Denver was the heart of the system" for virtually all of CAL's history, and this fact is crucial to understanding the airlines early and middle years.  (By the way:  I don't live in Denver, and have not done so for many years; however, facts are facts, and an ACCURATE understanding of Continental cannot exist without understanding its close connection to Denver).  You also have REMOVED the Boeing 727 photo, which is astonishing, since that type was the single most important aircraft ever owned by this company. It carried a higher % of RPMs during the capital-formation years of the company than ANY aircraft did for any other airlines except Braniff (for which the 727 also performed that feat). No aircraft before nor since has ever had that distinction. To remove 727 photographs shows a lack of historical understanding of how Continental developed. The Boeing 747 photograph (my own, by the way) belongs in the "widebody" section for obvious reasons. As I have stated in the historical narrative, Continental was the FIRST U.S. carrier to use the 747 on domestic routes, and the aircraft image belongs adjacent to the narrative (the year of the phot is utterly irrelevant).

And, finally, I did take rather personally your patronizing-sounding "thanks" to me for contributions to the article, etc. Good grief, I've written virtually all of the history, and supplied ALL of the interesting photos (thanks to myself, and other close friends who have given their consent). It seems like it should be me who is thanking others!

Since this is an encyclopedia, ACCURACY and careful understanding of HISTORICAL CONTEXT are vital if the darned thing is to have any real value. It is not just that I have pride of authorship (who can compete with my historical perspective!?!), which I admit; but, rather that the user community should be very, very glad to have folks with my personal and very, very long historical knowledge of the subject. Surely, we can agree that that would be true?

Hoping you will understand, and desist from trying to "improve" the article as you have,
 * You apparently have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of Wikipedia policies or procedures. What you've added is original research and we have no way of verifying your identity. Furthermore, you do not own this article and it is the right of any other editor to change what you've yourself changed. Many of your edits violate our Manual of Style. If you continue to try to have control over this article as you have been doing, you will be banned permanently. Please read up on Wikipedia policies before you continue editing. NcSchu ( Talk ) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This message was also posted on User talk:Redstoneranger‎ and User talk:66.244.68.18 to ensure the best chance of being seen by the user.


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a race… Take some time when you are making edits to make sure they come out right by pressing the preview button.


 * Removing pictures in an article is not a personal opinion, having more than a few pictures causes major alignment problems. Some of your pictures were moved to other sections because they couldn’t fit in the original section (And still wanted to be included because they were good pictures).


 * Remember that no one owns the articles on Wikipedia, when you make an edit, it can be changed by another editor. If you can’t figure out why your edit was changed, start a topic on the article’s talk page to figure out how to make your future edits better.


 * When uploading picture to the Wikimedia Commons, upload the larger version of the picture if you have it…Pictures are always nice to look at when they are big...and have a better chance of being including in other articles about avation history.


 * Feel free to anyways ask questions on Talk:Continental Airlines concerning future edits. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of galleries on Air India
During last week few attempts had been made to remove Gallery of Tata Airlines timetable covers, reason given behind this was galleries are not encyclopedic and ''Galleries are for wikicommons. They are not encyclopedic''.

Notabley there is one more gallery present on the article i.e. Gallery of superseded liveries which was never altered.

If there is any logic and rationale (I couldn't find any in Gallery template page, help page, etc.) behind removal of the said gallery both galleries should be removed. On the contrary featured article like Flag of Belarus, Flag of Canada, Postage stamps of Ireland, etc contain Gallery (which means Galleries are accepted even in Featured Articles not to say about unfeatured ones).

As you have been active on this article you are invited to discuss this issue here on talk page.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 - Calling my edit 'Vandalism'
The Wall Street Journal is certainly a 'reliable source', but they do not present this information as fact. They quote 'sources'. In fact, the company denies it. You actually think this to be encyclopedic? Ron Schnell 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)
 * It's certainly encyclopedic, especially given the sensitivity over investors in the company. There's no policy stating that official company press releases are the only legitimate sources of this type of information. Also, sorry about tagging the edit as vandalism, that was actually a mistake when I used Twinkle to revert the edit; I did mean to put an edit comment. Regards, NcSchu ( Talk ) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Orphaned non-free image (File:BAA Gatwick.svg)
 Thanks for uploading File:BAA Gatwick.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newark airport
Re the removal of the accident. You claim it is not notable, but sources state that the aircraft suffered substantial damage - ASN, JACDEC. It's maybe not worth an article of its own, but is worth mentioning under the aircraft and airport. Not sure about the airline as that has a non-standard way of covering accidents. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I claimed it was not relevant, not notable. I very much doubt this incident will be a significant one in Newark Airport's history. I can see why it would be included in the airline's article, but as far as I'm concerned airport incidents should involve those that do not have a significant impact on the airport not that merely happen at that airport. This only caused the temporary shutdown of a runway but in no other way affected it. I won't keep removing it because it seems some News-mania is occurring now but I am considering challenging its relevance in the article. Hope you understand my reasoning. NcSchu ( Talk ) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: I have nominated United Airlines Flight 634 for deletion. Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 634. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NcSchu, by all means raise the issue on the article's talk page and let's establish consensus. Another editor reinserted the accident, so clearly there are those who think it worthy of inclusion. I did vote delete in the AfD on the article, but there is a possibility that the aircraft will be written off, which would change things. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virgin Blue Logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Virgin Blue Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BAA Heathrow.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:BAA Heathrow.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BAA Stansted.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:BAA Stansted.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OpenSkies logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:OpenSkies logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)