User talk:TraceyR

/Archive_1 | /Archive 2

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedy
While I agree with you that remedy implies a cure, the term treatment also implies that it "treats" something (and homeopaths probably don't like it as it might imply treating symptoms rather than the cure). I prefer tinctures or homeopathic preparations. There was a discussion at the fringe theories noticeboard you may be interested in, here. Verbal chat  17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that homoeopathy attempts to do anything but treating symptoms...
 * "Tinctures" is no good because that has a specific meaning (a preparation produced by steeping herbs), and "preparations" could just as easily refer to the mother tinctures or whatever. I've reverted to "remedies" in the article because that's the terminology used by homoeopaths.  Brunton (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This gets to the crux for Wikipedia: homeopaths do not have a WP:NPOV on this issue. They like "remedy" because it lends their preparations a degree of credibility which is not backed up by the science. WP's policy is to make statements for which there is a reliable source. There is no reliable source which supports the claim that homeopathy is a remedy for anything. "Remedy" should therefore only be used if the accompanying text makes it clear that this is what they call it but is not a remedy in the accepted sense of the word, e.g. "a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieve pain", which homeopathy has never been shown to do better than a placebo. --TraceyR (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently it isn't even a particularly good way of administering a placebo, even in its "individualised" or "classical" form. Brunton (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Flightglobal
Hello. Only today I've discovered a permission to use photos from Flight Global archive - but, to my surprise, only about a dozen is actually used, while they have TONS of wonderful stuff, that would help a lot of our articles. Could we really use all from their PDFs until 2004? (I'm mostly interested n pre-war gems anyway). Was this issue settled?... I'm planning to add several pictures soon. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure of the current status. The editor of Flightglobal, writing on the talk page of an Aviation project page, gave explicit permission for screen-captured images from the Flightglobal PDF archive to be used in WP articles (it's referred to in the text associated with the images on Commons in the category 'Images from FlightGlobal Archive'): "The Editor of Flight Global, Michael Targett, wrote the following on 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft): However one thing I am happy to do from this moment on is agree the reuse on Wikipedia of any material from the actually PDFs in the archive (as long as there is a credit and link back to the original). By this I mean that any reference in the text can be used and importantly any of the images replicated in the PDFs can be used. It's not a perfect solution as there would have to be an element of screen grabbing the images and saving and formatting etc ... However the images in many cases would still enhance a large number of Wikipedia entries and, from my point of view, the images are obviously not of a high enough resolution to be reused in print by a random commercial entity." I'm not sure whether this is sufficient for general WP use, so I include the above paragraph with each image I have captured and so far no-one has objected. --TraceyR (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should try to email Flightglobal, to put this issue clear? - he might not read his talk page. I think, we should make ourselves sure as for the licence. I marked File:PWS51.jpg as cc-by-sa (but which version?), since there was a mention on preferred cc-by-sa-nc-nd in earlier discuccion. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 14:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Is Michael Targett's generous permission to use the archive as he suggests binding on his eventual successor(s)? Obviously, the situation has benefits for both sides but it needs to be sorted out somehow. What form of words is required? --TraceyR (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure your English is far better than mine ;-) Besides, I think you had sent a mail to them before? Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) PS. In a meantime, I couldn't help from supplying Category:Images_from_FlightGlobal_Archive with extracts from year 1930.
 * My English is OK! I'm not sure of the wording that WP needs Flightglobal to 'sign'. Who can provide this? --TraceyR (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We should make sure as for licence used (cc-by-sa all versions?) and subject (all files from pdf archive or until some date?). In accordance with this, we could forward the mail to OTRS, if they have doubts. I think, that some template should be added to these pictures, like "This graphic file is from a Globalflight pdf archive, released by the Globalflight under cc-by-sa licence" or similar. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me - Requesting copyright permission has some examples for gaining permission. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When the Flight archive images I uploaded to Commons got pulled this Jan (see Flight Global Images above), the response I had from WikiCopyright (in full above} was "As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the owner to provide a specific release under a suitably free license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses or the GFDL), which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works (subject to applicable laws). If you can supply this, then the content may be used on Wikipedia."  So I think roughly what we would like ideally is a statement that meets this any user, any purpose condition and covers all images, photos and drawings from the Flight global archive, specifying an appropriate CC licence. I'm not clear about the PDF business; I thought sometimes the archive produced html, but is this any better res?  I'd have thought the scanner set that.  Anyway, we could live with a restriction to PDF and still have an an immensely useful resource.TSRL (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Think I've unconfused myself: .html links lead to PDF files, so those last three sentences form a red herring!TSRL (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have sent an email to Flightglobal, asking for their help in resolving this - using some of the links you have provided above. For the sake of simplicity I suggested that they raise any issues here, where others more au fait that I will be available to offer help and suggestions. Watch this space! I'm sure that all of us agree that the material they offer is invaluable for the Aviation/Aircraft projects. By attributing everything to Flightglobal and linking back to their archive we can help raise global awareness of their archive - it's a win-win situation. --TraceyR (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. Watching!TSRL (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll hear more after Farnborough. Busy time! --TraceyR (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Any news?... Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 11:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Afraid not. I'll get in touch. Thanks! TraceyR (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Contact! I have just been on the phone with Barbara Cockburn, discussing the licence issues about making Flightglobal's PDF archive available to Wikipedia. To summarise, Flightglobal would be happy to make this content available for not-for-profit use (e.g. Wikipedia), but if people use the content to generate revenue, Flightglobal would like to have a share. Barbara is going to talk to Michael Targett, who contributed to the discussion some time back, and if possible get back to me with the consent form. Watch this space. --TraceyR (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Nothing to report. I'm reluctant to pester Barbara Cockburn at Flightglobal, since she too has her day job and Wikipedia isn't (presumably) one of her priorities. Perhaps WIkipedia's copyright 'waiver' statement is difficult for them to sign. I think that we'll just have to be patient.--85.177.202.128 (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Aero Club Aviators Certificates
Just a request for an opinion please - doing some research on Edward Scholefield (1893-1912) a Vickers test pilot, and his certificate no is Fr. 819 taken on REP Monoplane with no location on 5 April 1912. It appears to be outside of the normal sequence, possibly Fr is a french certificate number but he has a record card the same as other aviators. Any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, he did get his certificate in France. The R.Ae.C., at its committee meeting on 20/4/1912, noted: "The request of the Aero Club de France for the Club to give its sanction to the issuing of an aviator's certificate to Mr. E. Scholefield was considered, and the necessary permission granted." Presumably his British card was issued on this date.


 * Searching the Flight archive for Scholefield I came across this entry: "GORDON BELL, who, as I mentioned recently, has joined the R.E.P. organisation in France in the capacity of demonstrator, seems to find himself quite at home on his new mount. Just lately, on one of the European circuit type R.E.P. monoplanes, he has been carrying out long cross-country flights from Buc, passing over Saint Cyr, Villapoublay, and Versailles. A young English pupil, E. B. C. Scholefield, who is only in his seventeenth year, is studying under him, and, according to his tutor, should not be very long obtaining his certificate."


 * Perhaps that should have been E.R.C.Scholefield (scanning error perhaps) since there is an advertisement in the issue dated 14 March 1929 for "Cellon dope" showing Scholefield: "The photograph above shows the Vickers-Napier "Vivid" military two-seater which Flight - Lieut. E. R. C. Scholefield, A.F.C.,D.C.M., on the 6th September, 1928, flew in one day from Brooklands to Bucharest in the astonishing flying time of ten hours. Like all Vickers machines it is of course doped with Cellon." Of course, if this is the same Scholefield, he survived beyond 1912. Happy hunting. --TraceyR (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * He even survived being a POW in Germany: --TraceyR (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I should have an article on him ready in the next day or two. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now live at Edward Scholefield MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

John Moore-Brabazon, 1st Baron Brabazon of Tara
Hi Tracey, I see that you have an interested in aviation and have edited the above article. I would appreciate if you could look at the point I made at the talk page and see if you agree. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input :-) Bjmullan (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Short Seamew
Hi T, I tried to restore some of the work you did in this article but I do not know the dates and particulars of your interview with Phil Runciman; can you fill in some details? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

QI
Oh, they are very, very careful to get things right. That is the whole point of the programme. Tsinfandel (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is hardly a reliable source. He probably hacked the leg off, and then had it amputated further up to make it neater. Isn't that what usually happens? Tsinfandel (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the detail - . Obviously the Prof was being lazy looking through just Whitehall archives - misleading at the best of times. Tsinfandel (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Aero Club Certificate - Charles Albert Hobby
Charles Albert Hobby was related to me Mypyrex (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Georges Legagneux
Hi TracyR, yes I found this out on the below website on Legagneux, mind it's in French: one this I mentioned his fiance, actually it was his wife a picture of which accompanies the site.

Champagne|Berceau de l'aviation du Monde: http://aviation.maisons-champagne.com/dir.php?centre=04-bio-legagneux&menu=11

Thanks Koplimek (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood. I dont speak French. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:SB5 Headon.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SB5 Headon.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Satellite HigherRes.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Satellite HigherRes.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Conduct on Juice Plus and Harassment
Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the inappropriate campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future. The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall reply to Rhode Island Red's intemperate and inaccurate postings on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Tracey, I haven't really been paying much attention to the ping-pong match between you and Red, but please be aware that if Red deletes something from her talkpage, that that it is her right, and you should not restore it, as you did here. Users have the right to delete material from their own talkpage.  By deleting it, you can assume that it has been read. See also WP:BLANKING, thanks. --Elonka 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Elonka, thanks. I wasn't aware of that; I thought that I had a right of reply. Since he/she posted the same (personal attack) reply to others' talk pages, do I have the right to do the same with my reply? If I don't, I looks as though I'm accepting what he/she accused me of. --TraceyR (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since then I have added links to this page for the admins involved. --TraceyR (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments of the above intemperate posting:


 * "Campaigning" - I drew the attention of the admins who had requested that he stop editing the article that he was back at it again. Is that a campaign?
 * "Insinuating article ownership": a look here will show that three admins detemined that Rhode Island Red's behaviour at Juice Plus showed all the classic symptoms of article ownership. He was asked to stop; he didn't.
 * "Harassment" - this, coming from someone who ought to understand better than most what real harassment entails (he was banned blocked from all Wikipedia activity for 6 months for harassment in June 2010) is both funny  laughable and tragic. To claim that "it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom" is risible exaggeration, unless, of course, (a) he overvalues his contributions to WP and (b) he thinks that having to establish consensus for edits is a hindrance. If that is so, he hasn't understood the way in which Wikipedia works.
 * "Lying"/"COI" - again, Rhode Island Red must provide the evidence or stop the personal attacks. It is quite feasible that he has a COI, since he is some sort of chemist involved with pharmaceuticals and spends the majority of his time on Wikipedia editing articles about nutritional supplements, which are considered by many to be in competition with pharmaceuticals. Just a thought.
 * "Contentious editing on Juice Plus" - given his well-known rather tenuous grasp of the meaning of long words such as "contentious", I would ask him to explain just which edits he thinks are "contentious". If he just means edits which don't agree with his own views, then the matter is clear for all: another indication of article ownership. Again, he must provide the evidence or desist. --TraceyR (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor terminology clarification. On Wikipedia, there is a difference between being blocked, and being banned (and there are different types of bans). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF.  Red was blocked, not banned. The correct terminology (as I would put it) would be, " was blocked from Wikipedia for six months in June 2010 due to disruptive behavior. The message from the blocking admin, and followup messages related to the appeals, can be seen here." --Elonka 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Even after all this time I'm not aware of many WP nuances! --TraceyR (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My response to personal attacks from User:Rhode Island Red
This user has seen fit to delete my reply from his/her talk page. This is his/her prerogative. It is important to me that others are aware that I didn't take this attack lying down and accept it, so full text is given below. Others who find themselves in a similar position might draw some comfort from the fact that not everyone is cowed by his/her threats to call down fire from heaven whenever someone disagrees with him/her.

Note: When Alison writes "Yes - there were serious issues relating to that article and one editor in particular. Those issues were resolved last year, thank goodness, and things have been quieter since" she is referring to User:Rhode Island Red; the resolution at the time was due to the fact that this user was blocked for six months on a related issue (see ["You are now blocked"]) and was taken out of circulation. His/her last edit before the blocked came into effect was on Juice Plus talk, the first one after the block was lifted was on Juice Plus (removing a POV tag from the article!):

14:34, 12 May 2010 (diff | hist) Juice Plus ‎ (Removal of POV tag -- 6 months has been more than ample to resolve any disputes) 03:58, 29 December 2009 (diff | hist) Talk:Juice Plus ‎ (→No Drive-by NPOV Tagging Please: didn't notice the message...my bad)

Within days the problems had reappeared, with one of the admins who had been involved in the block requesting that User:Rhode Island Red refrain from editing the article ([*Just in case the above was not clear, do not edit the article - period. Any further edits will likely result in a block. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] babelfish 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC). Rhode Island Red took no notice; I don't know why admin action was not taken.

Under the heading "Juice Plus and with the edit summary "please do not delete my response to your personal attack / remarks on my talk page" I wrote:

First a few of posts from User:Alison's talk page to provide background:
 * Life is certainly interesting over there at the moment. Just wondering if you've come to a determination with the ticket yet? Hopefully I'm not going to be wikistalked here :-) Shot info (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Oh, that. Yes - there were serious issues relating to that article and one editor in particular. Those issues were resolved last year, thank goodness, and things have been quieter since. The article could probably use a fresh perspective, though, and be scrubbed for neutrality by an outside editor - A l is o n  ? 05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. ". --TraceyR (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (also posted on my talk page): Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future. The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall reply to Rhode Island Red on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So here's my reply, warts and all!

It is hard to reply to a posting which demonstrates that you find it hard to understand simple English. Also you continue to misrepresent what others write, making constructive debate impossible. Even going through each point item by item hasn't helped - you just ignore everything and go off on a tangent. What is so hard to understand about this sentence: "I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead"? I can't be bothered to parse the sentence, explain the meanings of individual words etc. You must be semantically challenged to construe this as "asking for you to be banned from WP in the future" (banning you in the past would be difficult). It specifically doesn't request this (it might help to look up the meaning of "instead"). It doesn't state even that a ban from WP would be sensible, merely from activity on the Juice Plus article (that's what "on his activities there," means. OK?). Can you see that? It's not really that hard. Ok, it's a shame, but nobody's perfect, but personal attacks (e.g. accusations of lying), claiming that you were never banned (a synonym for "blocked", i.e. another word with the same meaning as "banned"), stating categorically that I have a COI, all of this is inexcusable. I could however accuse you of lying about being banned from WP (for 6 months, for harrassment of a BLP editor, see your 'archive 1' at the top of this page), but I'll just ask others to draw their own conclusions about that from the evidence. If you have evidence that I have lied about anything, produce it. There is evidence of a glaring POV on your part where Juice Plus is concerned, e.g. when you referred to it as a "trivial and insignificant small-fry product whose market share would barely be a blip on the radar". Anyone who cares (and has the energy) can find at least one RfC about your behaviour on the Juice Plus article, where you have been asked to take a break from this article several times. In July 2007 you agreed to do this, but almost immediately carried on. When you were eventally blocked one of the comments was "This block was more than warranted - in fact, it was a long time in coming". Ah well, what's the point. You don't / won't / can't see that you have done anything wrong. I've had enough. WP processes will eventually come to the same conclusion, but I'm not going to waste any more time and effort. Don't bother to reply; I shall just check from time to time that this thread isn't conveniently 'archived' too. --TraceyR (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

-

Please do not try to avoid the consequences of your posting on my talk page, which resulted in the above response. It is revealing that you delete this thread here under pretext of harrassment. Please leave this here as a record. It is poor etiquette (to say the least) to post inflammatory remarks and accusations on my talk page and then remove my response from yours. If you have things you would rather not have others read here, that's your problem, not mine. --TraceyR (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That works. Though keep in mind that just because Red says something, doesn't mean that others are necessarily reading it or agreeing with it.  Usually, if other editors aren't commenting, you can probably just assume that they're ignoring it.  If other editors do offer reasonable comments, then you can engage in discussion with them.  Also, another word of advice:  Diffs are good.  Though you may be extremely aware of everything going on, other editors are probably busy with other stuff, so diffs are helpful to get them up to speed. A good rule of thumb is, "Fewer words, more diffs!".  :) --Elonka 16:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

JP distributor?
Hi TraceyR, I'm not familiar with the history on the JP article - although a cursory review I've seen some of the drama over the years, mainly in regards to 1 editor. May I ask if you are indeed an active JP distributor? Or any other reason for you to have a conflict of interest? If you do, you may have already declared it in the past, but I couldn't see anything from your userpage content if so. There are a couple MLM company/product articles on WP that are heavily contested, and this sure seems to be one of those spaces. Thanks in advance for clarification.  Leef5  TALK &#124; CONTRIBS 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Harburg Hills and Rosengarten, Lower Saxony
Hi Tracey. I'm curious about your amendment of Harburg Hills in connexion with Rosengarten. In Germany, every town and village is responsible for a "borough" or "municipal area" beyond its immediate built-up area which often contains other villages or hamlets. However it is usual to call them a town or village, unless we specifically want to refer to their administrative territory e.g. "the village of Wohlde lies within the borough of Bergen". If we always refer to them as "municipal district of X (which consists of Y separate villages)" Wikipedia will get rather wordy! Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! I suppose that I was surprised to see Rosengarten referred to as being a town, since you can drive through it and never be aware of being there! To my understanding of the word "town" in UK English, this usually (almost always) means an urban area, frequently with an identifiable town centre; Rosengarten satisfies neither of these criteria. It is certainly an administrative convenience to combine 10 villages into one unit, but does make it a town? IMHO "municipal district" (which could also be used for "Samtgemeinde") is more appropriate. In fact, the terminology used in similar articles is (at least for UK readers) misleading, since both Winsen/Luhe and Buchholz i.d.N. are referred to as being "cities" when they are, in UK parlance, certainly "towns"; and if Buchholz is a town, then it would be confusing to use the same designation for Rosengarten. I know that German doesn't distinguish between "city" and "town", but English does and this is English Wikipedia! Where would Rosengarten fit on the scale "Großstadt, Stadt, Kleinstadt, Samtgemeinde, Dorf? I did a quick comparison of the population densities of nearby towns (in head of population per sq. km.): Stade has 420, Buchholz 516 and Buxtehude 537. Even Seevetal (another 'municipal district (with 19 villages but no centre!) manages to have 402, while poor Rosengarten has a mere 207! In fact Stade, Buchholz and Buxtehude are (IMHO) genuine towns, each also incorprating a significant rural "hinterland" into their respective municipal area. Anyway, I'm not proposing a wholesale revision of articles describing German 'towns' in English Wikipedia - although at a quick glance it seems to be worth considering - so feel free to revert the change. Thanks for querying the edit before making the change. --TraceyR (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What you say makes eminent sense! I have never been to Rosengarten, although its only around an hour from where I live, but you clearly have personal experience. Often, it's only when you see the object or place in question that you understand it fully and can provide an accurate translation. In this case I agree Rosengarten doesn't sound like a town; in fact, the German article calls it describes a Gemeinde which tells me Rosengarten's really a village and/or a municipality depending on context.


 * We have a convention here, based on EU guidelines, but the trouble is that it doesn't distinguish well between a built-up area (e.g. a city, town or village) and its administrative area (e.g. borough, municipality or parish). For example, how do we translate, "Mägdesprung ist ein Ortsteil der Stadt Harzgerode im Landkreis Harz"? If you've been there, Mägdesprung is a village in charge of a wider area with several hamlets and is quite separate geographically from Harzgerode, a place with Stadtrechte. My solution is to say "Mägdesprung is a village [or parish] in the borough of Harzgerode in the county of Harz", but I know some won't approve! I'm working on a proposal for a more detailed convention that better reflects the real picture in Germany, but it needs careful justification because it differs from EU guidance in part. Here's an imperfect draft preview of what it might look like...


 * Any support in improving the convention would be welcome! Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Confusion is added by a) Stadt being translated as "city" (unless it's a Großstadt when it's acceptable) because the Germans often make no distinction and b) US usage where almost anything seems to be a city! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not an exclusive German one. The community of Llanstadwell in Wales consists of the villages of Llanstadwell, Hazelbeach, Waterston, Jordanston, Greater Honeyborough and Mastlebridge. And most likely the locals will skin me for forgetting something. As far as the suggestions above are concerned, at the outset of the discussion many years ago I was in favour of translating Kreis as county but the discussion went with district at the time and I feel it be an uphill stuggle to change everything. The conflict with subdivisions can be solved when using alternative terms to district like borough or ward. For external enteties (I do like the German expression Kerngebiet for the main town or village, for which we still should look for a translation) I have seen constructs like "x belongs to municipality", "x is incorperated in ..." (I like this construct especially when a date can be given) or "x is part of ...". Another proble you will face is that a Stadtteil (maybe neigbourhood) (example Munich) Ramersdorf being an organic grown feature with its own history is not the same as a Bezirk Ramersdorf-Perlach which is an electoral subdivision (British English:Ward) which tends to shift borders to benefit certain parties. The whole Samtgemeinde/Amt/Verbandsgemeide and whatnot mess still needs a solution as we have a few duplicate and sometimes conflicting articles floating around. The German Wikipedia for articles not pertaining to Germany seems to have a tendency to use native terms as they are sharper than a German translation, an option which for the most part we have taken. In those difficult terms I would als recommend that. Either bracket the yuk term or rely on the wikilink. All in all the three of us could come to a fantastic solution but that will be pointless if the rest of the editors spending time German articles fall suit. Can we move this discussion to a prominent place ie WT:GER and advertise to members as well as a few select groups for input (ie other projects dealing with similar issues) and at the same time we can hash out the category system as that is a similar unholy mix of places and political entities. Agathoclea (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless and until local govt. structure is 'harmonised' within the EU, we'd be on a hiding to nothing to find an accurate correspondence between levels of local govt across any two member countries, let alone across the whole EU. And that's just Europe! Even in the above table the term "Gemeinde" carries two meanings, i.e. parish and municipality (although WP considers the latter to be "primarily an urban administrative division"). There seems to be a close equivalence between Gemeinde/Gemeinderat and parish/parish council, but this may apply only to rural situations (beyond my ken). I have wondered about "town and satellite villages" for "Kerngebiet mit umliegenden Ortsteilen" and "village cluster" for "Samtgemeinde" but they are probably too whimsical for such a dry topic. I agree that it's probably a case of winning the hearts and minds of the active editors, but my interest here is really just as a fly-by visitor - my next target will probably be in the WWII area or maybe about a series of 18th century Grenzsteine!! Even they might have to wait for shorter days and longer evenings!--TraceyR (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Harmonised within the EU - you must be joking. I take it you are from England as you keep refering to parishes - the same thing in Wales is called community (and parish only refers to the church) - to complicate matters a parish in England can elect to be called a community and there are a handful of those. A community (or parish) can elect to be called a town (As a result they have a mayor instead of a chairman and can insist to be invited to functions of other towns in the county). Comparing community/parish with the German municipality (Gemeinde) is well and good as far as the political level is concerned (lowest tier) but the actual responsibilities are totally different as some of those are on county level in the UK. Its like translating Apfel into a language that does not have any and use pear because it is a fruit of similar shape and colour. Anyway the term village cluster for Samtgemeinde is wrong as the Samtgemeinde is an organ representing its member municipalities in their responsibilities while those retain a certain independence saving money and time. Anyway - good luck with the Grenzsteine - there are some interesting ones about. Agathoclea (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it
I sit corrected. Feel free to do the merge. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Short's book
I didn't mean to embarrass - let's just say you seem to know the book better than most of the regulars. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Apologies for late reply to your question. Clarification:

There may be two reasons why the cartoon in question (which is a pun) may deserve mentioning. It may contribute to the clarification of the concept described in the article. Also, it may have a value of its own. In both cases the notability of the cartoon (or its author)  of the article must be asserted in the context of the subject by third party. Clearly, lots of smart people uttered lots of witty things about everything. If we include all written or said, wikipedia will be 99.99% collection of trivia. Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Working upon Lebaudy Patrie - may be of interest
Hello, I noticed your name featuring heavily in the article history of Lebaudy Patrie, so I thought it would be appropriate to contact you in regards to upcoming action. The Patrie has been given A-class status, but normally today, all A-class articles normally have passed GA reviews - thus the status of the article isn't secure. I've made some edits to press the page more into line with standard WP:Aircraft conventions, however this should really be addressed by, or at least consulted with, involved editors. I plan to put the article through the GAN process, and thus retroactively gain GA status; which shall be done after giving editors appropriate notice to edit the article and refine its content in preparation. Thanks. Kyteto (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'd be delighted if I could help to improve the article for a GA review, although I'm very involved elsewhere at the moment. Since very few aircraft project articles had made it that far at the time, I was very pleased with the A-class award and, from comments at the time, not ready to get involved with the reputed intricacies of the GA process. I'n still not familiar with what would be involved; as far as raw content is concerned, I think that ther article covers most aspects - reviewers may of course see things differently! --TraceyR (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Short Bros
Hi, I've been doing a bit of editing on early Short Bros aircraft of late (coming across your name a fair bit), & noticed that the Short Bros navox, which you started, is real mess. Mainly due the fact that the naming of Short aircraft is pretty convoluted. Basically I was thinking of splitting the by designion section into two, so creating a section for the early aircraft and another for ones with a type number rather than either an airframe number or an Admiralty designation. I've begun work on User:TheLongTone/sandbox User:TheLongTone/sandbox...thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means do what you think is best to improve the navbox, but it is what it is (Byzantine and convoluted seems a fair summary!). --TraceyR (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

VanderSloot
Given that we have a long history of conflict on Juice Plus, it is hard to view your recent text deletion on Frank VanderSloot as anything but wikistalking (purposely steeping into a new conflict on a page that you have no history of involvement with). I suggest you recuse yourself from that project lest this become an administrative issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate: My edit was not a text deletion but an addition which makes the article more accurate. It has nothing to do with any conflict (although it is interesting to discover your involvement with yet another conflict which has become an "administrative issue" for you). The accusation that I am wikistalking you is absurd and your veiled threat unbecoming. Whatever happened to "Assume Good Faith"? --TraceyR (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer the two editors above to WikiBullying. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. My last involvement with Rhode Island Red was in August 2011, so his accusation of wikistalking and his threatening attitude border on the paranoid. In view of past experience, I do not hold out any hope that referring his behaviour to the powers that be would achieve anything.--TraceyR (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC/User
Because you are an editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or a closely related one), I call your attention to discussion at Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Napalm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about an image
Hi, Where did you get this photo from? bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't see your question earlier. It's a screenshot from a film of a Farnborough airshow in the 1950s, extensively edited.--TraceyR (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you're not the copyright holder? bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the legal position is on that question. I am responsible for significant improvements and for making it available in this form. --TraceyR (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. What was the film / when was it published? Thanks; bobrayner (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The film is called "Farnborough: The Golden Years 1949-1959" and seems to be a compilation of BBC and maybe Pathé news reports. The DVD cover contains the following statements: "From the archives of the famous Imperial War Museum...". "The Owner of the copyright contained within this DVD reserves all rights. Unauthorised copying, lending, hiring, public performances and broadcasting of this work is prohibited. © File Image 1989 Licensed by Videofilm Center © 2004 Pegasus. A division of Eagle Rock Entertainment Limited". There is no stated date of publication. The Sturgeon S.B.3 was demonstrated at Farnborough in 1950, so the film clip, which last no more than a few seconds, must derive from that year. The aircaft was scrapped in 1951.--TraceyR (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Americans, trying for a fresh and friendly discussion
N2e (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Short Improved Type 74
Hello You left a footnote on the Short Type 74 page awhile ago, saying The aircraft sometimes referred to by the Admiralty as the "Short Improved Type 74" was in fact a folder version of the prototype Short Type 135; can you remember where that information came from? I've searched for information on the Improved Type 74, but have only come up with WP pages and their mirrors. Is there a source for it? Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for replying. And yes, it did shed some light on the matter.
 * I had been a little confused by the engine sizes; the Type 74 had a 100hp Gnome, the Type 135 had a 135hp Salmson, but the Improved 74, supposedly a version of the Type 135, also had the 100hp Gnome. I also found this, which included the 811-818 machines in with the Type 74, merely saying they were "equipped with folding wings". I've no idea where this site got its information (which is an interesting addition to a sparse collection) but I'm wondering if Barnes, and this editor's source, are simply looking at the same thing from different ends.
 * I know engineers a can be quite conservative, preferring to go with what they know works when possible; also that the division between marks and variations within a mark of aircraft isn't always logical (see/like here, for example, or here). So I imagine when they designed the Short 135 they simply adapted the existing (tried and tested) airframe design to mount the Salmson engine (but with the folding wing, which was becoming standard). I'm also guessing when it took longer than intended to get the Salmson engines from Dudridge and they were forced to put the older 100hp Gnomes into the next batch of airframes it would be equally sensible to see them as a folding version of the 74 as to see them as 135's with a smaller engine. Barnes describes them as identical to the 135 except for the engine mounting and the smaller fin; it's possible that was the only difference on the body between the 74 and the 135.
 * The comment about the 830 is puzzling, but again the similarities could outweigh the differences; if he was conflating the 830, 166 and 135 because they all had Salmson engines they probably were all much the same apart from the engine size. The pictures given certainly suggest that.
 * Anyway, I don't know where that gets us, but it has been an interesting delve into a (by me, somewhat ignored) part of aviation history. regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm seldom here on Wikipedia these days, but due to some talk on the "Scottish National Antarctic Expedition" (about a Piper and an indifferent penguin) I check in occasionally. "Icy north" contrasts with our very mild and wet Northern Germany. Happy Christmas! TraceyR (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks again, as this time last year :-) We're still south of Hamburg, still having wet weather - just a few degrees C below zero for a few days. I'm looking forward to getting out into the local forest to hunt down a few 'missing believed lost' forest boundary stones from the 18th century - a long way from the world of aviation! A tenuous link could be made via aircraaft to the recent LIDAR survey of this area (Lower Saxony) - when the most recent aerial survey was done they added LIDAR scanners (?) to the aircraft and have just published the results, for internal use only (data protection laws can be a nuisance). The closest I have got so far to the images is via screenprints from the Hamburg Archaeological Museum. Anyway, this (and the grandchildren) is what has pushed 20th century aviation down my list of priorities over the last few years. Thanks again for the Christmas greeting, and all the best for 2018. TraceyR (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)