--TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm helping to create a better article on pl.wikipedia about Ilfracombe. To do that, I've uploaded Your photo to Commons as Ilfracombe.jpg, hope You don't mind. With regards, Galileo01 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just came across some of your edits and thought good job. I actually thought I had already given a barnstar to you before for your photographs, but I had not! As you've already got a few, I award you the geographers barnstar for your work on the UK:

Please see Image talk:Lanc.600pix.jpg -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian: I apologize for uploading the photo with the copyright notice. I was a careless error which I have corrected. I hope you'll reconsider the replacement photo. Thanks. Jonathan Kramer JLKRAMER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Zabriskie_Point

Might you have a new look at it? To me, it looks like blatant advertising. I added the advertisement tag, but it was removed. Should it be taken to AfD? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits were just reverted by Althepal...--Janke | Talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Althepal owns the company!! - Adrian Pingstone 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High-res variant has been uploaded. Now if I can find sb to tweak it to improve the colors and mask the background so it looks similar to the first one...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in removing the endless links.

I appreciate your time.

Jamie L. 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to put together a [[User:BillCJ/Test Article 3 |test page]] for a possible article on the civil Bell 204 and 205 variants. However, I can find no pictures of obvious civil aircraft of those models. Would you perchance have any of them? I just want to show civil use, so anything non-military would be fine. I'm in no hurry, as I'll have to research and write most of the text myself. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for commenting on my photo in the FPC. I noticed you didnt have any problem with the photo subject only with the tilt/distortion. You made a point about correcting the tilt problem in the photo - unfortunately I havent any photo editing software. If you perhaps have the software and the knowledge, you would like to make an alternative if you have time? It would be greatly appreciated. LordHarris 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In case you want to comment, WikipedianProlific has updated the horse anatomy FP candidate at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horse anatomy. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No problem with the removal of the Underfall yard pic I did - I was a long way away - there was all this water in between! Seriously I'd really appreciate your help. Could you take a look at Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol & Grade II listed buildings in Bristol & associated articles. I've added pictures where I have them or can get then from geograph, but some are not very good or haven't got pictures at all. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. A Featured Picture Candidate you commented on, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf, is now in the section for "Older nominations requiring additional input from voters." Contributors have tried to improve it after you commented, and your opinion is welcome as to which, if any, of the available versions deserves promotion. I am sending this message to everyone who participated in the FPC. Thanks! Kla'quot 06:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Avianca.anet.arp.750pix.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clean up on Lustleigh article, but i think a couple of your cuts were a little harsh. I've put a couple of them back in, because i think their removal got rid of some useful information and background. Being absolutely succinct is not always desirable! Thanks Owain.davies 18:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, always welcome. In regards to Example 1, I concede that there are too many news in the last part of the sentence (that wasn't a reversion however), however, I really don't think your two sentence structure made any sense, as it split one cadent sentence in two. I'll make a final fix on it.

For example 2, the sentence structure is not ideal with two parentheses, but the detail is relevant, and it would be in a better structure, but I did it quickly, so I didn't forget to go back to it. I totally disagree that it's rambling.

As I said, I agree with most of your edits, i just think your chopping axe is a little too sharp. Personally I'd rather see you reword sentences you don't like, than just remove whole sections which someone's worked on. In any case, please feel free to carry on editing my writing (depending what computer i'm working on, i don't always have a spellcheck for the internet, and as i'm usually making bulk additions, the grammar can sometimes slip), but i might just sneak the odd bit back in! Owain.davies 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you consider my edits to Architecture vandalism? I was updating the reference tags and doing some general cleanup. --Jrsnbarn 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies, I believe my reversion was to an earlier version than yours. I didn’t mention you in my edit summary which said simply “rv vandalism” and I was not in any way referring to you. Of course I looked at the work you had done and wrongly took it to be an attempt to revert item by item. Sorry again. I'm now confused as to what version the article is at. Very sorry for the mess - Adrian Pingstone 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought that's what might have happened given the messy recent history this article has had. I've reverted back to my edit. Cheers.--Jrsnbarn 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding - Adrian Pingstone 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see we're just not going to agree, but PLEASE blunt that axe of yours a little! From my point of view, a lot of the cuts you made led to the paragraphs requiring assumption or some prior knowledge. A good encyclopaedic article shouldn't need prior info to understand why content is there. (just the last example i changed, Military ambulances, you set it to say that they are armoured, which loses something over pre-positioning that with the information that they are going to enter hazardous war zones - pure assumption)

Paragraphs and sections need introduction sentences!

You make some really good edits, but it comes across as being far from constructive just hacking whole sentences out like that, and reducing the quality of the article in the process Owain.davies 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I do NOT "hack". Every edit is THOUGHT OUT (capitals deliberate). Neither do I use an axe, I just remove what is unneeded, repetitious or badly phrased.

Here are some facts to demonstrate that I am a highly experienced editor and receive virtually no complaints: I have 13700 (thirteen thousand seven hundred) edits since January 2003, you have 296 edits since August 2005. Scan through my Talk Page above (which goes back to 14th October 2006) and you will find 2 complaints about my edit style, not bad in 5 months!!! Please note that I never remove anything from my Talk Page so what you see on this page is a true record.

Just one comment on your style: many of your introductory sentences state the obvious and removing them in no way affects the sense of what follows. Sadly, I haven't the energy to give further examples or to explain why I edit you so heavily. So now I bow out of editing anything you have edited because there's so much else to do on WP. Thanks for your civility towards me, and goodbye - Adrian Pingstone 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That writing on User talk:Pumpie what I explained to User:Tony is in Greek but not in Greek letters, but in Roman letters, my keyboard has no ability to type Greek letters. One word metafrasi is translation, arthro is article, einai is is, kalitero is better, eikones is icon and thesi is place. Pumpie 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but my comment on your Talk Page was that Tony should not write in Greek on EN. The comment was not directed at you in any way. - Adrian Pingstone 23:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was sweet...you writing to tell me whoever Handicapper is was rude. I don't write articles much anymore, and it's not all Handicapper (who seems to stalk me if I do). Wiki writers are right when they speak of my "tone." I have a lot of trouble toning it down. Not a born encyclopedist (word?), obviously. Plus I'm busy doing my real job, which is writing. Latest book out and I'm doing a bit of a book tour. But even if I weren't, people like Handicapper take the fun out of wiki for me. Not because he/she is exactly wrong, but because he/she is so exactly rude and arrogant. So I've mostly shut my mouth. I really do thank you for your concern. It was very touching here in a strange hotel in New York City where I've touched down for a radio interview.Ki Longfellow 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arpingstone,

I understand what you mean about the flags being somewhat repetitive, but as somebody in the creative field (magazine publisher), sometimes a little colour can't hurt. Having said that, what I am attempting to do, and have just done on the Dassault Falcon 900 page, is to put the air arm of the country as a link beside the flag, as opposed to just the country name. So, for example, the UK flag would say 'RAF' beside it, not just 'UK'. A lot of pages seem to be flowing with flag icons. Considering the state of many young peoples (lack of basic) knowledge of geography today, educating somebody as to what a nations flag looks like can't really be a bad thing, IMHO. At any rate, please let me know what you think, I think you'll like to 'new look.' Best wishes from Canada.--RobNS 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from Bristol, England. Thanks for your kind reply to my rather curt Edit Summary, sorry if my Summary came over as a little offensive. I haven't changed my opinion on the use of flags, although the change to Air Force names is a big improvement. I still think that putting a country flag against an air force name is a strange mismatch. To use the roundel of that Air Force would be perfect but what a lot of work to prepare all the roundels!

Nor is the Dassault Falcon page (for example) a place where we would want to teach the look of country flags. So you see there is no meeting of minds here! Nevertheless, I will revert no more flags because perhaps others may think them suitable. Best Wishes to you - Adrian Pingstone 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, would you happen to have any pics of the BAe ATP or the McDonnell Douglas DC-9‎? We have no pics of the former, and only a 2 ground pics of the latter. Thanks in advance for whatever you can do, and your willingness to look. - 20:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for such a long delay in replying, I've been changing over computer. I've looked through my 960 airliner pics but, sadly, the DC-9 and ATP do not appear. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian - long time no talk - I've found a picture by you on Dutch Wikipedia [1] of the Corvette, but the file name seems to have been changed, and I can't seem to find the original here on English. If it is indeed your pic, could you please point me to the correct name? We have an article on this one now. Cheers! --Rlandmann 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My original Corvette pic was called as.corvette.arp.750pix.jpg. It can be seen (under another filename!) in the en Wikipedia article Aerospatiale. I hope this enough to help you, if not please let me know, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great shot, but do you happen to have a larger version of this one? I figure it'd be best if all our FPs have as much resolution as possible. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I have a higher resolution when I come off holiday on June 20th. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! Yes, I have that same pic at 2053 pixels across so I'll put it on to Commons with the same filename, immediately. Sorry for the delay in replying. - Adrian Pingstone 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job done, the res is now 2004 by 1396 instead of the old 750. I've kept the image name the same, so now I regret putting 750pix into the filemame! Pleased to help, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see if you have any pics of the Short 330 short haul transport? I really need one of a civil version, though if you has a military version, I could use it too. Thanks for checking. - BillCJ 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no luck in my pic collection - Adrian Pingstone 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What about a Westland 30 (WG.30) helicopter? - BillCJ 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a photo of one but I can help you. The Helicopter Museum at Weston (about 25 miles from where I write) has three of them. I will visit in the next month, photograph them and put them on WP for you to look at - I'll let you know when they are ready. To read about the three go to www.helicoptermuseum.co.uk/westland.htm - Adrian Pingstone 09:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I was suprised to find there was not an article on the WG.30 yet, especially given the love you British have for your aircraft. I hope to remedy that in the near future. I'm preparing an article on it at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Westland 30, and it'd be nice to have some pics when I move it to the mainspace. I have several other sandboxes going, so it may be several weeks before I get to it. I remember reading about the WG.30 when I was a teenager (mid-80s), and there was a lot of hope for it to succeed. Thanks again. - BillCJ 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian: I was wondering if you'd mind if I recaptioned your picture (at right) to indicate that they're actually a mix of Rook and Eurasian Jackdaw nests. Our crows don't nest communally like this! I'm planning to use the photo for a much-expanded nest article I'm working on, and would like to have it captioned so that it doesn't cause confusion for people looking at it. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 19:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry about my silly mistake. I'm a little ignorant about birds so to me all high-up birds nests are crows nests! Thanks for noticing my error, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's hardly a silly mistake. Lots of people wouldn't know the difference— all three species are big black birds, after all—but I'm one of those crazy birders... :) MeegsC | Talk 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26, June 2007 -- Thornbury Castle
I just thought you'd like to know that I used a photo you took of Thornbury Castle to end a web post we did on MINI United. I cropped it little for space requirements. Nice photo. Thank you for putting into public domain. If you are interested, the photo is located at on the following page: http://www.mc2magazine.com/MC2_Magazine_Does_MINI_UNITED.cfm ~ Peter DuPre MC2 Online Editor

Thanks for letting me know. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone, I'm currently overhauling the Su-25 article and I desperatly need some pictures (especially with the basic variant). Do you accidentaly have some pictures of it?? Thanks, --Eurocopter tigre 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no luck - Adrian Pingstone 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid adding caption in which the article's name is boldfaced (or self-referenced... such as [[Image:sdkfsjdlfkj|thumb|The [[Capitol Hill]] etc.]] in the page Capitol Hill. Beware also of templates (like the commons one) which create unpleasant blank spaces if not placed properly. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hints - Adrian Pingstone 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say nice job on trimming down this article and editing for stylistics - AKeen 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your comment is much appreciated. It was the endless repetitions of "various" and "popular" that started me out on the edit. I'm surprised contributors don't spot these repetitions in their writing! Thanks again, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you provide more information regarding this picture [2]? I am unsure if this species is indeed Gryllus bimaculatus or if it carries the common name of 'African field cricket'. Common names identified so far are two-spotted cricket and the ubiquitous "field cricket". Were these crickets being raised as food by the zoo or were they a species not normally found in England? Pendragon39 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The crickets were part of the insect exhibit at Bristol Zoo in a permanent display of insects called Bug World. This particular exhibit was permanent and was not for feeding other animals. In my pic description on Wikipedia I just quoted what the display board said. Here is a pic of the board but unfortunately I cut off the bottom of the board in the semi-darkness of Bug World. If it really matters I could contact the zoo and verify they have not made an error (but an error by a zoo seems most unlikely). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you :) This confirms the species is the correct one and that African field cricket is a common name :) Pendragon39 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you sure, that we have enough information to treat this image as public domain? I couldn't find link http://www.aviationclassics.org.uk/index2.html , seems that it disappeared. The photo on the other hand looks like a professional one and might be copyrighted. Isn't safer to delete it, especially, that its quality is mediocre? (this photo of yours is much better and really beautiful :-) Pibwl ←« 21:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please delete - Adrian Pingstone 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you re-added the in popular culture section on the Capybara article, and while I think you have a point, and that some "in popular culture" references may be encyclopedic, this section violated WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. It has also been tagged as trivia since June. If info was notable enough to be integrated into the rest of the article, I would have attempted to do so, and if you still think it worthwhile, I could move it over to the talk page for further discussion. There has been a recent backlash against "in popular culture" sections and separate articles, and although there are those who are arguing for their complete inclusion, no matter how trivial and unencyclopedic the information may be, I'm very leary of including such indiscriminate material. Any truly notable instance of a capybara in media can and should be integrated; if it doesn't fit seamlessly in with the rest of the article, then chances are it should be removed completely. I'm not going to begin an edit war, however (one revert is all I'll go to), so I'm open to your opinion; if you feel that you can work on the trivia, I'll leave you to it. :) Have a good one, María (críticame) 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a problem with your wish to remove informative material. The fictional Capybara is no less meaningful to those readers who wish to read about it than the real Capybara (in the same way as millions happily read fictional novels. Do they view those novels as trivial?). So this material is NOT trivial to those who wish to know it, only trivial to you personally because you DON'T want to know it! So I'm unable to understand why a fictional Capybara is somehow less worthy to tell the reader about than a breathing Capybara. What is an encyclopedia for but to present all the world's knowledge not just the bits that appeal to you!!

In summing up, you have no right to be selective, just to present the knowledge to the reader. The reader decides what he/she wants to ignore, not you. You cannot know what information is wanted by the reader.

However, because I work almost exclusively on adding pictures to WP I won't make any further fuss, so please revert me. I've taken the article off my Watchlist so you'll not here from me again on the topic. Best wishes, and thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone 08:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't want to incite you in any way. I don't think the issue is with solely mentioning fictional capybaras, however. If that were the case, and there were numerous, notable instances of capybaras in fiction, than a new section titled "Capybara in fiction" could be created to describe the notability of these depictions, hopefully with sources. Every small mention of a capybara, however, is trivial, and "in popular culture" sections tend to become bloated and trivial, much as this one had become. It was also tagged. I based my opinion on policy, as well, so this is not merely me being selective. I understand your wish to honor the "reader," but if it were the case that they can skip what they're not interested in and read what they want, then where is the bar to set our edits? Again, it wasn't my wish to push you off the article or offend, but Wikipedia is not merely a collection of trivia, indiscriminate information, or a directory of irrelevant information loosely pertaining to the subject. I'll repeat myself and say that if you truly wish to integrate the information I removed, I can add the material on the article's talk page, or here if you'd like, and you can have a go at it. If not, I understand that, too. Take care, María (críticame) 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, don't worry, I wasn't pushed off the article, I often take a subject off my Watchlist if I don't want to be distracted from my more usual picture work by any further discussion. I can see I have not persuaded you that information itself cannot be trivial, but that information can be trivial to a reader (but not to another reader). Thanks for being so polite, I'd like to end it here and leave our friends the Capybara to yourself and others to edit as you think fit. Cheers from Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed permission was given for the use of this photo. Can you give more details about that on the talk page of the image, so that others can verify the permission when you are not around? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help. The phrase used on the Image Description Page was "Prepared by Adrian Pingstone, at Antonio's request, in July 2004" meaning that I did the work of putting the pic into WP but had no knowledge or interest over whether the pic was OK copyright-wise. Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. We can still use the picture under fair use, but I removed the "permission" part since there seems to be a lack of info. No need for you to do anything more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian I was seriously thinking to submit the photo above to FPC.

Considering that there is only 3 FP by wikipedian in the aviation topic and your huge photographic contribution I think you deserve to be featured. However considering the current state of mind the voters on FPC I think they will oppose on ground of excessive JPEG aa artifacts. Can you upload a less compressed picture ? Thanks. Ericd 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that pic is not what it looks. The formation (at Fairford) was quite small in my viewfinder, and at one edge as well, so I had to clip the pic heavily. So no larger pic is possible. As you say, it would not be OK for FPC. Thanks for your nice comments, much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your calm reply. However I don't think you can have looked at many Wikipedia pictures because (not to pull any punches) this one is up with the worst I have ever seen in an article. My credentials? I've added pics steadily since early 2003 and now have about 1800 added. So sorry, just look around WP, get an idea of what the standard is and then you will probably understand. Also your suggestion that a poor pic is better than no pic does not apply to a serious encyclopedia. Unfortunately I don't have a better picture. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; a thick skin is necessary for editing WP. And I'm well aware of the depth and quality of your contributions to the project (you might like my Farnborough '06 Flickr set, BTW). But other frequent editors of that article agree with me that it's better to have it than not, despite its lack of quality. In other words, we wish to have an image of a VS bird in a hangar, even though this one's not ideal. For more commentary, see Talk:Virgin Atlantic Airways, but only if you too have a thick skin ;-) Of course, if the consensus should change then we should re-evaluate ... richi 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this on time.com. Does the image look familiar? Well, I guess when you release it into PD, these things can happen. Just thought you might be interested where your image has landed. --rogerd 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! I am well pleased when my pictures are used by others around the world, that's why I make them all PD. Some users put an acknowledgement to me near the picture but in this case I don't think Time have (which is quite OK with me). I appreciate the trouble you took to let me know. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 06:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you would get a chuckle out of it. It is an interesting set of articles in Time that it was part of. I remember the TR7 when I was young, here in the US, they had a strange ad that showed the TR7 driving into a wedge shaped garage and implied that the wedge shape would inspire other wedge shaped designs. After I saw that piece in Time, I went to the wikipedia article, and lo and behold, it was the same image. I wonder if they used other wikimedia images for some of the other 49 cars. Keep up the good work, and thanks. --rogerd 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you're next in Bath Abbey, could you get me a really nice quality pic of the organ? Also, if you see any evidence of a chamber organ, feel free to take that too! I'm putting together a new article for the Abbey in my userspace (see User:Vox Humana 8'/Bath Abbey)and feel that it really needs some decent pics of the organ. If you could gain access to the organ loft to take a pic of the console, that would be very much appreciated. To gain access, you'll probably need to email the Director of Music, Dr. Peter King, a very amiable chap, I believe. His address is as follows: music@bathabbey.org. Mention to him that his organ will gain extra publicity (also, it might not be a bad idea to slip in a "Taken with the kind permission of Dr. Peter King" - this will gain him extra publicity), and he'll probably be all too willing to help. - Vox Humana 8' 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what camera do you use?--Vox Humana 8' 19:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First my camera(s): most of my pics are from an Olympus C750UZ digital compact (takes great pics but is no longer on the market), a few are from a Canon S3 IS digital compact (I've abandoned this camera because of purple fringing) and now my very recent aircraft pics are from a most excellent Nikon D50 digital SLR using a Nikon 18 to 200mm telephoto lens. There's an easy way to tell what camera I used, just click on the pic in the article and it usually says at the bottom (but not always because a degraining program I used to use destroys the EXIF data which contains the make of camera, exposure, shutter speed etc)- Adrian Pingstone 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bath, I'm sorry but it would be dishonest to say I can do what you are asking. I can't do "commissioned" photos because of the hassle (petrol costs, emails, arranging times to be there) for the sake of only a few photos. Very sorry but honesty is best. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ah well. Still, if you could maybe take a few next time you happen to be in the Abbey, at your convenience - if not, I understand and will try elsewhere.--Vox Humana 8' 09:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting rid of all of that crap! It seems to accumulate every month. Perspicacite 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is appreciated. I wasn't sure if "white" should be white or White, I prefer "white". My biggest hate is the words "currently", "various" and "many", they are rarely needed. Thanks again - Adrian Pingstone 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thought in writing, much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have mislabeled this image - the perspective position of the rear tire is inconsistent with a bunny hop. Looks more like he's bunny hopping OFF, or doing a forward front-tire bounce ON to the bench. Video would solve this discrepancy, do you have any? With due respect, NormanBrown 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. I'll ask my son, who is on the pic, if he can remember what he was doing (because I've forgotten!) and reply on Sunday the 7th (tomorrow). I'm sorry I've taken so long to start replying - Adrian Pingstone 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the answer from him. He was jumping OFF the table onto the ground which I presume is not bunny hopping. So do we take the pic away? - Adrian Pingstone 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian,
I just uploaded this shot of a Cessna 150: Image:Low flying cessna 150.jpg and went over the the article and found that there are various types of 150's - do you think you can identify this one as being a particular version? I can upload other photos if need be... --Fir0002 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from such a respected photographer but sorry I can't help you. I'm keen on aircraft photography (civil, light and military) but I'm useless at recognition. So I get the model from reading off the registration and putting into Google. In your case no registration is visible so I'm stuck! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comliment and the tip - I got the rego (VH-DOR) from a different shot and found the model here. On a side note, how come we don't see you on FPC anymore? I see you've got a D50 now... :) Anyway thanks again for your help --Fir0002 23:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What that sort of "my way or the highway" stubborn attitude, it is no wonder that editors get frustrated when they hit a brick wall like you with someone who is unable to discuss an issue and they leave Wikipedia to those who push their own viewpoint to the exclusion of others. I don't like it the way it is so I will do it my way and I don't care about you and anyone else either seems to be your way of thinking. So you have a big monitor, big deal so have I but I have no complaints. Now you are forcing others to comply with you. Obviously you did not even read the reference to the guidelines that I gave you about image size otherwise you would not force your thumbnail image size (for some lead images) on others when it is not appropriate in the lead of that particular article. I also suggested there must be a solution that would keep everyone happy but you seem to have conveniently skipped over that suggestion. Just go ahead and do you own thing and don't bother trying to find a suitable solution. ww2censor 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an ill tempered response! I've had very many discussions with Wikipedians over the nearly 5 years I've been contributing to WP but have never had a reply this vitriolic. We surely both want the best looking WP possible and part of that look is decent sized pics i.e no tiny 150px wide lead pics!! I can't see how you could disagree with that but you do seem to (unless I'm totally misunderstanding your position). So, summing up, because I care very much about WP I will NOT accept tiny pics (anywhere in the article) that are smaller even than the default pic size of 180px. If that is unreasonable in your eyes, then so be it. (for readers of this who wonder what it's all about, please go to User talk:Ww2censor for the main discussion) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind your recent edits to Emirates Airline but i would have prefered if you had discussed it, in the discussion page before you edited the article.(TB115 11:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC));[reply]

Thanks for your comments. However I strongly disagree that it needed discussion. I edit and illustrate mostly aircraft and airline articles and have been doing so since early 2003 (that's not boasting, that's just to establish that I probably know what I'm talking about). So I really have a good knowledge of what is "brochure" writing and what is encyclopedic writing. To be frank with you the Emirates article was among the poorest I've ever seen (that is, it was not written from a neutral point of view) and needed extensive editing to make it sound like an encyclopedia entry and not an Emirates brochure. There is no need for any discussion if an article is so non-neutral point of view that it was annoying to read. In any case, how could I describe each of several dozen edits on the article Talk Page and seek approval for each? Hope you take this reply in the friendly spirit in which I intend it.

Here are a very few examples of some of the unacceptable stuff. First for sounding like an Emirates brochure:

“cutting-edge in-flight entertainment”

“a range of specially selected fine wines”

“Full suites, complete with closing doors to ensure privacy, envelop the passenger with luxury from the start”

“First Class passengers can enjoy one of the most luxurious flying experiences in the world”

Should an encyclopedia be saying those things?

Now examples of speculation (encyclopedias deal in facts or reasonably certain facts but the fleet in 2012 or 2015 is unacceptable speculation):

“The airline forecasts that its fleet will comprise at least 180 aircraft by 2012 when it is expected to serve 130 destinations and carry some 26 million passengers”

“Huge capital outlays for retrofits, and possible orders for up to 100 Airbus A350s or Boeing 787s in addition to 10 or more Boeing 747-8I aircraft means Emirates is continuing a multi-billion dollar push”

“Emirates airline aims to build a fleet of 180 aircraft flying to more than 110 destinations that could make it the world's largest international carrier by 2015.”

Don't forget that if I make any wrong edits they can be reverted! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 13:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air

I don't know why you continue adding incidents to the introductory paragraph and keep insisting that the article is written in a brochure style. I myself have no interest in seeing the page on KE be a publicity vehicle, but your placement of the Guam incident does not appear to fit in the introduction history paragraph of KE. If you insist this should be done, then I suggest that we go through ALL the other airlines and place their accident histories in their intro paragraph for each airline. In addition, your edits hardly appear to delete wholesale certain parts of the article to their bare bones. For this reason, Wikipedia is a failed effort--I keep contributing, but you continue destroying the artice. It is frustrating, so I guess you will continue regardless. This is a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azntokki (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]