PLEASE PUT YOUR POST AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE, NOT AT THE TOP. THANKS.

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]

Don't you think the cleaned up version of the A340 picture is better? I agree it's not ideal, but hardly "terrible" IMHO. I'd prefer to see the article with it than without it. Equipment in a maintenance hangar lends an interesting angle to the article, don't you think? Ideally, you or someone else would have a better quality image to replace it with, though. I do like the other images you've added to the article ... richi 16:27, 7 September 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]

Incidentally, how much did your 18-200mm lens cost? I'm going to buy myself a Nikon D40 just after Christmas and would prefer the 18-200 rather than two separate (ie 18-55 and 55-200mm) lenses.--Vox Humana 8' 15:19, 15 November 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]

Just a quick thanks for your recent edits to Poole. You did a good job of removing some of my mistakes and bad phrasing! Thanks again. LordHarris 22:44, 30 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]

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]

I strongly resent your totally inaccurate note to me. I have been editing WP since early 2003 so I DO know what an encyclopedia article should look like. I work every day on removing brochure-style writing from airline articles so your accusation is hurtful. It would have been easy for you to check who added the incident note to the Intro, the Korean Air History shows it was not me, it was Anon 205.250.249.50 on 14th October 2007 at 01.06am. I totally agree that it should not be in the Intro. I also totally agree that brochure-style writing is unacceptable. Have you seen the Edit Summary I wrote for my edits of 31st October 2007 at 17.02 (to Korean Air) which say “This article sounded in many places like an airline promotional brochure, so extensive editing needed (more to come)”?

Did you bother to read the Emirates talk entry immediately above where you are reading now? My attitude is explained, there with examples - Adrian Pingstone 08:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the Myeongdong article. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your nice comment. Best Wishes from England - Adrian Pingstone 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to nominate you for admin, as I think you would be able to make a good contribution to image related admin tasks. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your thoughtfulness in suggesting I could become an Admin but I would far sooner work on pics and article editing than get involved in the intricacies of Admin work. I thoroughly understand picture taking, picture processing and picture placement and my little brain could cope with no more :-). Thanks again, Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arpingstone, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to use your picture of a donkey in order to make the test in a translation-course more pleasant for my students at Uppsala University. I teach translation (Swedish-German) and I am a Phd of German literature, but I know a little English, too. I usually contribute to the German Wikipedia, sometimes to the Swedish one, too, and my user name in Germany is Elchjagd (which means: Moosechase). The test is all about donkeys in Venezuela where they carry around computers to enable the people living in the mountains to use the Internet. Thank you for the beautiful picture, by the way, I love donkeys. Kind regards from Petra, 217.208.28.40 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petra, thanks for letting me know that a pic of mine has been of use. Although they are PD it's nice when someone who has used a pic writes to me. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of my information it is not an overstatment at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbrewe (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is user-editable so just revert my edit. I don't mind! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting suggestion! I never thought of that. That's why I welcome others to participate in article writing. I don't aspire to be the only editor of an article. Thank you for your Boeing 747 photo suggestions. Archtransit 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment. In the past I'd not been aware of how much better aircraft pics look if they are flying "into the page". Now that I have become aware of this, wrong placements are immediately obvious! - Adrian Pingstone 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Adrian! :) 138.37.199.206 (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Comments of appreciation are highly welcome!! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent "reversion" damaged the article and reinserted some quite properly removed information. It may have been a glitch, but there may have been other glitchs in your last reversion run. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I messed up. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone,

This is to let you know that a featured picture you uploaded, commons:Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg, is up for delisting (not deletion). The delist nom can be found here. Please visit the nom and see if you can upload a new version that addresses the issues being brought up. Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people consider watches to be jewelry. Thus, I do not think watchmaking is completely off topic for the jewellery category. Userafw (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but hadn't noticed that it can be replaced by watch if you wish (or just revert me, I don't mind) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I was still writing the note about this! Actually, no, it wasn't obvious to me, which is why I put the note in. There's a comment about it on the talk page. Swanny18 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arpingstone, I would like to get an image of an egg coddler or two coddlers of different sizes, with or without the egg, also to create an article at German Wikipedia. Might it be possible to do a nice picture? If so, please inform me shortly at de:User:Sozi. Thanks. -- 195.14.211.58 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice pic of the main wheels of the Challenger 601. Would you happen to have a similar pic of the 737's main wheels? Since the plane is larger, it doesn't have to be of the whole planform. Just curious, and I hope I haven't asked before! :) - BillCJ (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, but not just now! Watching the fireworks in London on TV! I took the Challenger pic two days ago, on Sunday, a dull day hence the lack of contrast on that pic (and I only had a 200mm lens so the pic is only a small part of the image). Happy New Year, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to spare because my son doesn't need picking up from the party he's at, someone is giving him a lift. Happily, the pic you want is on the KLM article, called image:klm.b737-400.ph-bdy.arp.jpg Happy to help. I'll look now for any others. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another I've just this moment uploaded, of KTHY Cyprus Turkish Airlines: image:kthy b737-800 tc-mso arp.jpg. This one is not on any article. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THnaks much! - BillCJ (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, I'm having a hard time finding a good pic of an early 747-100 or 200 with the short upper deck, or even a -300. I feel strongly that we should use an pic of an older 747, as we have a dedicated article for the 747-400. There has been a battle in the past few weeks on which pics should go in to the lead, and all but one are -400s. Do you have any great-quality pics of older 747s, preferrably airborne, that might work? Most of the ones on Commons aren't the best pics. I'd like something in main-line livery if you haf one, as the 747-100 cargo line I've tried to put in keeps being removed. Thanks, and you don't have to hurry on this one at all - there are lots of -400 pics for them to keep swapping them out for the next few months, and not reuse any! - BillCJ (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started aircraft photography as a hobby in 2002 but most of my early pics which might have been a -200 are too trashy so have been deleted. So I’ve only one -200 pic. and thats MK Airlines (the middle picture) on the ground at Filton (where I worked for 36 years). Sadly the quality is poor (and it's facing the wrong way!) but you are obviously welcome to use it. That pic has a sad resonance for me because it crashed in Canada 4 days after I took that photo, with the loss of all 7 crew. All my other 747 pics (from 14 airlines) are -400. Cheers - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, I hope this finds you well! I just noticed you resized a picture on Cleopatra's Needle, an article on which I keep a watch on, removing the px sizing with an edit summary saying there is a Wikipedia policy on this. On checking WP:PIC I note there is no reference to such a policy - in fact there is a whole section on resizing images, using the px setting. Can you direct me to where such a policy is noted? Thank You - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! (it’s Adrian actually but I’ve a son called John!) I regret not using a clearer edit message when removing px values. My message used to be "Thumbnail sizes removed to comply with WP:MOS#Images - allows users to set their own image size via User Preferences". But it got deleted off a file where I keep such messages so I‘ve just been typing “Px values removed as per WP policy“ which is not so clear. So I’ll use the first message in future. As someone who works mainly on pictures I can assure you that my action on removing px values is correct. The idea is that for a person like me who has a 1600 pixel wide monitor, the 200 or 250 px values, or even 150px, typed into the pic code produces pics which are far too small on my screen. So in MY prefs I have set the maximum px value available (which is 300) and that produces the best thumbnail look for me. A person with a smaller screen might want 200 px and so on.

The page that you mention is a Tutorial and not a Policy statement and isn’t altered very often. So it's not stating policy.

I hope all is clear, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian - firstly, my apologies for my mistake on your name. The reason I used the tutorial page is that, much as though its not policy, its the information we point new editors at, and that inexperienced editors use as the first port of call when in doubt editing. Hence, if the tutorial says "hey, here's how to adjust your picture" and policy says "remove px settings" then you will forever have a job removing px settings to comply with policy! If tutorial and written instruction doesn't align with policy, its kinda - daft. How do you suggest this break between policy versus information is resolved? Rgds, - Ian (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian! Happily I don't think px removals are causing any problem because I've removed the values from several hundred articles in the last few months and yours is the first comment on what my "authority" is. So I'm not being flooded with complaints on the removals. (Of course my Edit Message used to give the Manual of Style link that I mention above, so that may have satisfied other editors). Please don't think I'm the only person doing the removals, I frequently find articles with no px values so WP is definitely changing over.

Perhaps the tutorial should point to the policy document WP:MOS#Images as the authority and state that adding of px values can still be needed in the special cases that Policy describes, hence the need to detail how to add px values (even though they are disappearing!!) Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian - thanks! My interest is more focused with my activites here in mind than the pro's/con's of the specific article. Mainly I create articles and point newbie's in the right (???) direction. Pointing them in direction of a tutorial which is in disagreement with policy is - as I said, daft! Newbie's generally come here because they find an article/lack of, or a section of interest in which they start editing/adding to. Many have photo's which they innocently add, and they get quite sensitive about others editing anything on stuff they have added. If the tutorial is saying one thing at present, and policy says another - and they end up in conflict with another because of whet they have read says one thing - then we lose another contributor. As I said, I think we should find a way of aligning all elements so that digging down deeper (ie - from tutorial to policy) just adds to the detail, and doesn't conflict: which the tutorial does with the policy to which you refer. Best Regards, - Ian (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All understood. As a very experienced editor (I started in January 2003) I hadn't thought about the problems that Newbies have in knowing what the pic code should be! However, I'm going to sign out on this subject now because a) thinking makes my head hurt :) and b) I've got a lot of new pics to add of so I'm going to start out on that now. Nice to have "chatted". Cheers - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, usually it should be obvious from the context. But sometimes it's not, particularly when there are few or no other refs... I'll try and remember to add note what it is. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome picture of the Qantas 747 over Myrtle Avenue in Aviation noise Cheers 66.9.126.26 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just love it when someone says such nice things. I hope you didn't mind me adding a wikilink to the article that contains the Qantas picture. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: On you recent edit for the FIL European Luge Championships and the removal of "please", why? I thought there was such a thing as trying to be civil to other editors and readers for future editors and readrs of our site (WP:CIVIL). I think this is applicable and I will revert your edit after I leave this comment to you. Chris (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. You have misunderstood me, I was following WP (probably unwritten) policy which, from my editing experience since early 2003, is that we do not say "please" in this context. I don't know why that is so but reading and editing thousands of articles tells me it is so. It has nothing to do with civility, emotion or politeness, I was merely making it conform with the phrasing used elsewhere which is "see such-and-such". Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chris (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Discussion here and here. Noy2 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, would you happen to have any good pics of fixed-wing police aircraft? I'd like to add at least one image to the Police aircraft, as it currnetly has only helicopters. Thanks, and I'm in NO hurry. - BillCJ (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bill, I've never even seen a fixed wing police aircraft. If ever I do photograph one it will go straight on the article. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, in the end, you were right. There were many redundancies and unnecessary wording which could be removed, and the images appear differently on everyone's computer screen. I've been reverting many inaccurate inventory numbers recently, that's why I apologize if I reacted negatively at first. The two Boeing 737 AEW&C MESA images are extremely rare by the way (you won't see them anywhere else on the internet) because I obtained them from my friends who are insiders in the Peace Eagle project. Best regards and keep up the good work. :) 151.57.200.87 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was thoughtful of you to write to me here, so thanks. Yes, you are right about the words that are put into articles but when removed in no way alter the sense of the sentence - good examples are "many","various","current" and "famous" which, when, removed, rarely affect the meaning of the sentence. The worst case I've met was the Los Angeles article which had 17 pointless "currently" in it (but not any more!).

Although the pics you mention were excellent quality, I don’t think WP should have two almost the same no matter how special they are to you or the photographer (the reader is unlikely to care). But that’s only my opinion and not a rule.

The opening sentences were not encyclopedic by which I mean they read as though an extracted from an Air Force brochure. Only editing experience will show you what is enyclopedic and what is not (I've sixteen thousand edits since early 2003).

The picture pixel-width removal is not my idea, it’s WP policy. I have a 1600 pixel widescreen monitor so the 220 pixels the pics were set at is far too small for me. So WP lets the reader set his/her pic size in Preferences, at any value up to 300. If Prefs is not set (and px values have been removed from the article) then the reader sees 180 pixel wide pics (hopelessly small for my screen). Articles are steadily losing their px values as editors get to know of the policy. Thanks again for writing, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you replaced the gallery on this page by concensus, though I do not see any thing on that page's talk page, could you please direct me to the page where concensus was found?Latulla (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY I have been moving galleries to Wikimedia Commons. I do understand why would would want a few picutes left on a certain page, this one included. Though many people may like the galleries on the bottom of pages, there are many who do not like the galleries. Just because there are alot of galleries does not make them a reason to keep all of them. Could we come to an agreement we keep 2 or 3 of the picuters that are in the gallery on that page and remove the gallery itself? Latulla (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page on Talk:Singapore Airlines WhisperToMe (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As a note - the main reason I object to your rationale is that Taiwan's accident report is likely copyrighted (I have no evidence of any free use provisions) and therefore it is a lot easier to use a GDFL/GNU representation of the disaster. Please see the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't feel your comments were "harsh" - I questioned the logic behind it due to the copyright, that's all :) Thank you for your response :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to reuse your photo Image:Heli.g-zzww.750pix.jpg in german Wikipedia (de:Enstrom). Therefore, could you move it to Commons? Thank you very much. --jpp (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've now put the pic on Commons full-sized (1746 by 1205 pixels). The small one you mention (750 pixels wide) was already on Commons (put there by someone else). Luckily the only link to the small pic was from the en Enstrom Helicopter article so I've replaced the little pic with the big pic in that article. The big pic's name is:

image:enstrom 280fx shark g-zzww arp.jpg

Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing you in reference to this edit. It's probably not a good idea to delete info just because it was added by an anonymous user. Registered users don't have a monopoly on truth. A "citation needed" tag is probably the right way to deal with this. Thanks, NiggardlyNorm (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apolgies to all concerned, the Google result for "mannheim chinook crash" confirms the crash - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections. I thought "he uses" was ok - after all, who else ever does, unless it's she (?), but agree the passive "is used" is more authoritative. I must learn to be bolder in my edits! Congratulations though, on one of the most welcoming user pages I have seen - the commercial freedoms of retirement obviously have their advantages. As you may see, my main interest is the military fast jet cockpit, and I was wondering how close an aeronautics engineer might have been able to get to one (or more) of those, particularly if he had a camera.... Non copy-vio cockpit photos are generally hard to come by and I wondered if you could help/ advise at all? Many thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding re. my corrections. Thanks also for your comment about my User page (I must add some of my best photos to it). Sorry but I had no access to Tornados because I worked for the Airbus side of BAE (at Filton, near Bristol). Had I been employed at Warton (in Lancashire) where they were made I doubtless could have got close. I don't have any other military cockpit views but will remember your request when I'm at Fairford Air Show in July. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in my comment with the removal of the photo that the picture is of a falcon, not a Harris' hawk. I would think that erroneously displaying a picture of some other species and calling it a Harris' hawk is a perfectly good reason to remove it. Heck, the picture could be of a daffodil; would it then be obvious that it needed to be removed?

Pictures of actual Harris' hawks

Harris' hawk

NOT A HARRIS' HAWK!

I'm a master falconer with decades of experience. I think I can tell a Harris' hawk from what plainly is not. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rudeness. Thank goodness I rarely meet such an unpleasant response. I simply misunderstood the meaning of your Edit Comment which was .....Rm falcon picture labeled as HH, add "juvenile" to picture description. In my ignorance I did not realise what you were telling me in that Edit Comment because to me falcons and hawks were not different birds (so I saw no special meaning in your use of the word "falcon"). Therefore I assumed the picture had to be removed because you thought the article did not need it. It would have been far clearer to say in the Edit Comment This is not a Harris Hawk, this a (whatever) then I would have understood the reason for removal, you would not have needed to write to me in such a nasty way and I could have used the pic on the appropriate article. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the sizes on the images - I was not aware there was an 'upright' tag.. You learn something new every day! You've been quiet on FPC for a while (then again, so have I), have you given up on it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice to hear from you. I've only discovered the "upright" tag a few weeks ago. Without it the "no px sizes" rule is impossible to fully implement because portrait pics can look overwhelmingly large. With it, they look sensible in relation to landscape format pics.

I've not had luck on FPC because other people have put forward rubbishy pics of mine with didn't have a hope. I even once found myself in the strange position of voting against one of my own pics!!. Only a few of my pics are good enough (mainly aircraft) but I've never bothered to nominate anything. I rarely look at the FPC page because I've been too occupied adding pics. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tip on the upright tag - solves a few problems, but does it work in Infoboxes? - portrait pics here can be a real pain pushing everything else out of sight. Regards Motmit (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, I'm putting together an article on the RAF's TriStars, and I notinced that Image:Lockheed.tristar.flying.arp.jpg is one of yours. As far as I can tell, its the only pic we have of a TriStar refuelling tanker. Would you per-chance happen to have any more, esepcially from different angles? As always, thanks for checking, and take your time - BillCJ (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bill, I have three ground pictures of that same TriStar taxiing for take off at Fairford (the flying picture is Kemble). Happily it came very close to me. Also happily the quality of the three is better than the flight pic. I'm off to the cinema shortly (Juno) but will upload all four sometime today (Sunday). Pleased to help (late news: will upload during Monday) - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they are on Commons now in Category:Lockheed TriStar. The pictures are:

• 
  Closeup
• 
  Threequarters
• 
  Rear

The quality is nowhere near what I would like but those were the days of my Olympus compact digital camera. Now I have a Nikon D40 DSLR. Happy to help - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your great edits and think that you would benefit from being given rollback. It's basically a quick way to revert vandalism. Remember that rollback isn't to be used on good-faith edits or in editing disputes. If you'd like to test it out, you can head over to Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Happy editing! bibliomaniac15 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, I just reorganized the BAE Hawk page, and I've noticed there are no in-flight pics in the article or on the Commons page. The CommonsCat page does have a few in-flight pics, but only one is a good close-up image. Since that kind of Hawk is a common species in England, I thought I'd check with you to see if you have anything useable. As always, many thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, the Hawk is indeed a common "bird" in England but, sadly, I have only ground pics. Hopefully I'll get some pics at Air Shows this year. Best - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Good luck at the air shows. - BillCJ (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may (or may not) be amused to learn that, according to the description she has added to a copy of your image she uploaded to flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/473685439/ you are the boyfriend and father of the baby of this young woman http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Thank you very much for noticing the pic on flickr. Of course, she's welcome to reuse it since it's Public Domain but the lie is pretty sad. I've posted the following comment below the flickr picture - Well, what a surprise! It's my picture from the London Heathrow Airport article in Wikipedia, photographed by me (Adrian Pingstone) in 2003. Amazingly, this woman's boyfriend has taken a totally identical photograph to mine. Most remarkable! I'm taking no action but I don't like lies. Thanks again for noticing! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The woman has made the Flickr picture private so it can no longer be seen. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lord Jim and Imperialism on the Humanities desk. Ouch! Nasty one that, but nice of the poster to reveal themselves so early. Thanks for the shielding – I love you Adrian. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, I see that you have edited an entry about me, Philip Raby. Did you know my father, Bert Raby? He also worked on Concorde at Filton, as a vibration engineer. Philsy (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that name although I worked at Filton for a very long time (1957-1993). I started in Instrumentation Labs, then came Environmental Sciences (headed by Doug Vickery) where we worked on effects of Concorde's exhaust on the ozone layer. My final 12 years before retirement was in Aerodynamics (headed by Brian Furness) working on reducing A320 and A340 parasitic drag. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'd have been there at the same time - 1962 to 1974, I believe. I remember that his boss was called Armstrong - impressed me as a boy after the events of 1969! Philsy (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rudeness about my Tawny Frogmouth photos. Your comments about my photos have been very hurtful and make me wonder whether it is worthwhile continuing to be a contributor to Wikipedia.

For your informaiton, I was about to check the photos you have been so scornful about, and try to make an objective decision about them, myself, and then to delete (from the page) those photos which I consider to be poor quality photos - but discovered that you had been busy and had already deleted them (again) before I had the chance to do this.

I do not delete other people's photos - nor do I make hurtful comments about them. Figaro (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you thought my comments were scornful, I did not intend that in any way. The problem with edit comments is that they have to be short and can take on a harshness not intended. I should have written to you on your Talk Page to explain at greater length.

I expect you know that removals do happen on WP in the quest for a first class encyclopedia so when I saw the pics, and as an editor since January 2003, I had to act. Apologies if I've hurt you, I had no such intention. You are valued on WP, so please don't go - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I have actually returned one of the photos (which I have re-uploaded to Wikipedia in a reduced size of 50% for a clearer photo), because I feel that there is value in the photo in an encyclopedia article, in the sense that the photo illustrates Tawny Frogmouth natural behaviour when alarmed, including the Tawny Frogmouth closing its eyes, to make itself appear to be only a branch of a tree, or a broken piece of wood, etc. The reason why the photos appeared to be out of focus is actually because the bird has extremely soft feathers. Incidentally, I have also been an editor of Wikipedia since January, 2003, although I did not officially join with a Wikipedia user name until 2005. Figaro (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have made a Front garden now. I liked the way that you cleaned up Back garden. If you have the time could you do the same thing to Front garden. If I do it, it will appear as a bias because I was a Delete in the AfD... --Pmedema (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above nice comment. I noticed the Front garden article about ten hours ago and have already edited it (and been reverted already on the very UK-orientated Acacia Avenue reference). Please have a look at the Front garden Discussion for more on Acacia Avenue! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Gloucestershire? and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw a recent edit you did where you stated that photographer acknowledgments are not allowed in captions. I did not know this but I do understand it. I was wondering if model links are allowed? I have a photo I put up in an article where I wrote "A Firefighter wearing a..." as the caption and was wondering if it was acceptable, if not I will remove it. Thank you ^SyBer_WoLff 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting question. No, I'm sorry but you are not allowed to link to your User Page in that manner, even though I see it has lots of firefighting pictures on it. When the reader clicks on a wikilink (between double square brackets) they must get the article named in the link and not a user page. Cheers - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one complication concerning your edit of the Herb Abramson article. It's that his then wife Miriam was also named Abramson until she remarried after divorcing Herb and became Miriam Bienstock. Ahmet and Neshui Ertegun are mentioned by their first names for the obvious reason of differentiating the two Ertegun brothers. Please consider this when editing articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since the article is about Herb Abramson I reasoned that the reader will easily regard all unqualified "Abramsons" as referring to the article subject. I edited the article because "Herb" is an affectionate form of Herbert here in England so sounded odd in an encyclopedia. But revert my edits by all means, I don't mind at all. Regards- Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Pooley's is not unique in being a small business which I presume is why you deleted that sentence. It is unique however (as far as I know), in producing this kind of information in conjunction with a national aviation authority on a family business basis. SpinningSpark 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for writing. The reason I removed that comment about Pooley's was because it seemed to me to be irrelevant to the article. The size of the business and that it was family run just sounded odd up against the technical tone of the rest of the article (in my opinion, of course). Do reinstate it if you wish, I wouldn't mind. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for it to go if you don't think it is right for the article. I was just making sure that it hadn't got deleted because I had phrased it badly and got misunderstood. SpinningSpark 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(obscenities from User:Kas0809 removed)

I totally missed the "You" in the terms section. I had gone through and edited out most of the informal stuff from the FAA reference, but apparently, that one got by me. Hadn't looked the article over in a long time, so I appreciate that. --Born2flie (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, it was thoughtful of you to write to me - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits to this article. They were unnecessary and in many cases obscured or falsified what was being said. If you would like more specifics, I'll oblige. MdArtLover (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Here are my comments on your reversion of my edits of Aerial landscape art. There is a good reason for every edit (I’m highly experienced with 16000 edits since 2002)

• We do not include px values any more so I was completely correct to remove the 300px from the picture code (because what is an OK pic size for my 1600px wide LCD might be too dominating on a lores Laptop) and more importantly it’s WP policy - see WP:IUP
• My phrase The earliest aerial landscape art is maps…… is surely clearer to the reader than your phrase Before the 20th Century the obvious precedents for aerial landscape are maps…….. and obvious is just padding.
• at a great height is not needed. Balloons do not fly at a great height and removal of that phrase does not change the sentence meaning in any way.
• the painting pictured above is one such example is very unwise in WP because pictures are moved around all the time so in-text references to pictures is foolish. I always remove any such references.
• In the phrase many other famous or notable modern and contemporary artists have produced work inspired by aerial views I removed famous and notable, again it’s just padding.
• They are generally, strictly speaking, not landscapes at all, since they don't show any land. I removed generally, strictly speaking. My mistake, I should have only removed generally but not that’s not a reason for full reversion.
• of course has no meaning. The reader will not know why of course is there.
• Below is an external link to an image of one of these: "It Was Blue and Green", 1960. Again, don‘t mention Ext Links in the body of the text. Ext links are often removed or modified and to remove or alter the text mention will probably be forgotten.
• If you are in the USA follow their instructions, using your zip code to find a copy of the book in a library near you. You is not allowed in an encyclopedia, simple as that. My alterations to remove you were clumsy but you could have done your own improvements.

(I’ve left out commenting on a few other edits because this taking me too long to type.)

I don’t remember total reversion of my edits in all the 6 years I’ve been editing so I wanted to show why total reversion was wrong. I had improved the article, your reversions have not. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adrian here. --John (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment to get through all this. For now, I'll let it be. MdArtLover (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR

yes, the bunny hop article is OR, wikipedia is not a "how to" website, if it was, the article would be fine. until someone finds some established articles or books on bunny hopping and builds the article off of said refrences, the article will continue to be OR. thanks goodbye Kas0809 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Eiffel.tower.cdmars.arp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Eiffel.tower.cdmars.arp.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adrian - I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when an image is on the Wikimedia Commons, it's not necessary to have a duplicate image description/license here at en Wikipedia. Any changes should be made at the Commons page, not here. Please drop me a note if you need any explanation. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Arpingstone.

With this I come to request your autorization to use two photos, your authorship, to be published in a Math study book from Denise Favaretto. See links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St.peters.basilica.tesserae.arp.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St.peters.basilica.tesserae.closeup.arp.jpg

In advance I thank you and I’ll be looking foward to your reply to sandra.pesquisaiconografica@gmail.com

Sandra

Sandra H. Bordini Ribeirão Preto - SP (Brasil) e-mail = sandra.pesquisaiconografica@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.201.160 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yate. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Sort it out guys! This revert ping-pong is ridiculous Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a cheek, Andy! I've had to do the reversions (back to my non-POV edits) in order to remove the highly POV edits of the two guys editing Yate. You have the cheek to suggest blocking ME!!! (with 18000 edits in 5 years). Unbelievable!! The other guys each have 12 edits total on WP since the 13th of this month! Yes, it has now gone to Discussion. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an edit war no matter who does it. If you've got that many edits, then you ought to know more effective ways to resolve this. You might also note that I applied the same template equally to both, because that's the NPOV way I'm expected to behave in this context - make of that what you will. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reasoned reply. I just saw "red" and wrote in anger. Sorry - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out I took it to discussion a whole day before you did, but you chose to ignore this and continue with your edits regardless.

Out of interest how do you know I am a guy?

Also i was trying to edit the other guys (if it is one) input to a more acceptable format before you kept stomping over it in your size nines.

Hope you find the newer version to your likeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loon*i2d (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you deleted a piece in the transport section of this page; Badly written I’d grant you, but I thought the content was interesting, and notable/reasonable, so I’ve re-written it and put it back in. Tell me what you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done an excellent job, I have no criticisms at all. Thanks for reinstating it. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I think that all the modification that I made for the camel genetics were quite referenced (as from ISI Journals). I have worked myself on the subject publishing the camel karyotype, and the differences between the camel, lamas and their hybrids. Can you let me know why did you deleted my insert?

Thank you, Dr Gabriel Balmus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel balmus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]