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

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]

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]

and you are completely insane if you think there is one method to doing a bunny hop. but of course you probably havent been on a bike since before the first great war, so its understandable ciaoKas0809 (talk) 01:10, 30 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]

Sorry about that, it was not intended. It happened because your edit of 18.25 17 May 2008 had your name inserted into the text (I don't know why you did that) like this --Gabriel Balmus 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC). So I used a facility that experienced editors have been granted called Rollback. This not only rollsback that particular edit of yours but all the others by you that were not interrupted by another editors work. I had forgotten that, so off went the previous edit as well. Sorry again - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for th reply, Gabi --Gabriel Balmus 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great photo - hope you don't mind me making a few minor adjustments around it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! No problem with your changes except possibly with your use of a px size of 250. I wonder if you know that WP policy is not to use px sizes any more? The Edit Summary message I use when I edit out a px value is this:

Thumbnail sizes removed to comply with Wikipedia policy, as stated inWP:IUP - allows users to set their own image size via User Preferences

I have a 1600 pixel wide screen and prefer a size of 300 (which is the max that Wikipedia Prefs allows). So by putting 250 I can't have my usual 300. Maybe you had a special reason? Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't know - thanks. I'll edit it back then! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..Aha! I've now edited my preferences. You learn something new every day! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to help!! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the Image:Eva Air Aircraft.jpg from the Boeing 777 article as not being a particularly good quality and we are not short of 300ER images in the article. You restored the image without explanation. As I normal respect your opinions on images so I didnt want to delete it again without asking why you thought it should be in the article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know of my mistake. Looking back at the History I see that I did indeed restore the EVA picture but I have no idea how that happened (I only intended to modify the AA caption). So, sorry, and please remove the EVA picture. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I just wanted to check first. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arpingstone! Sorry for [[Image:Hunter.g-psst.arp.jpg]] I put into the Kemble Airport article. I did not know she moved to EGTE «several years ago»  — that's why I never saw her there ^[1]… But could you tell me:

1. When exactly did she move to Exeter, and whether Jonathon Whaley (“Miss Demeanour”) still have his hands on her?
2. Is his work going on or is it over?
3. May I set this[[Image:Hunter.g-psst.arp.jpg]] and the caption into the Exeter International Airport article?
4. Do you think I was overenthusiastic about this craft, or may I reinstate the caption I wrote, which was partly deleted?
   

Many thanks forward for answering.
Have a nice day! ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't answer for a few days (computer playing up). When I do I'll leave a message on your Talk page to let you know I've replied - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can’t find if PSST is still at Exeter but http://www.btinternet.com/~C.C.Evans/html/x-air_news.htm says:

“Exeter, 25th January 2005: new arrivals with the Hunter Flying Club are Vampire T.11 XE985 and an Omani Hunter T.66B serialed 801. Also resident for a while have been Hunter T.7 G-VETA and the well known Hunter F.58A G-PSST “Miss Demeanour”. The nose of Hunter T.8C XF358 has been sold to Canada where it will adorn a T.7. the rest of the aircraft is to be used as a spares source in the restoration of T.7 XL612”.

So it went there late 2004 or early 2005. I can'd find the name of the current owner.

On http://www.deltajets.com/aircraft.php?jet=past it says

“Undoubtedly most famous of the Hunters operated here at Kemble was Hunter F.58 G-PSST 'Miss Demeanour', owned by Jonathan Whaley. Built in 1956 it started life with 3 Squadron, RAF Germany, before moving on to 229 OCU and then retired to instructional use as a ground duties airframe with the FAA. In 1971 Hawkers purchased the airframe back and converted it to F.58A status and delivered to the Swiss Air Force in 1972, for target tug use. Retired for the second time in 1996, she was acquired by Jon and ferried to the UK in 1997. After restoration and repaint at Bournemouth, Jon operated her on the airshow circuit and based her here with Delta Jets at Kemble until he moved base in late 2004.”

You are free to put that pic onto Exeter Airport. If it’s not still at Exeter then someone will remove it so there will be no harm. I think your caption was “over the top” so I suggest my modified caption would be better. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the time you took to give me these informations. I'll try to get to Exeter one day and find out more. But I don't when…

I put Miss Demeanour with the corrected caption onto the EGTE page — we'll see then what happens. Cheers! ✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone. I appreciate your concern with the wikipedia guidelines for positioning images. However, there are no specific guidelines for how to place images when there is a right justified navigation panel, such as the one which bothers you on the angling page. These panels are well established on over 800 fishing articles. The panel itself is about 100px wide. Some users set their thumbs to 300px, which is why the left justified image is constrained to 200px. Generally this works well, regardless of what browser size is used. The rest of the article images, are usually thumbs in the style you approve.

I don't understand why you also right justified the image, which has the effect of tucking it out of immediate sight below the navigation panel. Perhaps you use a very wide browser, and the TOC was displaying alongside the image.

This drawback occurs when the lede doesn't have enough text to flow past the left displayed image before the TOC displays. What happens then is that the TOC is aligned against the image rather than left justified below the image. Specifically setting left justify for the TOCdoesn't work here. I intend to see if I can get the TOC coding adjusted so it will do this. Regards --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Grab 1
• 
  Grab 2

Thanks for your comments. I have uploaded 2 grabs off my Viewsonic 1680px by 1050px monitor, after my 200px removal. I had to do the grab in 2 sections. It looks OK to me or are you troubled by the whitespace between the TOC and the Infobox? Just a point - WP policy says that lead (am I spelling lead wrong?) pics should not go on the left which is why it's on the right. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there just isn't consistency here. Even on the BA site they seem to use both, and talk about "More than 2.5 million passengers have flown supersonically on British Airways' Concorde since she entered commercial service in 1976." where it's clear they mean all of them. I guess on balance the bias is towards allowing Concordes so we'll do it your way, but to be honest, the article would be more consistent my way, but nobody ever convincingly can argue that the world is totally consistent. I don't think that either is wrong though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, but I still disagree. Yes, in some circumstances (such as your example above) "Concorde" sounds OK, but I give below just a small number of examples from the article where using the singular would sound strange. So I don’t agree its “at choice” because sometimes missing off the S sounds wrong (IMHO).

The key partners, BAC (later to become BAE Systems) and Aerospatiale (later to become EADS), were the joint owners of Concorde's type certificate.......

Concorde's famous drooping nose was a compromise between.....

The two prototype Concordes had two fixed "glass holes" on their retractable visors.

Interestingly, the vortex lift created by Concorde's wing just prior to touchdown supplied its own mild turbulence.

From this perspective, Concorde's technical leap forward can be viewed as boosting.....

(no need to reply, unless you want to of course) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with the apostrophes there.

The only one I will argue is:

The two prototype Concorde had two fixed "glass holes" seems fine by me, but YMMV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adrian: I would like to send you a complimentary copy of my newly published meteorology textbook which uses one of your photos. You can send your address to <removed to thwart the spammers>. Gpetty (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtfulness in offering me the book. My address is being sent to you by email. Thanks again - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arpingstone, I wonder if you would be happy for me to use your image of the Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch sign, as modified by Copysan, as part of an audio-visual presentation I am preparing about Christianity in Wales. It is to be shown to groups of people in Llandudno and no entrance fee will be charged. I would be very grateful if you could let me know! Regards, Simon Brown 79.65.48.253 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are very welcome to use the picture in any way you wish. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit of flint tool because the new images are quite misleading for the size of objects depicted: any objections? Peterlewis (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you are going against documented Wikipedia policy (i.e px values are no longer used)? The top two thumbs on the article (that are set to 75 and 150px wide) look far too small on my 1600px wide screen, which is why Users can set their own size in Prefs (I have set 300px in my Prefs). So the answer to your question is: go ahead and leave it with px values if you wish and I’ll not revert you because I like a quiet life, but be aware that someone will, one day, remove them again.

More explanation: the default thumb size value is 180px IF there is no px value given in the pic code and IF the User has not gone into Prefs to set their own value. So while I realise that casual users will usually see rather small thumbs (180px), there is no other choice than to remove px values because, while 100px might produce a good sized thumb on a lores screen, it's annoyingly small on my hires screen. So you can see that if the editor choose px values that they personally like (as in this article) then those sizes could be very wrong for someone else. The solution that Wikipedia has decided on is no px values (and a value agreeable to that User (300px in my case) can be set in Prefs). For a portrait format picture an additional tag called "upright" can be added to reduce the too-large look to such a pic. - Best Wishes -Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Wikipedia "rules" set in concrete? It seems to me that we should know what proportion of users have lores or hires screens (how are they defined?). Should the eyesight of users be considered? There is also the consideration of actual object size if several different objects are found on the same webpage. And I have also just reverted a good faith edit which tells me that I cannot use an image on the left of a page becasue Wiki policy dictates that all starting images must go on the right. This is absurd from a design viewpoint and smacks of Stalinism. Peterlewis (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, your emotional response saddens me because I spent a long time composing my response to you and yet your reply suggests you understood nothing of my explanations. Yes, sorry, but this rule IS set in concrete. Px values ARE being removed all over Wikipedia and you cannot be a Canute and stem that tide. Yes, some policies are loose and can be ignored but this not one of them.

In reply to some specific comments:

It seems to me that we should know what proportion of users have lores or hires screens (how are they defined? has no meaning. How can we ever know what screen John Doe in Little Rock, Arkansas has!!!! There has to be a mechanism by which a User can set his preferred picture size or else we are forcing a picture size on him.

smacks of Stalinism is simply ridiculous. Stalin killed millions. I don’t think px reversion is quite in the same category, do you? All structures have organisation and this px business is just part of the Wikipedia structure and has been so for more than a year.

Should the eyesight of users be considered? Exactly my point. The User has the ability to set a preferred image size in Prefs. You have not considered my eyesight by forcing such a tiny image on me in the article.

Finally, your comment about lead image on the left or right has nothing whatever to do with this discussion. Best wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by your emotional comment about Stalinism, which I used in the sense of state bureaucracy stamping out individual freedom, and has nothing to do with genocide. Such rules as px reversion seem to me as absurd and an unnecessary imposition by "state" decree without consultation. When were contributors informed for example? Your reply mentioned no rational arguments in favour of this change, even when I asked or prompted queries about computer screens and the human interface. Peterlewis (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I made a mistake with my Stalin comment so I'm sorry about that.) Sorry, but it is too late for consultation on px removal because the Wikipedia decision to remove px values was made long ago and is no longer an item for discussion. You could attempt to revive the discussion but I have no idea how the decision was made nor where you would start the discussion. Sadly for you, I believe that the removal of px value, in favour of a User decision in Prefs, can no longer be changed.

Contributors are informed in WP:IUP under Rules of Thumb Part 9. and Displayed Image Size.

As for me not producing arguments about "computer screens and the human interface" how could you say that when I wrote at length, above, about screen resolution producing different size images for different users i.e. if px values are used, what is a tiny image on my 1600px screen could be overwhelming on an 800px screen on a laptop. There's no point in my going over these explanations over and over so this is my final entry on this topic - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you queried an image that was up for deletion earlier. To answer your question, there is nothing wrong with the image. It's on the Commons, and images on the Commons are usually redlinked because the file doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Sometimes people add categories to the redlinked images, which is unnecessary because the Commons has its own categorisation, and therefore the Wikipedia image is an "empty" image. See WP:CSD#I2 and WP:CSD#I8. Hope that helps! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm still not sure I understand. Is the Deletion message saying that the Wikipedia image will be deleted (which is no bother to me because the Commons image remains)? Presumably then I can ignore such messages in the future? Thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's right. The Commons and Wikipedia are two separate entities, but a Commons picture will appear in all Wikimedia projects because it's the central depository. The image page was created here, but it was blank because the file and all the details are on the Commons. So if you took the Commons image away (e.g. if it was deleted there) then the image page here would be blank. Hope this helps! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if my detective work is correct, then it was you who uploaded this image? Did you take it? The most important question I wanted to ask is is it real? It looks very close. Almost hitting the trees! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo! Yes, the picture is absolutely real and you are correct that I took it. The closeness to the trees is an illusion. On a map I've measured the distance from the fuselage of the aircraft to the trees. The horizontal distance comes out as 600 feet (180 metres). So, with a wingspan of say 200 feet, the wing tip is actually 500 feet, measured horizontally, beyond the trees.

The second part of the illusion is that I'm looking a little upwards, so the aircraft is not flying as low as the tops of the trees. So it couldn't have hit them even if it had, at that moment, been flying directly over them.

Thanks for asking the question. Sorry to be so long in answering but I’ve been on holiday. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Not to worry about the timescale, I noticed you were on a wiki-break. I knew it couldn't have been too close for obvious reasons, but I must admit I thought it was a photoshop. Couldn't believe how close it looked. Living in that house must be a nightmare at times! Nice picture! :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your revert. 78.151.146.252 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I completely misunderstood what changes you had done. Sorry again - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If static pixel sizes are no longer desired, they should be disabled by the developers. Easy to do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe you want to re-read the MOS as per [1]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Arpingstone, would you consider replacing some of the images in the article (which are all from you). My suggestion is that the aerial view of the Hunter become the infobox image and the others not used since they seem to be the same aircraft? They can still be located in the WikiCommons file. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely agreed, I can't think why I didn't have the idea of putting that blue flying pic in the lead. Many thanks for the WikiStar, much appreciated! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		Wikiwings
		Arpingstone, thanks for your countless efforts in WP:Aircraft and Wikipedia overall. The images you have contributed enhance the project! Hang this with pride. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC).)[reply]

I hate it when people like you go around and remove's people changes. You have to bear in mind that this airport is in an inner city and noise disturbance is an issue for any airport based in the middle of a city. And it copes to land in the middle of an airport is an issue. I also have have other docs, which I need to create and how aircraft are categorised by noise etc.... If I am in the middle of an edit, I have to leave things tidy! Please Undo my changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.199.150 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is London City Airport so an external link dealing solely with aircraft noise that does not mention the article title does not go there. It would be a brilliant link for Aircraft noise but not on a specific airport article. Of course, if the data mentioned London City or was for London City then the link would be very relevant. So, sorry, I will not revert myself.

You are welcome to see what other people think by asking on the Discussion Page for the article. By the way, "people like you" is uncalled for, I have been editing for 6 years and have around 16,000 edits with an extremely low complaint rate so I really do know what I'm doing. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for constructive editing of my changes to the Open water swimming page. Ross-c (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is much appreciated, Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cape.teal.arp.500pix.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Cape teal Gloucestershire.jpg, Image:Black-headed.gull.arp.750pix.jpg as Commons:Image:Larus ridibundus.jpg, Image:Bill.herring.gull.arp.750pix.jpg as Commons:Image:Herring Gull head.jpg and Image:Penguin.jackass.arp.500pix.jpg as Commons:Image:Spheniscus demersus -6.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Cape teal Gloucestershire.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian: Thanks for taking out the picture Image:Wing planform and winglets.svg. I really had some problems with it and noted them on the talk page. I was planning to leave it a day or two and see if the author fixed it and if not then remove it - but you saved me the trouble! - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone, I've got no cookies, barnstars and so on, a very small and simple thank you for improving the Hamburg article. I also found it sounded odd, but my English is not encyclopedian style to correct it and I'm not so bold to change it like this. Greetings Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian, thank you for your lovely message. I am bold with my edits because I've been contributing edits and pictures to WP since March 2002 (2000 pictures and 19000 edits) so have a lot of knowledge of what is OK writing and what is not.. I've only been to Hamburg once (to Deutsche Airbus' assembly plant) when I worked for British Aerospace. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the picture edit. My original was taken from a less than optimum footing, trying as I was to conceal the two drunken yobs behind the memorial (yes really). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thanks for your thanks! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please can you not just delete my edits on the Frampton Cotterell page, i don't find what I put ridiculous and I spent a lot of time and effort writing it. Also none of what I put was 'guesswork' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.2.167 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon,

Reverting every one of my edits to Frampton Cotterell is vandalism, for which you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Let me show you how unexperienced in editing you are. I’ll quote a few things you wrote (not even all of them), then my edit, then I’ll explain your mistake.

• You: In recent years, as with many English villages its self-sufficiancy has declined dramatically and the village has essentially become a dormitory. Me: The village serves as a dormitory village for Bristol. Mistake: misspelling of self-sufficiency, and its self-sufficiancy has declined dramatically has little meaning. Is this self sufficiency in food or jobs or what? I think most readers will have little idea what you mean.
• You: It’s parish also borders. Me: Its parish also borders. Mistake: “It’s” means It is!
• You: 1940's. Me: 1940s. Mistake: 1940’s is possessive case, but nothing here is being possessed.
• You: and presumably it was the first English settlement to be built along the river, this is deduced from the placename, if there were any other settlements on the river then the name would have been meaningless. Me: removed. Mistake: You are guessing but WP does not allow guessing.
• You: and a Coal Pit, presumably at Coalpit Heath (although this name did not appear until around 1680). Me: removed. Mistake: guessing
• You: There manor house was not at modern day Frampton Court. Me: “There” should be “their”. Mistake: spelling.
• You: Village's. Me: village's. Mistake: “villages” does not take a capital.
• You: and at somepoint in the future will probably join with North Bristol. Me: removed. Mistake: guessing.
• You: throughfare. Me: thoroughfare. Mistake: you used the wrong word.,
• You: This conurbation of estates bordering Coalpit Heath has led to the village gaining a reputation as an unlikely drug's den, with Cannabis and notably, Cocaine being sold. Me: removed. Mistake: totally unacceptable statement without documented proof.
• You: 7 miles north east of Bristol City centre, and 2 miles outside the city's ring road. Me: seven miles……. Mistake: numbers of ten or below have to be written in full.
• px values are not used in Image Code any more so I removed the 350px.
• Finally telling us about a six hour power cut in the village IS ridiculous (in an encyclopedia). Of the hundreds of village article I've read in WP, no other has such nonsense!!

I strongly resent wasting about an hour of my Saturday evening writing to you. Please do not revert my reversion or you will be blocked. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled over recent edits

Hi Adrian, In the light of the discussion above, I've aimed for a sort of middle ground, providing some references and trying to report on allegations rather than make them. I see you've removed them, which is fine, but I'd like to understand why, also the historical naming information I put in included references from a reputable source, so I was surprised to see it dismissed as "guesswork. Best Wishes, Chris ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, huge apologies, and I have reverted myself back to your version. I had no intention whatever of changing your excellent work. What happened was that I accidentally did today's editing on a version of the article that was weeks old and didn't notice my error. Thank you for your politeness above (I think I would not have been so polite!!) and once again, I'm sorry. In view of my unhappy history of editing on this article, I'm going to take it off my watchlist and leave it to others such as yourself for future edits. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, thanks for that. I know you've been trying to look after this article and that hasn't always been easy - thanks for all you've done, and don't feel the need to take it off your list on my account. I have to admit to being glad the "muckup" wasn't mine though. Best wishes. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the anonymous user who edited the Frampton Cotterell page, please don't call me a vandal, just because i'm not as experienced in using wikipedia as you I greatly, GREATLY resent it, I put a lot of time and effort into that page, I'm sorry you used up your afternoon writing to me, you didn't have to be so aggressive.

You: In recent years, as with many English villages its self-sufficiancy has declined dramatically and the village has essentially become a dormitory. Me: The village serves as a dormitory village for Bristol. Mistake: misspelling of self-sufficiency, and its self-sufficiancy has declined dramatically has little meaning. Is this self sufficiency in food or jobs or what? I think most readers will have little idea what you mean. Sorry, I did spell it wrong, I thought I might have. Yes self sufficiency in food and jobs is exactly what I mean, if you need proof then please refer to the Frampton Cotterell Parish website or the book that I referenced, there were between 40 - 50 businesses in Frampton Cotterell around 1900.

You: It’s parish also borders. Me: Its parish also borders. Mistake: “It’s” means It is! Right, sorry wikipedia means so much to you, glad you corrected it

You: 1940's. Me: 1940s. Mistake: 1940’s is possessive case, but nothing here is being possessed. okay

You: and presumably it was the first English settlement to be built along the river, this is deduced from the placename, if there were any other settlements on the river then the name would have been meaningless. Me: removed. Mistake: You are guessing but WP does not allow guessing. Right, I quoted this from a book. 'Frampton Cotterell and Coalpit Heath' from the Frampton Cotterell Local history society, it's a respected book. If you read the rest of what i put you will see that little archeological work has been done in the area so place names are used, it is hardly guess work, place names are used by historians many times. I have reverted this so I believe it is right

You: and a Coal Pit, presumably at Coalpit Heath (although this name did not appear until around 1680). Me: removed. Mistake: guessing No, it isn't, it was first used in 1680, like actually was.

You: There manor house was not at modern day Frampton Court. Me: “There” should be “their”. Mistake: spelling. okay

You: Village's. Me: village's. Mistake: “villages” does not take a capital. okay

You: and at somepoint in the future will probably join with North Bristol. Me: removed. Mistake: guessing. Fine, it probably will, its an estimate based on the current demographic situation, but if it botheres you that much, fine.

You: throughfare. Me: thoroughfare. Mistake: you used the wrong word., I didn't right that

You: This conurbation of estates bordering Coalpit Heath has led to the village gaining a reputation as an unlikely drug's den, with Cannabis and notably, Cocaine being sold. Me: removed. Mistake: totally unacceptable statement without documented proof. Ha!, I know 14 dealers within a 7 street area in Park Farm, how dare you tell me it isnt a drug den! I'm 17. BUT I will accept this will offend people from that area and I was going to delete it.

You: 7 miles north east of Bristol City centre, and 2 miles outside the city's ring road. Me: seven miles……. Mistake: numbers of ten or below have to be written in full. Right px values are not used in Image Code any more so I removed the 350px. Finally telling us about a six hour power cut in the village IS ridiculous (in an encyclopedia). Of the hundreds of village article I've read in WP, no other has such nonsense!!

Right, sorry you find what i put nonsense, i find it really offensive actually, if your going to get upset by this and post something else then fine. DO NOT call me a vandal, I am FED UP OF HAVING MY ARTICLES BECOMING VICTIMS OF WIKIPEDIA 'RED TAPE' I will make edits and if you want to block me that's fine, I wont be able to post anymore, but believe me there are users on here who actually want to vandalise, so you might be better using your time blocking them and not attacking my edits with such passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjackson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise why I wrote to you at all? Because you reverted EVERY SINGLE ONE of my edits, many of which you now accept were correct!! So don't come over all indignant when it was your mass reversion that caused me to write to you in the first place! Most people write to me to thank me for my edits, accepting that they may not be as experienced as I am (I have 19,000 edits in 6 years). I'll reply to three of your comments (your comment is in bold):

1. Ha!, I know 14 dealers within a 7 street area in Park Farm, how dare you tell me it isnt a drug den! That's a silly remark because I told you above that such comments are not acceptable to WP without a reliable printed source. It is not OK that you know it to be true, it has to be documented. This is a serious encyclopedia and such statements have to be proven in print. You can't just "know it's true".

2. You: and at somepoint in the future will probably join with North Bristol. Me: removed. Mistake: guessing.

Fine, it probably will, its an estimate based on the current demographic situation, but if it botheres you that much, fine.

It doesn't bother me in any way! I just want the best possible encyclopedia so once again you have to support that with a reference to where you read it (you can't just say it's obvious to you because "you" are not a good enough reference).

3. You: and presumably it was the first English settlement to be built along the river, this is deduced from the placename, if there were any other settlements on the river then the name would have been meaningless. Me: removed. Mistake: You are guessing but WP does not allow guessing.

Right, I quoted this from a book. 'Frampton Cotterell and Coalpit Heath' from the Frampton Cotterell Local history society, it's a respected book. If you read the rest of what i put you will see that little archeological work has been done in the area so place names are used, it is hardly guess work, place names are used by historians many times. I have reverted this so I believe it is right.

Once again, you MUST reference that book or else the reader (as I did) will assume it's your personal opinion.

I think I'll leave the subject now and not write to you again, because I've said all there is to say. Cheers - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Pingstone... I stumbled on your page rather by accident (actually a follow up on some comments I made on Beetle Cat, which I did encounter by accident). I thought you'd be amused by a word I concocted recently for Certain Kinds of Wikipedia Editors, they who wander about causing mischief, misspelling words, removing references, adding unsourced and unreferenced weirdness -- kobolds. When confronted, they turn nasty, even vicious and threatening, and then they need to be kicked back into the woodwork. I will not, in the name of civility, name any individuals as kobolds, but you surely have run into them. Please do keep up the good work, and kick them kobolds outta here. <grin> Timothy Perper (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for such a lovely entry to my Talk page. I wonder who you are talking about? Could it be just above?!! Your comments made me happy. Thanks again - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness! Imagine that -- just above! What an amazing coincidence! Timothy Perper (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but see Tolly Cobbold and The Cobbold Family Histroy Trust: "COBBOLD from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, originally Snow White and the Seven Kobolds, being small people, perhaps miners from the Black Forest in Bavaria. The name Kobold is common in Germany, particularly an umbrella manufacturer." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful... apparently, the name arose when German miners tried to extract copper from ore that they thought would yield copper but it never worked. So, they said, the kobolds had gotten into it. Later (much later) a German chemist named Brandt isolated a new metal from this kobold-infested ore and named it "cobalt." I was about to stop there, but I wanted to check how to spell Brandt's name so I checked the Wiki entry for cobalt and found the same story -- without, however, a reference. Well, at least *I* have a reference -- it was in that yellow book my mother gave me about German folklore that I had when I was a child. It had a picture of irritable little kobolds, too. So we are on firm Wiki territory in not citing anything to back up what we say. A propos of which, look at my comment below about miraculous birth and then check the Eastoft talk page for another wonderful example of the strange beings who dwell, well, they dwell somewhere, even if I'm not sure where. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I may ask that if you are ever in Topsham, Devon, that you take a picture or two there. There are monuments by Chantrey [1781-1841] to Admiral John Thomas Duckworth, Bart., who died August 31st 1817, and to his son, Colonel George Henry Duckworth, who was killed at the Battle of Albuera [Spain], May 16th 1811. This appears to be the only monument to Admiral Duckworth that I could find with the resources of the internet, but if you can discover another, I'd like a photo of that also :) Somewhere in England is also a bust of Duckworth that used to stand in the family home, now the Exeter gold club--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the infobox given at Eric Williams (American football)‎ you will discover that it says he was born at the age of 46 back in 1962. You strike me as the kind of person who will find this miracle amusing -- I flagged it as {{dubious}}. See? There really are kobolds. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I enjoyed that! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! In the meantime, someone removed the "dubious" tag -- which is OK with me. But now we know that the kobolds have laid eggs in the infobox template! Timothy Perper (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really are a sarcastic bugger, Arpy! Amandajm (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended, I assure you Amanda. I assume you are commenting on the edit summary to my Rose window edits, which was “The constant use of "famous" is wearing to the reader”. I find that “famous” is much over used on Wikipedia and the meaning of a sentence including it is rarely changed when it’s removed. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on emerald tree monitor, I've been trying to improve all of the Varanus articles the past 2 weeks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arpingstone: I was absolutely gobsmacked to see that you have taken a photo of what was very probably our family car in the period 1949 to 1956. I wonder if you know the owner? My father bought the car off a certain Dr Fawcett who practiced in Toddington. My sister and I have the fondest memories of our stately progress in its leather-lined luxury to various destinations in the UK and Belgium. Of course I can't be absolutely certain, but I think that the number plate is right. Anyway thanks for the lovely picture and for posting the picture. Regards Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you. I photographed hundreds of cars that day and identified them from the list of entrants that was issued, However I don't keep such sheets so it would have been thrown away once I had identified them all. Sorry!! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you reverted my edit for the stall speed of the Extra EA-300 right after I made it. The stall speed of 55 knots corresponds to about 102 kilometres per hour and not 112. 99.226.77.200 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example of what can happen if an Anon does not provide an Edit Summary to explain the reason for a change. Your edit was immediately suspect with no Edit Summary so I assumed it was vandalism and reverted you. The edit summary could have been something like this - The stall speed of 55 knots corresponds to about 102 kilometres per hour and not 112. It would be good if you get a username (like I have) then your edits will not be immediately suspect. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[:Image:private.b737-800.oe-ilx.arp.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Private Boeing 737-800 lands at London Luton Airport, England]]

Adrian, am I missing something? You added this pic to the Cessna CitationJet page, along with several CitationJet photos. I am assuming it was just an error, as we all make them from time to time, but I wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something here. Cheers! - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill! Well, that's a weird mistake! Although I'm 68 I'm not senile yet so that's not the explanation. I've been adding pics all evening to the Business Jet article and Cessna Citation articles but how the 737 pic got transferred to the Cessna Citation article I have no idea. It's certainly my oddest mistake (although I don't make many). Thanks for letting me know. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You probably tried to cut-an-paste a Cessna, and it didn't take, and when you pasted, it put in the previous copy, which was a 737. Strange none-the-less! And thanks for adding the new Cessna Citation pics. I spent quite a bit of time redoing the whole familiy of Citation articles, so the new additions are definitley appreciated! (ANd that is a nice pic of the 737, wherever it is placed!) - BillCJ (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone. You recently made this revert on the wedding article. Could I ask what you iobjected to - for the most part the edit seemed to improve the English used (it looks like the original writer was not a native speaker). Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the issue myself either. The anon IP's changes look (for once!) like good copyediting. If only all IP accounts were so helpful 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct, the edits were good and I did not intend to revert them, so apologies. What happened is that I reverted a later edit by the Anon, not knowing that Rollback also reverts any earlier consecutive edit (the edit you are talking about) by that person. Sorry, I'll watch out for that in the future - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! I've done that myself with Rollback. Fortunately not on an article - but that was more luck than judgment on my part :). I have undone your roll back - I'm not sure which bit you actually mean to remove so have will leave that to you to edit. -- SiobhanHansa 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone. I really appreciate your help with these IPs. I am really indebted. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Pleased to help - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone. It seems to me that some very valuable changes are being made and that Dr.K keeps undoing them. The issue is very clear: there have been several negative articles on the dismal state of Olympic Airways of Greece. It is fair that some of them are mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

I understand your point well, but WP does not normally allow criticism since it is an encyclopedia and not a Reviews site. I will take no further part on this topic. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I can agree with his totally. Of course, everyday criticism would be out of place. But these days problems with flights and bad behaviour towards customers seems to be part of Olympic's identity. As it stands, the Olympic Airways article looks as it if is written mostly by their management. Negative reports are excluded, while articles that try to blame the Greek Government or the EU for Olympic's problems are cited. It is honest to give a more balanced picture.

I note your comments on Buckingham Palace, and will point out the following:

• It's a featured article. Part of what makes it featured is the layout and design of the page. That depends on the images consistently being in the right place when juxtaposed against the text.
• Preferences only work for logged-in editors. The sizing that Giano is doing will ensure proper placement in the article regardless of whether logged in or logged out, or what preferences the editor may have.
• Different sized images make for a more interesting article. As it stands now, image sizes are becoming more and more uniform, regardless of their content, which does nothing for the article or the reader.

Images are supposed to help inform the article. Let's use them to their greatest advantage rather than futzing on some standard that almost nobody who actually writes articles (or reads them) ever asked for. Risker (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since px sizing is now being removed all over Wikipedia, I think you can expect to meet the problem of px removal again and again by other editors who are following well-established and written-up policy. I don't say this unkindly but you can't select to follow policies you like and ignore policies you don't. It simply doesn't matter what you think, a policy has been set and I am quite correctly following it. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly that the policy should be ignored then please revert me and I'll leave the article alone. By the way the word "futzing" is new to me (I live in England). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you spelled my username correctly in your edit summary so that I know you are replying to me. It would also be helpful if you would become fully familiar with the relevant policy section before trying to enforce it; it's very clear that image size forcing is acceptable under the policy. As to "futzing", I picked it up from some UK friends, but perhaps it is a regional expression; it means "fiddling about" more or less. Risker (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry I mistyped your name, but I pressed Save Page before I noticed the error.

Yes, I've read the statement about resizing many times and I think the relevant statement there is Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style). The statement about image forcing is, I believe, for special cases like panoramas or centralised images (which can obviously be big) and is not a carte blanche to adjust image sizes all through an article. I notice that px sizes are being removed all over WP which suggests that others feel as I do. I have said all I want to say on this topic so signing out - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ilfracombe.longview.arp.750pix.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Ilfracombe.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Ilfracombe.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giraffe.zoo.500pix.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, Thanks for adding the RV-6 panel photo to the article. The other RV-6 panel photo (Image:VansRV-6C-GLRVinstrumentPanel.jpg) is one I took, so I can vouch for it being of an RV-6. In fact the external photo right above it (Image:VansRV-6AC-GLRV01.jpg) is the same aircraft (check the file names). Each RV panel is made up by the builder so each will be quite different, just part of the fun of home-builts. No problem having two panel photos there, it shows the variety of work done. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I really didn't believe they could both be Van's aircraft! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - just part of the fun. Making your own instrument panel can be the hardest part of building a kit aircraft! Getting the holes in the right places and making everything fit is a challenge. Cutting all the holes with a fly-cutter can be something else! I greatly enjoy your photos on Wikipedia, they are everywhere and add a lot to the articles! - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(next morning) I've just realised I need to apologise for putting a doubting comment in the Edit Summary where I can't erase it. So I'll do a minor edit to the RV-6 article and put things straight in that Edit Summary. Sorry! See the change here [2] - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)I[reply]

Hi Adrian: No need at all to apologize. I think all content in Wikipedia should be challenged on a regular basis! That is the only way to improve it and make it more accurate over time. When you left that note I went and checked to make sure that I had actually uploaded an RV-6 instrument panel photo and not something esle by mistake. In this case I had, but these things should always be checked for accuracy. So thank you for challenging this, it was worth double checking. No apology required. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, an article for the Concorde's engine, the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 has been split off from the Rolls-Royce Olympus page. I note you were the one who took the pic we now have in the infobox, and so I thought I'd check to see if you had any other pics of the Concorde's engine that we could use, now that we aren't sharing space with the other Olympus variants. Thanks, and as usual, take your time checking! - BillCJ (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. No, I couldn't take any more pics on that occasion and I‘ve never been close to a 593 with a camera since. I remember feeling uneasy at the Bristol Industrial Museum because my camera flashes were annoying other visitors. I was not sure if pictures were even allowed, so I just took a quick shot of each engine and didn't take other angles.

However your request has prompted me to reupload the picture of the Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 (the lady in it is my wife), with some rubbish removed from the left hand side. Also I've added a second pic to the Rolls-Royce Olympus article and I’d like you to comment. The two pics on that article (mine and someone elses) seem to have little resemblance. Perhaps we are looking at different sides or perhaps the Marks were different. Unfortunately the Bristol Museum didn’t give the Mark of my photo. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently stumbled upon your name in a local magazine. If you are still here, i would love to meet you. --190.98.12.251 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Horacio Stjeward. Paramaribo Suriname.[reply]

Strange! Please explain more. I live in Bristol, England, and the furthest I've ever travelled is into Europe for holidays and on business, and on a Concorde test flight to Casablanca Airport in Morocco. Regards, - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, Do you have a photo to illustrate the article on Leigh Court? I've been expanding the article & think a picture to illustrate the architecture would help. I've looked on Geograph & can't find one.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Rod, I don't have a pic but will bear it in mind if I'm out that way (I live north of Bristol). Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, you made a critical mistake naming the a/c in the photo as a Northrop F-5 when it is in fact a T-38 Talon. I thought you should know about this, hence this notice by me. Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the OFFICIAL website of the Turkish Stars says they fly F-5s? see Official website - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, this appears to be an F-5B/F to me. I've not seen many pics of T-38s with tip tanks, and there appears to be small LERX in front of the wing just visible over the nose of the left tank. These strakes are not used on T-38s, to my knowledge. I'm curious as to Dave's rationale for concluding this is a T-38! - BillCJ (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the image back into F-5 article and left a note on the image talk page the aircraft is a Canadair built NF-5B serial no 4017 (ex Netherlands Air Force K-4017), and an NF-5B is not a T-38. Also added it the Canadair CF-5 for good measure as well! MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milborne and Bill,, thanks for your confirmations that I made no mistake, Regards - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the late reply, stuck with SQ's 380 these few days (trust me, you don't want to know). Thousand apologies to all, I was making so many edits on so many articles that day itself and I don't think I took more than a glance at that photo before deciding that it was a T-38 instead of a NF-5B. Most importantly of all, did anyone notice the auxiliary air inlet located about 1/3 from the aft, that was the clue I missed out that tells me it is actually a F-5 and not a T-38. My bad, I apologize to all for making such a big blunder and its about time I get myself some old-man's glasses... sheesh! Have a great weekend and Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very handsome apology. Don't worry about the mistake, I make mistakes too! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Chillon.castle.arp.750pix.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be deleted and have said so in the "discussion" link above - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Inverse_fourier_transforms. Thanks a lot for your support! Bo Jacoby (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I couldn't let such rudeness go unremarked! Thanks for writing - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arpingstone. I notice that you have contributed considerably to the guidelines on images, and also that you keep an eye on vandalism on the Fishing article. As you will have noticed, the fisheries and fishing articles are templated with narrow gutted navigation panels at the top right. These are currently being attacked by beginning editors because they are not standard layouts. They are either attacking the layout (removing images) or attacking the templates themselves. In particular User talk:Wikigi. Can you offer me some advice on how to handle this. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning editor in question has been contributing to WP since November 2006 with a total of over 9000 edits on French Wikipedia, just for you to know... I have alerted Geronimo20 regarding his use of images as headings located at the upper left corner of the articles (before the introduction) with 2 screenshots demonstrating the layout problem (see image 1 and image 2). Regards. - Wikigi | talk to me | 11:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "layout problems" claimed by Wikigi are easily fixed with {{clear}} or {{clearleft}} commands. However Wikigi ignores these fixes so he can continue to claim there is a problem. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two must clear this up between you so I've decided not to get involved. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feed up with having to defend, without sane support, these templates from ill considered, and what sometimes feel like malicious attacks. Is there some forum where I can get these issues properly considered by capable editors without axes to grind? --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo, my expertise is in photography and graphics processing. Sadly, I have no knowledge of templates nor of where you should go for further help. I'm sorry I can't help you further. However, thanks for writing. Regards, - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edited a photo I uploaded for the Falconry page. Your comment says that text is not allowed on photos. Can you please refer me to the rules regarding photos. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcdill (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! You are referring to the Saker pic at the head of the Falconry article. Everything about images is explained in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IUP

Below I've copied the relevant bits from the link to save you reading it all. The link says that the photographer's name or date or copyright information is is not allowed on the photo itself, only on the page that you receive when you click on the photo.

Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves.

Also, user-created images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page.
Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note these Public domain images were uploaded some time ago. However, for whatever reason it is not possible to confirm these as Public Domain because the source site 'blanks' out in Firefox.

If these are genuinely public domain in the US and source country, please get the gallery concerned to i) File a release with the permissions queue at OTRS
ii) Fix the source website listed so that it is possible to confirm the status of the source work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I moved on from adding pics of uncertain status years ago and now only add pics taken with my own camera (that I declare as Public Domain). Regrettably I don't have the time to look into the status of those Painting pictures. Just delete them, or comment them out, as you wish. Sorry I can't be more helpful - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I am the editor of Young Archaeologist magazine. In the next issue I will be including a two page article about aviation archaeology and I am currently trying to source images. I was wondering if you would be happy for me to use an image of a Lockheed P38 Lightning. I would need a high resolution jpeg file - the higher the better for our designer's purposes. You would be properly referenced and I will gladly send you a copy of the magazine for your records.
I'm afraid I am on a bit of a tight schedule and so if you could get back to me asap then that would be great. Please contact me directly on amclean (atsymbol) britarch (dot thingy) ac (dotthingy) uk,
Many thanks,
Abi
213.2.190.34 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have no picture of a P-38 Lightning anywhere on Wikipedia and indeed have never photographed one, so can't help you. Incidentally, it is unwise to give an undisguised email address (spam harvesters will love you) so I have disguised it. I have sent an email with a fuller reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the picture on the static discharger page.It's better than what was there before. I actually own one,somewhere,if I can find it would you mind me adding a picture of it? p.s. the Jet Provost pictured on your page was actually my first paintstripping job.It took a lot of hard work to scrub the etch off of it.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Yes, a pic of a full discharger would be great, I didn't think to bring one way with me when I retired from British Aerospace! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adrian,
I'm an editor at Pearson Education and need a hi res version of your photo of the Supreme Court in Parliament Square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom). You would be fully credited in our publication. I can supply any further details you need via email. If you are able to email the hi res to me it would be much appreciated: philippa (dotsymbol) fiszzon (atsymbol) pearson (dotsymbol) com. Many thanks in advance,

Philippa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.214.5 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to use that picture. When I looked at it (on the Middlesex Guildhall article) I noticed the quality was low because of oversharpening and the parallels converged. So I have uploaded a new version with both those faults corrected. The pic is 2288 pixels by 1712 pixels and 3.5 mB. I do not possess a larger or better quality version.

There is no need to email it to you because to acquire it you can:

• left click once on the thumbnail in the article
• A larger one will appear, left click it once
• A yet larger one will appear, RIGHT click it once
• Choose SAVE PICTURE from the menu that appears and you've got it.

(Incidentally, it is unwise to give an undisguised email address (spam harvesters will love you) so I have disguised it).

Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thank you for posting the gravestone poem in the public domain - very helpful to me at a time of loss. My dad was a WWII Lancaster pilot - he would have loved your work. LilyLilyRose (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I helped you a little. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Adrian,
I am a PhD student at the University of Southampton working on a project on high lift device noise. We are currently writing a review article on high lift noise for undergraduate students in which we would like to use your picture of an Airbus A300 titled "Wing.slat.600pix.jpg" which better illustrates the mainsources of high lift noise e.g. slat, slat tracks and flap side-edge. I am writing to ask your permission to use this image in the article. We would be grateful if you could provide us with a higher resolution copy of the image for publication. Many thanks in advance for your help. Kkanjere (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to use the picture, from the Slats article. Unfortunately I don't have it at a higher resolution (600 by 809 pixels), nor in colour. To capture it off the article:

• LEFT click on the thumbnail in the article
• RIGHT click the picture that appears
• Choose SAVE PICTURE from the menu that appears and you've got it.

For your interest I took the picture at Airbus in Toulouse while I was an aerodynamicist for British Aerospace (I‘m now retired). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask why you reverted my edition of the Zu Online article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.152.81 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sentence "The appearance of the pet may be changed by feeding inner bolus and feet decorations" made no sense to me whatever so I assumed it was vandalism. So what is an "inner bolus" and what are "feet decorations"? If in fact that sentence makes sense then my apologies and please revert me. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Its a Chinese game, has a lot of typos and bad English like me :P, anyways inner bolus are like suits to change between a cat for a dog for example, feet decorations are like shoes for the pets, they both add stats (more HP, and attack for example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.152.81 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted my additions to the fleet table whick says which routes are oprated be each aircraft? There are many others company articals that is like that on them, like singapore airlines.

Sorry if I did wrong, just revert me - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adrian,

It's me again. I saw a picture on airliners.net that I liked of the new Libyan Airlines livery, so I emailed the photographer asking whether I could upload it on Wikipedia and he agreed. This is the image. What should I do? The first thing I've already done is saved the image on my desktop, and removed the copyright tag at the bottom, because he agreed to release the rights into the public domain. I did the same before with this image File:TsinjHLLT020106.jpg. But, how can I prove the author wants to release the image. Do I copy the email he sent me into the information box?Jaw101ie (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best wishes.