User talk:PPGMD

The case page has been moved to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-05 Bowling for Columbine, but no mediator has been selected yet. Please feel free to use the case page to discuss possible solutions with eachother. Good luck to all the involved parties. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get gliding up to featured article standard. One of my reviewers has pointed out that the copyright on Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg is not up to current standard. (Personally I find the whole business of copyright tags really tedious.) It seems that you loaded it when Wikipedia wasn't as fussy. Is it possible to reload this image with one of the approved tags? Since the owner wanted the copyright preserved, may I suggest {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} or, if you took it, {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}. I guess you have been around long enough to know that basically this means saying that anyone can use it for any purpose anywhare provided the copyright are credited. Since the photo is already on the internet, where most users are less worried, this will probably make little difference. If this is a problem, I can get another image, but using this one might be quicker. Would you let me know if you can get permission ASAP because gliding has been a featured article candidate for a while. Thanks JMcC 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new tag for your image. Yes, there are 3000 Blaniks and 750 K21's. Although the K21 is sexier, I suppose the venerable Blanik illustrates this section better. If you would like to add your support to gliding becoming a featured article, you can put your comments on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Gliding. Thanks again. JMcC 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

> Bowditch's book and Maury's book <

Sir, you stated and I replied --

Revision as of 14:08, October 11, 2006 (edit) PPGMD (Talk | contribs) (Rv - Maury is not notable on a page about Bowditch)

← Older edit Current revision (07:58, October 12, 2006) (edit)

MAURY (Talk | contribs) (True but his WORK is and especially since Bowditch himself agreed.)

• I see your point but I am not focused upon Matthew Maury in that area. I am looking to Bowditch and his book just as Matthew Maury did when he wrote his book that ended up as a standard textbook for midshipmen in the US Navy. I included the sources that Matthew Maury studied and included the statement that Bowditch himself made. Since the USN had considered Bowditch's book to be "as Holy Writ" (source: Williams, Frances Leigh 1969 Scientist of the Sea) to have the work replaced is an important concern that shouls, in some manner, be inculcated to that area of work regarding "Navigation" and the other topics the two books included. If Commander M F Maury's own book that replaced Bowditch's book cannot be inculcated in that area then where should it be since that area is about the Navy's use of books on navigation? The navigation area alone does not look appropriate. So, again, how do we inculcate what, in history, that is factual, to that area and or subject. I await your response.

• Kindest regards to you,

• --MAURY 08:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

What's wrong with an american defeat category?? --Sugarcaddy 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think Kopel's website is an acceptable source for his views, since there is no evidence that it is not authentic. Otherwise I endorse what you said to me completely. Mangoe 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping sort out the "dispute" on Glider. I added the 'disputed' tag rather than having the (one) user who objects adding prose indicating a dispute. FWIW, I agree with you and the FAA! --Ghewgill 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw your nomination. There are many articles that would fall under this category such as Pearl Harbor, Alamo, etc. None of these battles has any POV issues as it is obvious who lost --Sugarcaddy 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work reverting the vandalism on that page. I just wanted you to know that it's appreciated. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help in Talk:Glider but I don't think Proberts is capable of admitting his pre-conceptions are wrong. I have decided that replying to him only encourages him. He now has convinced himself that there are six forces on a glider and would doubtless tie himself into further knots if he had to explain how it moved at all. If you look back at his postings, he has contradicted himself but it is not possible to point this out to him. Good luck if you decide to continue. JMcC 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, are you aware that a large proportion of current DSLRs (although clearly designed with a 35mm-film-SLR-style form factor) aren't full-frame 35mm? Many of them use APS or similar-sized sensors. (I don't know if you had them in mind, or you genuinely meant 35mm-frame-sized (24 x 36) digital sensors). Fourohfour 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want the assessor to give reasoning and suggestions as stated in the template itself. Do you not want that too? Paul Beardsell 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Schrodinger82 is banned from Bowling for Columbine and related pages and talk pages for one year. This may be repealed if the Arbitration Committee feels that his editing of other topics demonstrates significantly improved understanding of Wikipedia's core principles. Violations of the article ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:XP PAaD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. — — Jigs41793 ^Talk 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the CopyrightedFreeUse template. It has been deprecated since February of last year. To release all rights, use {{PD-release}} or {{PD-self}} instead. Thanks. Kaldari 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your concerns at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_4#Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. If you do not want your image released to the public domain, please describe what what type of licensing you would like this image released under. Relenquishing all rights to an image is the same as releasing it to the "public domain". If you would like to use a more restrictive license, please state that on the image description page. Using {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is not an option as that template has been officially deprecated since February (that's why it says "This template should not be used for new images.") If you want to use a template that is extremely similar, but approved for use on new images, try {{NoRightsReserved}}. Sorry for the confusion, we are trying to clean up all the licensing templates so that confusion will be minimized in the future. Kaldari 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image desciption page of Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg indicated that it was for noncommercial use only. That's a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Jkelly 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revising the licensing on your images. And sorry again about the trouble and confusion. Hopefully at some point in the future the image licensing on Wikipedia won't be such a mess. Kaldari 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the Blanik has vanished. From what I can deduce, with very short notice. To zap an image for a minor thing is very odd. I have replaced the Blanik with a K13 until you can reinstate it. JMcC 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image per your release, and removed the noncommercial statement on the image description page. If you have such a statement on any other images you have uploaded, please remove it. Jkelly 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Outlook 2003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added the sentence "Manfrotto also owns Bogen Imaging..." to the Manfrotto Group article. I read the company profile pages on both Manfrotto's site and Bogen's site and neither says that Bogen is owned by Manfrotto. My understanding is that Bogen is the exclusive distributor of Manfrotto's products in the US, but I see no evidence of any other relationship. Do your have a reference that shows that Manfrotto is the parent of Bogen? Thanks. --rogerd 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page: [1]PPGMD 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added that as a reference to the Manfrotto Group article --rogerd 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PPGMD. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bowling for columbine.jpg) was found at the following location: User:PPGMD/BFC Sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to delete the List of notable glider pilots. Please register your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable glider pilots. I think it is an interesting list and useful when publicising the sport. JMcC 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vol2-10.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beech_1900D_Simulator.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 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fsshot0037.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TabletPC 2004.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. Alexfusco⁵ 00:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TabletPC 2004.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sakebottle 08-11-2006.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Sakebottle 08-11-2006.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: [[File:Sakebottle 08-11-2006.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]