Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:39, 16 December 2005

Boeing 777

Thanks for nominating this pic of a Boeing 777 being towed across a public road at London Heathrow. It will be interesting to see what happens! I fear it has little chance, only because a few of my other aircraft pics have been nominated and have had no luck!
I was at Heathrow only last Saturday and I watched three aircraft towed across that road (they never have their engines running). Sadly a bypass road is being built around the area so sometime in 2006 that road will be shut for ever. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You asked on my Talk page if the road is used much, here's the answer -

Yes, that road is in use by the public 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, because it’s the airport’s public perimeter road. How some of British Airways maintenance hangars (including the Concorde maintenance hangars, when it was flying) got to be the wrong side of a public road I have no idea.

The aircraft crossing point is almost in line with the approach to runway 28R which is the northern of Heathrows 2 runways (the other is 28L). 28L or 28R are used when the wind is such that aircraft must approach LHR from the east ie they fly across London itself.

Locate the point where aircraft, if landing on 28R, fly across the LHR perimeter road where it runs round the the eastern side of the airport. The map should show a roundabout about 100 metres south of that point, at a popular photography spot that many call the White Huts (because there is a small white-painted industrial estate there, that you can park amongst).

About 100 metres south of that roundabout is the aircraft crossing point. It’s a great place at the crossing because there are views of aircraft queuing for take off on 28R if 28L is being used for landings. Hope this helps - Adrian Pingstone 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your support

Hi there, thanks for your support on my Lake Monowai picture. I took it myself while camping in the wilderness a couple of months ago and thought it was a great photo, so I added it to the thing. Have never done anything like this before and I am an extremely amateur photographer so I am really grateful that everyone hasn't starting criticising it and pointing out its faults straight away! :) Swollib 09:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How to insert an external link on a page while editing?

An inline citation is case 2, which is the case I excluded from being questionable uses. --David Woolley 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually encourage marking of individual source references, although I see a problem with direct links in that it is difficult to correlate them with entry in the References section, that should still be there. What I was really cautioning about is the use of links that aren't to sources. A case where I might see a clear valid exception is an article about a well known web portal, where the home page link might make sense in line. --David Woolley 19:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted your user page

The same anonymous editor who changed your user page yesterday did it again. He/she/it left a cute bunny behind in your intentionally left blank space, but I figured it probably did classify as vandalism. If not and I did wrong, mea culpa. –Abe Dashiell 21:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it! I personally don't mind vandalism to my user page, but I love that there are people like you out there watching for it anyway :) -Lanoitarus 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

_{The following was posted to the top of my user page at 12:35 EST by 24.147.103.146, I have moved it to my talk page instead.-Lanoitarus 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)}

Copywrite violations, You may call my revisions vandalism, but the copywrite violations are a crime. I am working to report Misplaced Pages to the hosting company that the server is on. Misplaced Pages is complicit in a criminal act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)

• I believe i have addressed each of your concerns on each page you blanked. Several of your concerns were valid, several were not. Regardless, there are correct channels for your concerns, and simply blanking content without regard to protocall (which I left you a long message explaining) is not one of them. -Lanoitarus 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright person

In reply to your comment:

I am not an admin, so I can't help you there. I did however, also leave a message on his/her userpage stating that he/she should follow the procedure listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. And I do believe you did the right thing. - Akamad 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence :). I think I have not resolved the problem, anyway. Most of the articles were in fact violations, just not of the site he had listed. Should be all set now. Thanks! -Lanoitarus 05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to check the page history before adding Edward "Punchy" McLaughlin to the list of copyright violations, thanks for fixing that up. - Akamad 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing, we had a bit of a edit timing conflict going for a while there :) Looks pretty good now though. Thanks again. -Lanoitarus 06:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours. Thanks for bringing the continued problems to my attention. -- SCZenz 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help! -Lanoitarus .:. 22:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Job!

I just want to say that you've done a great job concerning the copy-vio mug shots and dealing with this person. I can't believe this person is actually connected with the Howie Carr website or show because he seems rather thick. I didn't think when I uploaded the mug shot of Jimmy Flynn that I was violating any copyright. But it was so long ago that I honestly don't know where the picture came from. I knew that mugshots were PD but I didn't even think about people claiming ownership of a scan of a PD picture! So I was educated by the corel court case! If I had done something wrong I would have bothered fighting this guy in the edits either. But since it was made clear that there was actually a court case about this type of thing, this guy should have backed off the pictures. I must say I am annoyed with people stealing verbatim from other sites and I'm glad that came to light so these articles can be fixed. Thanks again for all your hard work!!! Dwain 01:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Dwain, I definitely went from grateful (for pointing out plagarism) to annoyed (for the blanking and such) with this guy too. I just hope this is the end of it- I fear we may hear more when the block expires. -Lanoitarus .:. 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pitchka's comments. You're doing a great job in dealing with the anon users. I've got nothing further to add to your comments on WP:ANI. But can you keep me informed if any major events unfold, I can't see that you've done anything wrong so I intend to support you if any further action(s) occur. Just out of curiosity, what's the "corel court case" thing that User:Pitchka mentioned? - Akamad 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much, always great to hear positive feedback =). The "corel case" is Bridgeman vs Corel, which was brought to my attention by Mwanner. Its is a US district court ruling which basicially established that even if someone puts a bunch of effort/time/money into creating a reproduction of a public domain image, the new reproduction is automatically in the public domain as well unless it involves some sort of artistic originality. This means that the site the mug shots may have been lifted from is irrelevant, since they are reproductions of PD images. Thanks again for the support! -Lanoitarus .:. 07:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Paladins vs Lupins's Vandal Fighter

_{Originally posted at User Talk:Rogue 9:}

Hey, I saw your paladin user box in the sandbox (the edit came up in Lupin's vandal filter, actually), and thought it was hysterical. Just wanted to say kudos. -Lanoitarus .:. 07:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. I am not a geek! I'm a level 12 paladin!  ;) Out of curiosity, why would stuff in the sandbox trigger a vandalism filter? Isn't random stuff kind of the point? Rogue 9 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding

Hello, I am new to Misplaced Pages. I am learning and in the process I have done my misstakes. I rolled back many and I think ppl like u will surely rollback those misstakes which I dont remeber. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumar Idh (talk • contribs)

• Not a problem at all, everyone has to be new at some point. Let me know if there is anything I can help with! -Lanoitarus .:. 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for reverting my talk page

Lanoitarus, Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! --Hurricane111 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

=) Lanoitarus .:. 03:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD vs. CSD

My bad. I deleted the page initially, then I looked at CSD and didn't see "Spam" as a valid reason for a CSD. So I restored the article, removed the CSD tag, and listed it in AfD. Then after your note, I looked to see if spam was one of the definitions of vandalism. And lo, it is. So the page is gone. Thanks for the sanity check. → Ξxtreme Unction {ł_blah} 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Haha, you stare at these screens long enough and who knows what youll start seeing :) -Lanoitarus .:. 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla Userbox

unfortunately even though they appear to be fairly open to uses there are several issues, A) this does not constitute a license that Misplaced Pages can use and B) There are conceivable times when we would not fall under their scope and their licensing states that they reserve certain rights to their images so it is not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages (other of course than fair use on articles about Firefox or Mozilla). Jtkiefer ---- 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bernie McLaughlin article

I have tried to find sources other than Carr's sites for the Bernie McLaughlin article without much success, though someone clearly has. I added the Carr site to the /temp article as an ==Ext link==, for honesty sake (in fact, maybe it should be ==Sources==, instead). I have to say, though, that our article now strikes me as a not a copyvio-- it's more than half again as long as Carr's, and has some facts not found on his page. What's more, if you compare different versions contributed by 216.20.1.211/2/3/4/5 (who started this article in the first place) you'll see different facts on different reconstructions after copyvio notices. It's all pretty strange. Who do you suppose 216.20.1.21x is? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be listed under sources. I think the fundamental problem is that a few sentences are still EXTREMELY close. I will try to rewrite it completely when i have time this evening, which should solve the problems. As for who 216.20.1.21x, perhaps it is Whitey himself, back from hiding to terrorize wikipedia =D -Lanoitarus .:. 20:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Howie Carr

Thanks for letting me know about the watermarks on the pictures on Carr's site. The guy must be a Carr flunky after all. It puts Howie Carr in a very bad light in my opinion, not so much about articles that are just copies of the crap off of his website, but the way this guy has been acting and working and the error of insisting that we don't have a right to post PD images. Dwain 21:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: My RfB

Oh, dear. I appreciate you fixing the typo. It's a wiki, after all!

Kind regards, Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Psst! It's okay! You can vote too! *nudge nudge* ;-) Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)