User talk:Graemebowd

Hi Graemebowd, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Common Blackbird[edit]

Hi Graeme. I reverted your changes to Common Blackbird. This is a Featured Article, so all material should be adequately referenced. You removed one existing reference without explanation, and added new material, some of which is certainly challengeable (and has been challenged), such as the claim that that they never sing at night. If you can supply independent verifiable sources for your additions, please add them, otherwise note that original research has no place in a Featured Article.

I'm assuming good faith and I'm prepared to accept that you are not User:217.44.22.64 edit warring from a different account. Please don't just revert again. If you can provide proper academic references for your changes, fine. If you think I am wrong to object to the addition of unsourced material and the removal of references, discuss it with me, or on the project page.

I'd like to resolve this amicably, but if you revert without discussion, I'll ask for an uninvolved admin to take appropriate action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well look, why don't we start over. I assume that the lost reference was unintentional. The reuse of nests isn't supported by Clement, that may have been added by another editor — you can see why we are so protective of FAs! I shouldn't have reverted all your edits, I'll go through again and restore what is uncontentious, anything left we can argue about afterwards Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've restored, been through the text and added citation tags where I think the added material needs referencing or removing if it can't be referenced. One of these is the description of the song as beautiful. Although I'd agree, the adjective is pov if it is not supported by a ref to an academic source. Incidentally, be wary of adding "however" unless it's absolutely necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add citations when you add new info. I have not spend a greater amount of time searching for citations (the golden rule is that the person who adds the info also provides the citation), but note that both the Clement guide to thrushes and HBW says "up to three broods per years". Not four, as in your text. I have also heard Common Blackbirds singing very early, before sunrise (= night, under most normal definitions), even if is not common. Among others, three recordings from xeno-canto: 4:10 in Falsterbo (Sweden), 2:10 in Uppsala (Sweden) and 4:25 in Vogelbos (Netherlands). If no citations are provided, all unreferenced information is removed eventually by default. Althought this is valid for all articles, it is followed even more strictly in featured articles such as Common Blackbird. Welcome to wiki and I hope you will consider the above. Nice to see someone adding info to the Red-backed Shrike. It was needed. • Rabo³ • 15:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red-backed Shrike[edit]

Thanks for improving this, I've had a quick run through mainly fixing MoS issues such as delinking independent countries and continents, formatting the refs, and other bits and pieces

I saw you referenced one of the shrike facts. That's good, but note that if you were editing a higher quality article, a blog or other self-created source would not be acceptable as an independent reliable source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was probably a bit too sweeping, sources like blogs can be acceptable; I suppose the point I was making was that they need to be used with caution, and you would need to be prepared to argue your case in a quality article review. I think what I was getting at with the "beautiful song", was that a non-neutral phrase would be helped by a reference, not that it should necessarily be removed. A US editor, say, might see the statement as obvious pov at FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AADH.

               I'm glad that you are an expert on our wildlife. Unfortunately, on other subjects, it seems a little knowledge goes a long way. Having flown all my life, I'm perfectly well aware of what the term PIC refers to. I also thought that my amendments to use the word 'officially' were perfectly clear. I presumed that it didn't need spelling out.... AADH regularly flew, solo, for amusement, unofficially, long after he'd 'officially' stopped flying. Ergo, he was PIC. I'm well aware of the joyrides as P2 later in life, to which I was NOT referring. AADH's l/b often omits flights. Does this require any more clarification...??? So much for I have special knowledge on this subject...
    The problem with Wiki, is that it's more regular and obsessive 'editors' get carried-away on their egos. Bzuk being a prime example. I've had to give-up trying to rectify the factual content of certain pages, because he, - and people like him, arbitarily decide they don't like it, or want 'citations', when there are other pages, yards long, which have none whatsoever. I for one am not about to start blowing smoke up their backsides. It's not worth it. No wonder Wikipedia is seen as a denizen of anoraks. The point is, it's just as important to make sure alterations or deletions are correct, and not dumbed-down pidgin. Just because someone spends an inordinate proportion of their lives on Wikipedia and has editing powers doesn't make them right either. It also discourageses many people who have interesting information to contribute. Then again, "In the land of the blind......"
    That's as much time as I'm going to devote to this 'Golfclubitis'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.50.15 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you remain anonymous as I would be only too pleased to engage in a sensible discussion on the points you raise. This would be a much better use of your time that repeatedly vandalising the article on Alex Henshaw. However, in the hope that you may read this, I will point out that what you say about Alex flying secretly "for amusement....long after he'd officially stopped flying" is complete nonsense.

Besides conducting several broadcast interviews with Alex, I have in recent years been involved in extensive research about his life, first as the Producer of a History Channel biography on him, and now as Producer of a 12-part radio series based on 20 hours of interviews carried out in 2005 by one of his closest friends, Tony Edwards. I have spoken at length to Alex's son, to his former colleagues and associates, and to his official archivist at the RAF Museum, Daniel Scott-Davies. At no time did either Alex, or anyone else, suggest that he continued to fly in secret after 1948. It's hard to believe that you know better — whoever you may be.

Though Alex liked to flout petty authority, he was not the sort of person to break the law in such a cavalier fashion. To have flown without a medical or currency requirement would have been illegal. If he had wanted to keep on flying he would have done it properly. He often flew with his son, and sometimes with friends. On his 80th birthday he flew a three-seater Leopard Moth from the front seat (there is only one pilot's seat plus two passenger seats.) This is probably the closest he came to flying P1, but in fact the owner, a qualified pilot, was in one of the passenger seats and though Alex was handling the controls he was not in command. It is unlikely that any aircraft owner who have let him to go off solo, for insurance reasons. Would you allow someone without a current licence to fly your plane? I wouldn't, even if it was Alex!

I should also point out that Wiki content should be backed by source references as much as possible, otherwise it becomes of little value as an reference work. The Henshaw article could be better in this respect, but if you had your way you would be adding material which is at best hangar talk, and at worst, stuff which you have conjured up in your own imagination. I suspect that you are someone who never met Alex, and whose knowledge of him is limited to what you have read in his books, or overheard as rumour. This, of course, is why you stay anonymous.

Finally, I am not an anorak or even a regular contributor to Wiki. I occasionally tweak articles, but only when I know what I am talking about. It is not pleasing to be rewarded with rude and sarcastic comments such as yours.

Graemebowd (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on most counts. It just goes to prove that a little knowledge can be an embarassment....... The problem with Wikipedea is, that it's dominated by anoraks. I know number of very knowledgale people who have given-up trying to correct factual errors, because according to the anoraks, it's 'vandalisation'. Of course, it's not 'vandalisation' if it's done by the anoraks... No surprise there then...!!!! This is why, incresingly, Wikipedia is viewed in such a derisory way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.226.74 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways A380[edit]

Hello There,

You've updated the List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries article to indicate that British Airways has recently had another one delivered. May I ask where you found the source? Thanks. 109.155.121.64 (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 6th British Airways Airbus A380, G-XLEF, was registered to the airline on May 14, 2014 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=reg&fullregmark=XLEF) and is now in full service. Flightradar24.com shows that today (May 25) it is operating Flight BA283 from London to Los Angeles. The aircraft joins G-XLEA, G-XLEB, G-XLEC, G-XLED and G-XLEE.