Contents

User talk:Treesmill

Hi, Treesmill, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the articles for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you believe something you added or created has been unfairly treated, talk to the user or follow the steps in resolving disputes
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have an interest in aviation. May I suggest checking out:

• Portal:Aviation
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports

- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 14:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good work on Flight level, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Flight level? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about giving you a hard time on the ILS page, hope you don't mind. I'm just trying to help make things accurate, but not too complicated. I agree with removing that tech section. I'm kind of looking for an image of a Course deviation indicator for the ILS page and the CDI page. Maybe you have a good picture of one laying around you can scan in or upload. It doesn't look like I can find one in my collection. Nothing suitable on wikipedia or wiki commons. I was thinking of cropping one out of a cockpit picture, but none of those are high quality enough to show the detail of the needles, etc. Thanks for the help. --Dual Freq 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm happy to work together to create a good entry. I'm pretty sure I don't have a picture of a CDI that I am sure is in the public domain but I'll have a look. treesmill 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Composite signal.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload this image and in fact I removed it from the ILS page and replaced it with one I created myself which IMO is clearer and contains suitable labels (and has an appropriate copyright message). treesmill 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are much appreciated! I still can't believe I got the range calc wrong... Maury 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the edit on ACAS. I incorrectly thought it was about systems for airborne collision avoidance in general, and should have read the first paragraph. JMcC 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments on RNP 19-Jun. Assume you will probably take a crack at it. Agree that RNP is not a "technology", nor is it limited to GPS as sensor -- bad word choices (although I am not aware of any RNP procedures in service that rely on other sensors). Let's fix. As for CDA -- my understanding is that RNP procedures do/can incorporate Constant Descent Approach -- not just constant angle. Did not mean to imply that only RNP can do CDA. rgds -- Wolfeboro325 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to remove it. As I tried to make clear, (almost?) all of it has nothing to do with RNP. RNP is not something that is confined to the terminal area, and the reasons for its development apply just as much to remote and/or oceanic areas as to terminal areas.

Constant descent approach is not a term in normal use. I believe this is a confusion between Continuous Descent Approach and Constant Descent Angle approach. As I said, the first is a technique aimed at avoiding level flight at low levels, the second is a method of flying the final approach intended to promote stable approaches. Neither has anything to do with RNP. Both can be (and have been for many years) accomplished with any aid that gives a reasonably accurate distance to run figure. treesmill 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Barcode. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please note the paragraph you've deleted contained properly sourced and cited references, it also affected a few other paragraph because the original reference is stated within that original paragraph (in short, it became a broken link/citation after what you did). Please be more careful when editing in future, thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You raised some very good points on Talk:List of cities proper by population. The discussion might be of interest for you. From your page, it seems like you have been in a few cities :) See you there. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to review/improve my changes to the work article?--Ilevanat (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at some possible changes, but my workload is heavy at the moment so it will be a long while before I can put them into a form suitable for Wikipedia. However, in order to remove the circularity in the definitions it would be a good idea to decide which is more fundamental and therefore which can satisfactorily be made dependent on or derived from the other. treesmill (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Telegraphy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semaphore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Amplitude-modulation1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]