User talk:SaxTeacher: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:44, 1 March 2008

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Tip of the day...

Title searches

You can focus your searches by using the intitle: parameter. Here's how:

(1) In the Wikipedia search box, type the word intitle followed by a colon, then the word or phrase you are looking for. When you click on "Search," then, you'll be presented with a list of articles that have your search term in their titles.

(2) You can also search for one word or phrase in the title and for others in the text of the articles. For example:

Query	Result
intitle:airport	All articles with airport in their titles
intitle:international airport	Articles containing the two words international and airport anywhere in their titles—which will give you a list that includes, for example, the article World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic
parking intitle:airport	Articles with parking in the text, and airport in their titles.
intitle:"international airport"	Articles containing the exact expression international airport in their titles.

An even more powerful tool for searching titles is Grep. It lets you search titles using regular expressions, and in the results it lists the titles only.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Greetings

Hello SaxTeacher, Thanks for your amendment to Saxophone. I wonder if you would care to take a look at Big Band to see if Ive got all my facts straight on saxes?--Light current 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saxophone article and Eugene Rousseau (saxophonist)

Hello SaxTeacher. Thanks from France for your edits. That's a good surprise and an enjoyment to see your interest for the saxophone. For Eugene Rousseau, I gave the right title of his book ("Marcel Mule : sa vie et le saxophone". As you know, I suppose, it was a american book but written and published in french language. I gave too the other book about this master (so essential, as you know too, for saxophonists and music lovers). I think the page is quite serious, with good informations. Best regards. -- User XXXXX 131

Saxophone embouchure

Hello SaxTeacher. The world needs more like you. May you spread the word of Saxophone across the nations of the world!

Anyway, I've just added a paragraph to the "embouchure" section of the saxophone article on the effects of an embouchure in which the pressure is applied primarily with the lower teeth, as opposed to the chin muscles. I wrote this based on information in Larry Teal's "Art of Saxophone Playing," as well as my own experience on the alto. After seven years of playing, I'm still nursing a sizeable callus.

I was just hoping that you could check the paragraph for completion and accuracy, as you are in fact an actual bona fide saxophone teacher. Thanks. --Mixolydian 5.25.06

Carillons

I'm afraid we were editing the article at the same time. I assume most of your edits came into place, except your major input: The description of 'similar instruments' fits mostly into the already existing article Campanology; you might like to take your latest edits from Carillon's history, and incorporate some of it in either Campanology or Carillon (as far as still needed). See also the newly introduced definition references in Carillon (largely borrowed from the talk page). The List of carillons still needs some clear reference to the definition, I think that list should be split in a chapter for traditional carillons, and one for other true carillons. -- SomeHuman 2006-07-04 18:50 (UTC)

Lebensborn

Please keep in mind that sometimes vandals flock and stack. You better watch out for both anon IPs and redlinked user names in article history. Your well-meaning edit masked a previous hoax. `'mikkanarxi 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment but I don't understand the terms you are using. I am interested to learn what "flocking and stacking" means, and how an edit I made could have "masked" a hoax, so that I can better understand these things and how to recognize them/avoid them. Could you leave me a note (either here or on my talk page) explaining these terms? Thank you. —SaxTeacher 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for abuse of language.

If you see a really suspicious edit (nonsense, corrupted text, obviously wrong format), as opposed to, e.g., typos or bad grammar, before editing please look into the article history and see who was editing. If the last editor was an anonymous IP address, like, 71.146.69.139, or whose user name is a red link (meaning a new account most probably), then chances are very high that it was a vandal or a well-meaning but an inexperienced user, and you better check all his edits by looking at the article revision difference, because the vandal can corrupt the text in several places. He may also move a big chunk of text from one place to another, so that the text seems OK, the problem being the lost logic of the description flow.

"Flocking": I wanted to say that some articles may be vandalized by several vandals. This happens to two categories of articles: very visible ones, like George W. Bush or, just the opposite, some obscure topics which are edited rarely and vandalisms may sit unnoticed for long time.

"Stacking": if you look into an artice revision history, the history entries are listed in vertical order, one atop another, i.e., "stacked", "piled".

Therefore it is always advised to check not only the last edit in the history but all topmost "stack" of edits with suspicious user names.

"Masking": people monitor changes in articles using watchlists. When a watchlist is very long, like mine, I check edits by all users only for articles in topics I am especially interested. All other articles are monitored by me only for vandalism. So if these articles are edited by an established user, I believe that the edit is most probably OK. Here again, it is a common sense to assume if the user name is not red, then the person bothered to write something in his user page, i.e., he is not a novice. And I also assume (possibly erroneousy) that the user before adding his edits checked whether the previous edit was not vandalism. In other words, red user names are "red flags" raised telling us to check the most recent edits more carefully. And if you put your name above theirs in the edit history, you hide this red flag from us.

Please let me know what else left unexplained. `'mikka 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reeds section of Saxophone article

Thanks for adding to this article. However due to the length of the article, and the varied opinions of different players around the world, we need to leave out information about which player uses which reed, or what you think the "standard" reed strength should be. I removed this and put the great link you supplied (mouthpieceheaven.com's page of the set-ups of famous players) to the "external links" section at the bottom of the article. —SaxTeacher 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the section on reeds is incomplete, inaccurate, opinionated and is potentially damaging to students' and players' development.

You should not have removed all the updates I made to the section on Reeds, saying that it was inappropriate to mention 'who plays what reeds' whereas you have left in an unsubstantiated opinion of yours implying it is a good thing 'to progress to numbef 5 reeds' which is very bad advice.

The players I mention: Bob Berg, Iain Ballamy and Mark Lockheart are all well-known jazz players with exemplary sax sounds who either studied at or teach at recognized acadamies: Julliard and The Royal Academy respectively. Since I know what reeds these players use and that Joe Henderson, Johnny Griffin, Sonny Rollins all used Med-Soft or Med reeds respectively these facts should not be left out and should replace the unsubstantiated and damaging comment currently in the article about No 5 reeds.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to write to me to explain what is your motive for having taken this action - which, as you can see has quite annoyed me.

Is there any sense in which you 'own' the information in the Saxophones entry? Trismegister 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were annoyed, but as I explained above, your additions to the article did not seem to be appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I don't have any more ownership of the saxophone article than you do, but I check additions to articles for content, and if they appear to be material that doesn't merit inclusion, I remove them.

I explained in my comments on this topic (on the saxophone talk page) that a discussion of which player uses what type of reed doesn't belong in the saxophone article. It belongs on your personal web page, or blog, or a forum about saxophone players, of which there are many on various web sites. The article is about the instrument itself, not about specific players or your opinion on the optimal reed strength. Thanks again for contributing the link to mouthpiece heaven's page of "famous player setups." I referenced it in the links section at the bottom of the article. We can continue this discussion on the saxophone talk page —SaxTeacher 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching, etc.

Are you ready to get started?

The waiting time over at Admin coaching is long (some people have been waiting in line since July). I'm an admin coach with the project, and for my students I set up a group discussion page so that we could all learn from each other. The scope of this concept has expanded into the Virtual classroom, which is an open forum for the teaching and learning of advanced Wikipedia skills.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate, as a student, as a coach, or both. Every week or two a new major topic of discussion or classroom assignment is introduced, usually with a guest writer who presents his or her expertise on the current subject and who remains on hand to answer questions. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussions, such as sharing your expertise, asking and answering questions, etc.

The current topic of discussion is vandalism, and our guest writer is Budgiekiller.

All discussions are open-ended, so all previous discussion topics and classroom assignments are still there for viewing and further participation. There are also sections for posting miscellaneous topics and questions, requesting coaching assistance, etc.

In addition to inviting those who would like to learn, I routinely invite experts from all over Wikipedia to come and contribute for the benefit of all. The VC is rapidly turning into a clearing house of the best resources, methods, and techniques known for working on Wikipedia.

You are cordially invited to participate. Here's an announcement box which you can place on your userpage or at the top of your talk page for keeping up to date with classroom assignments.

I hope to see you there. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Admin coaching

Hi Sax Teacher. Was wondering if you're still interested in admin coaching. My student just became an admin, so I'm open. Let me know, Fang Aili ^talk 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell are you screwing around with my "talk" page?

It's not appreciated. I undid your edits there. What was even the point of that? Your edit message said something about "typo fixes", but I couldn't see what they were. Besides, it's my damn talk page, and I'll take care of my own typo fixing, thank you very much. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ILike2BeAnonymous, I appreciate your concern. Let me explain: using an automated typo fixer, I am searching Wikipedia for instances of the misspelling "saxaphone" and changing them to "saxophone". One of the misspellings I corrected was on your talk page. Sorry if my edit alarmed you - but please don't forget to assume good faith.

I should point out that while one's user page is generally considered off limits for editing by others, the user talk page is by contrast an area where a user welcomes contributions from other editors. Per Wikipedia:User page, Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others. —SaxTeacher 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my (and others') "talk" pages alone, and confine your typo-fixing to "article space". +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB suggestion

I took a look at your recent contributions using AutoWikiBrowser. Some of them were just insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space with edit summary "Typo fixing". You can avoid this by using "Skip article when no typo fixed" option. As for your questions about regular expressions at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser I thought that some examples may be helpful. Happy editing :-) Jogers (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when making a list of articles to work on you can use "Filter out non mainspace" option in the "List" menu to avoid comments like the one above in the future. Regards, Jogers (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to chime in on this one too but this edit which claimed to be typo fixing in the edit summary was actually wikilink adding (which is fine), but it was also adding an asterisk to the field names in the album infobox which, as a consequence, mucked up the formatting somewhat. Just something to look out for in future. Sorry to bring it up, but it may help in future. :) Bubba hotep 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. That was me not realizing that " * " is treated as a wildcard instead of a text character. I realized the problem earlier today and fixed it. I have redone the edit, correctly this time. —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not a problem. At least you're using AWB. I've had it for a month now and haven't got round to doing anything useful (other than making lists) yet! Bubba hotep 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarinet

Thank you for noting the vandalism to the article and reverting it. However, the user had made two separate bad edits, and you reverted only the second one. I think this is known as "flocking and stacking"... when you go to revert, take care to be sure you are reverting back to the last unvandalized version. Best, —SaxTeacher (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for trying to work fast I guess :) Thank you for noticing and fixing my mistake. theroachman ^T ^C 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decade links

Hi, if you're going to be wikilinking decades, you might as well direct those wikilinks toward music-specific decade articles, such as Timeline of trends in music (1930-1939). Badagnani 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to figure out how to use AWB to change the decade links to music-specific decade links in music articles only. I will see if I can find a way. It would help if the names of the music-specific decade articles weren't so incredibly long (tedious to type). Thanks —SaxTeacher 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't know either. Of course, if the phrase regarding the decade doesn't refer to a musical thing, then you wouldn't necessarily want to link to the musical decade link. But if they're sax-related articles, I'd say probably most of them would be. Badagnani 05:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably use CONTROL-C and CONTROL-V to copy and paste those long article titles, to save time. Badagnani 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glider markings

My glider registration is in half-inch high letters on the fin just below the tailplane and complies with British requirements. JMcC 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did you update the article to provide more accurate information? or should I? —SaxTeacher 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You modification is fine. I originally deleted it because it seemed hard to make a generalised statement. JMcC 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egrabczewski

Your contributions to Saxophone

Hello - thanks for contributing to the saxophone article. Please note the following though.

This is an encyclopedia. It is not the right place for you to insert your opinions on what type of mouthpiece or facing is good for what type of music. Players have widely differing opinions about this sort of thing - and also, what you're writing is your opinion, not a reference-worthy fact. You need to be able to substantiate anything you add.
If you have dozens of edits to make to the article, that's fine, but please make all your edits at once rather than making dozens of separate saves. I know you are new to Wikipedia but try to make as many edits at a time as you can - hopefully not saving an article more than once or twice a day.
It is really important to use the edit summary box each time you save, explaining what you did. In fact, if you go into "my preferences" at the very top of the screen, you can set a preference so that you will be reminded any time you try to save without providing an edit summary. I would suggest this.

Again, welcome - appreciate your contributions! —SaxTeacher (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SaxTeacher

Thanks for your comments. I'm not unaware of the points you raise and I understand your point about "opinions". I do my best not to insert my own viewpoint, and try to stick to published material.

As for putting all my changes into the article in one go - yes, that would be bliss. But, alas, not the way I work. I'm always finding errors. Ever written an academic paper? It's a lot like that for me. Thanks -Egrabczewski 07:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Saxophone embouchure article

SaxTeacher, Please see my comments at Talk:Saxophone. I would like to hear your response to my concerns. -JTalcott 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this article. I had a look at it and responded at the Talk:Saxophone embouchure pages. I also made some edits to try and improve the article.

While it is certainly a good idea to discuss the article with other editors, keep in mind that the person who added the most material is not its "author" and doesn't "own" the article, so you can go ahead and make edits/corrections to articles concurrent with your discussion on the talk pages. Best —SaxTeacher (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egrabczowski response

SaxTeacher, remove your offensive remark from the Saxophone Embouchure talk page at once. -Egrabczewski 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax, be cordial, and assume good faith in your fellow editors. It is the responsibility of any Wikipedia editor to be bold in deleting material that is questionable or non-encyclopedic. Recall the sentence that appears at the bottom of every edit screen: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please don't take edits personally; your contributions are appreciated. Best —SaxTeacher (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not patronise me please. And remove the offending remark in the Saxophone Embouchure talk page (see all my comments). You have gone a little too far this time and if this remark is not removed immediately then I assure you I will take action. -Egrabczewski 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to ignore my request and have not removed your offensive remarks about me in the Saxophone Embouchure talk page. I will be reasonable with you and give you until the end of today to put matters right. Following that I will take this matter through Wikipedia arbitration. -Egrabczewski 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Remainder of conversation moved to User talk:Egrabczewski)

Leonard Bernstein

your edits were quite good. my apologies for reverting the text changes you made...i didn't see them until now. but you inadvertently broke the template's date rendering by placing brackets on the dates within the citation. check out WP:CITET for more information on those templates. --emerson7 | Talk 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your aircraft q's

I hope I've answered your question well enough at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/FAQ. I hope you don't mind but I've reworked the page as a Q and A, in case people have the same questions in the future. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut

I've restored this for now while we discuss it. It will be good to get an alternate viewpoint as what I thought was a good idea might not be. If you look at Nunavut#Demographics you see we have 3 regions. The Nunavut territorial government has their own names for the regions. The Canadian government has different (older) names for the same regions which they use as census divisions. At the time I made the three census regions I thought it was a good idea to help explain the differences. Now I am having second thoughts. Next month the government will release certain 2006 census data and may change to using the Nunvaut names for the census regions. Even if they don't I am starting to think that the 3 census regions, Baffin Region, Nunavut and Keewatin Region, Nunavut might be better merged into the current names as used by the Nunavut government. Let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. Disambig pages are special. See the Manual of Style for info on how they are formatted. In particular, links on these special pages are not generally piped. That means that if you don't like the name of the article Laser (dinghy), you have to follow the procedure to get it renamed. You can't just pipe the link on the dab page. Actually, if the article name is not appropriate, it should be renamed anyway.--Srleffler 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Tried again - SaxTeacher

Yep, you got it right second time, that's a good example of a dab page entry :) Fourohfour 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I've started getting to work already. Hope I'll be able to do some good. Shimeru 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Bernstein

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration

I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and ~~insanity~~ integrity. --Wafulz 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Just dropping by to thank you for your support of my RFA. It was succesful. Thank you! SGGH 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

- Michael Billington (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi SaxTeacher, how's it going? I've been pretty non-active on the wiki lately, but I wanted to check in with my coachees/adoptees. Have any questions/concerns/coaching aspirations? Feel free to email me if you like. Cheers and happy weekend, Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable glider pilots

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 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look?

We are trying to find a source for this list: Talk:List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members#RfC_Summary. Could you take a look and see if you can help? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of RC Patrol

I have nominated RC Patrol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mel sa ran 11:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop

Hi. I have recently started the article Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop. Since you are listed in the category Yale Alumni, I thought you might be interesting in contributing to the article. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGI and instrument instruction

It's my reading that the holder of an AGI can give instrument instruction; I can offer you two references. 61.215(b) says, in part, "A person who holds an advanced ground instructor rating is authorized to provide: (1) Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of any certificate or rating under this part" (emphasis added). FAA's FAR site

FAA Order 8900.1 (which I've just recently learned has replaced 8700.1, as well as 8300.10 and 8400.10) says in paragraph 5-674, "A person who qualifies for the advanced ground instructor (AGI) rating must receive the advanced rating on his or her ground instructor certificate. A person who holds a ground instructor certificate with the advanced rating is authorized to provide: · Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of any certificate or rating under § 61.215." FSIMS, Order 8900.1 (Sadly, the order doesn't support deep-linking, so to get to the important paragraph, you've got to click through "Airman Certification," and then "Part 61: Issue a Title 14 CFR Part 61 Ground Instructor Certificate and Added Ratings.")

Of course, with anything regulation-related, the only opinions that ultimately matter come from the FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel. Anyway, best wishes and blue skies. —SkipperPilot (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 190: / Line 190: @@
 ==[[Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop]]==
 Hi. I have recently started the article [[Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop]]. Since you are listed in the category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Yale_University Yale Alumni], I thought you might be interesting in contributing to the article. Thanks. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] [[User_Talk:Yilloslime|('''t''')]] 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
+==AGI and instrument instruction==
+It's my reading that the holder of an AGI can give instrument instruction; I can offer you two references.  61.215(b) says, in part, "A person who holds an advanced ground instructor rating is authorized to provide:   (1) Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of ''any'' certificate or rating under this part" (emphasis added).  [http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=96745e21d403919ca41bbf9da9f6fa95&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.9.1.3&idno=14 FAA's FAR site]
+FAA Order 8900.1 (which I've just recently learned has replaced 8700.1, as well as 8300.10 and 8400.10) says in paragraph 5-674, "A person who qualifies for the advanced ground instructor (AGI) rating must receive the advanced rating on his or her ground instructor certificate. A person who holds a ground instructor certificate with the advanced rating is authorized to provide:  · Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for the issuance of any certificate or rating under § 61.215."  [http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=Publication&doctype=8900.1 FSIMS, Order 8900.1]  (Sadly, the order doesn't support deep-linking, so to get to the important paragraph, you've got to click through "Airman Certification," and then "Part 61: Issue a Title 14 CFR Part 61 Ground Instructor Certificate and Added Ratings.")
+Of course, with anything regulation-related, the only opinions that ultimately matter come from the FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel.  Anyway, best wishes and blue skies.  —[[User:SkipperPilot|SkipperPilot]] ([[User talk:SkipperPilot|talk]]) 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)