User talk:Bzuk/Archive Jul 2007

Capra
I'm making a temporary strategic retreat from this battle, but as a parting shot, may I please ask you to check this link? "Div." is quite clearly a possible meaning for "divorced", and in that context, I bet no reader would be left in doubt as to its meaning. Biruitorul 06:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and thank you for taking the time to look through those works. Biruitorul 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the help on the BD-10 article. I didn't even notice, but it hit the front page yesterday. Not bad, three front-pagers in two months :-) Maury 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Classification
Hi again - just a helpful hint with aircraft categories - the years in the classification are the decade of the aircraft's first flight, so for the T-35 first flown in 1948, the category is Category:U.S. military trainer aircraft 1940-1949. HTH! --Rlandmann 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pic seach/request
Bill, do you happen to have any usable pics of the Canadian Coast Guard S-61N? I've just gone live with the Sikorsky S-61 page, and it would be nice to have a good pic of a CCG S-61N in its red colours with the white stripe. Thanks. - BillCJ 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bombardier logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bombardier logo.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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More Canadian image requests
Hi again - the only surviving Bellanca CH-300 Pacemaker and Bellanca 31-55 Senior Skyrocket are both in Canadian museums. While I don't expect you to have photos of every aircraft preserved in Canada, I figure it always makes sense to ask locally first before looking further afield! :) (The copyright "rationale" attached to the image currently on the CH-300 page is dubious to say the least...) Thanks! --Rlandmann 00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I'm just wondering though - where did you find that Ruud Leeuw's Senior Skyrocket photo was in the Public Domain? --Rlandmann 02:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his disclaimer is a little bit too restrictive for Wikipedia: note that he only allows material to be used in unaltered form, and requires prior permission for commercial use. Basically, this resembles the most restrictive level of the Creative Commons licence - less free than Wikipedia's GFDL (and less free still than the Public Domain, since he still wants credit for the photo even in unaltered form for non-commercial use). Unfortunately, that means that we have to lose the image - unless you want to contact Mr Leeuw and ask him to release his picture under a freer licence? --Rlandmann 04:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great news! In such cases, it's always best to get the owner to upload the photo (preferably to Commons), to make sure that there can be no question about rights further down the track. Giving us "permission to use it on Wikipedia" isn't enough - they have to either release all rights to the photo (PD), release it under GFDL, or a compatible licence (eg. CC-BY-SA). If he proves amenable, we can maybe then also ask him again in future. Thanks for taking care of this! --Rlandmann 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at the upload - unfortunately, his stipulation that the photo not be altered in any way is incompatible with the GFDL. We still can't use it :( --Rlandmann 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky! It depends what he actually gave you permission to do. Like I said, permission to use the photo on Wikipedia is not sufficient, because that permission doesn't extend to anyone who might want to re-use the photo (and under the GFDL, all content must be freely re-usable by anyone at any time for any purpose).

Basically, he has to either say that he relinquishes all rights to the photo (releases it to the Public Domain) or that the only right he reserves is the right to be credited for the photo and any derivative works (all other uses allowed, including commercial use and right to crop/alter/change the photo). To make sure that "everyone's on the same page", it's often better to get copyright owners to either upload their own material, or ask them to include a message on their webpage to say that they release the material into the public domain or under the GFDL or under the CC-BY licence.

As it currently stands, the licence information on our page here makes no sense. If a work is in the public domain, then the creator has no rights over it, not even the right to be credited; yet the right to be credited and the right to alter the image have been reserved.

You can find examples of suitable requests for permission here, and if Mr. Leeuw is happy to release the photo under these terms, you will need to forward a copy of his email to "permissions-en at wikimedia dot org", and make a note of it at Successful requests for permission.

It's a big ask we make of people - if they are willing to donate their photos to Wikipedia, they are giving up all but one of their rights to the photo (the right to be credited is all they reserve). For example, if someone wanted to print postcards of Mr Leeuw's photo and sell them in front of the Museum, they could do so freely without asking his permission or paying him a cent for the privilege of doing so. An extreme example, yes, but deliberately so in order to illustrate the point of what a powerful thing the GFDL is.

I'm thinking about writing an FAQ about this specifically oriented to WP:AIR... --Rlandmann 22:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great - PD it is! The stipulation that it can't be altered needs to go then, and you should forward his email to the address above and make a note of it at Successful requests for permission. Glad that he sounds so positive about the project - means that he might help us out again in future if needed. Cheers --Rlandmann 03:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - thank you for your patience! You've probably figured out that I see getting photos to illustrate our aircraft articles as something of a priority, but something we need to get right copyright-wise in order to maximise Wikipedia's usefulness. --Rlandmann 04:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WW2
Google is not infallible, but "world war ii" OR "world war two" get just over 1 million hits on Australian websites; "second world war" just under 700,000. And yes, it is definitely a case where usage has changed, and is a bona fide example of US usage taking off in Australia. (See Kokoda Track for a case of the opposite happening.) Grant  |  Talk  17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadair CL-217
Bill, I notice redlinks to the Canadair CL-217 in the CL-215 and -415 articles, but I haven't been able to find anything through Google except Wiki sites and mirrors with the same dead links. Do you know what the CL-217 was? Thanks. - BillCJ 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

date style
G'day Bill. My understanding is that "June 26" is the approved style and that is obviously what appears if you type [[26 June . Are you aware of any other policy? Grant  |  Talk  03:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart
Even if we disagree on the layout change you proposed, so what? I utterly endorse what you've done over time for the article. So helpful! I'd luzz you a barnstar if I thought it meant a thing. All the best then. :) Gwen Gale 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTc)

Keith-264
Would you specify your complaints please?Keith-264 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Dashes, punctuation and other sundry topics"
Please see my replies on my talk page. DocWatson42 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Plexiglass (sic)
Sorry you don't like my tone. You reverted without discussing the issue on the talk page. On my page you said:"I work in the aviation industry and I can assure you that plexiglas, plexiglass and any variation thereof has long since passed into the common aviation lexicon". I read this as you assuring me that the "aviation industry" is incorrectly using the trademark Plexiglas® and on what authority I'm not sure. My edit summary said "plexiglass" is not a word. Even without WP:COPYVIO and Manual_of_Style_%28trademarks%29 there is simply Guide_to_writing_better_articles. If you can find a dictionary that includes "plexiglass" then I will get into why it is trademark violation, but for now it is simply a spelling error.Tstrobaugh 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually if you're interested in these planes there is a history to how Rohm and Haas initiated the acrylic cockpits. See:, I'm not opposed to using Plexiglas® where appropriate.Tstrobaugh 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On my page you said:"Google will pull up a variety of dictionary definitions or dictionaries that include the word in that and other variations." Could you please give the exact, specific link to the dictionary that lists "plexiglass" as a word. Thank you.Tstrobaugh 18:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart - Pioneer
Please stop reverting the links on the pages Amelia Earhart and USNS Amelia Earhart (T-AKE-6). Top show I'm in the right please see the disambiguation talk page. In a nutshell see WP:CONTEXT and its exhortation "do not create links to: ... Plain English words.". Also see WP:NOT. If you have any questions please post to the Disambiguation talk page so a better consensus can be found. - Zvar 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal alert
Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eye on him. --Rlandmann 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PZL P.7
According to Template:Infobox Aircraft instructions:  variants with their own articles = . P.11 was not a variant of P.7, it was its further development, differing in many important features. P.7a was the only variant of P.7, like P.11c was a variant of P.11, and it has no separate article. Cheers. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still insist, that it can't be considered as "variant" in infobox meaning. As you quoted, P.11 was "a fighter based on the P.7", but it was treated a separate development, marked by new designation. I believe, that "variants with their own articles" section was conceived in order to describe sub-variants in a detailed way, and not to make a connection with next development (it isn't symetrical to "developed from" section IMO). If P.11 was to be treated as variant, it would have been designated P.7b and so on. Polish sources don't call it a P.7 variant, while all agree, that it was P.7's development, just as P.7 was P.1's development. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I said "Pulawski started further variants with larger engines, leading eventually to the P.11" (I don't want to check it now) I would probably have in mind, that they were variants of Pulawski's fighter development in general, not of P.7 :-) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the Luftwaffe during World War II
Hi Bzuk.

I was hoping you would have a look at the above article. I have undergone a massive editorial edit over the past few months. It seems to have failed a GA rating because it has "too much detail" in it! Could you have a look and tell me what you think? RegardsDapi89 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Snowbirds
Hi Bill,

On page 538 of Dempsey's book it mentions that "Lois Boyle, was tasked to organize a 'name the team' competition in the local elementary schools ... The winning name was submitted by Douglas Farmer...and a young girl from one of the Moose Jaw schools". From this I get the impression that many schools were involved, not just the base school.--BC 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Directly from the Snowbirds website: 12. Q: Where did the Snowbirds get their name? A: "Name the Team" contest was held at the local base elementary school in June of 1971. The winner was a Grade 6 student by the name of Doug Farmer. Mr. Farmer was able to join the team on a media ride at the Abbotsford, BC Airshow in 2000. This is also confirmed on p. 23 of Mike Sroka's book and on the Canada Post Snowbirds stamp background literature. FWIW Bzuk 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Some interesting information for you. I was in contact with Dan Dempsey, who contacted Lois Boyle to find out more about the naming contest and why there was the discrepancy in the information. It turns out there was indeed only one school involved: Bushell Park Elementary. Dan admitted to the bad information in his book (actually Glen Younghusband's commentary), and will be correcting the information for the second edition of his tome which is coming out this fall.--BC 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Brian, nice "detective work". I can't tell you how many times I've come across a supposedly "correct" bit of information in some reference source and then see it repeated ad infinitum only to find out the first bit was wrong. I have just come across a source that claims that James Dean was being considered for the role of Charles Lindbergh in the 1957 film biography, "The Spirit of St. Louis (film)." At first glance, this would seem entirely reasonable as Dean was the same age as Lindbergh at the time of the 1927 cross-Atlantic flight. He would have been making his first Hollywood features in 1955 but died tragically in September that year. Something about the story just didn't ring true as the film was based on Lindbergh's 1953 book of the same name and the initial casting decision was being made in 1954, a time when James Dean was still in New York. On further reading, I found that his name doesn't come up anywhere in other reference sources in relation to the film except on an IMDb site and the liner notes of the DVD release. I am still of the opinion that this is an urban myth, but as you can see, these little "bits" intrique me.


 * By the way, I'm on my way to Calgary (for an aviation safety conference) by car next week, coming up from Nanton and passing right by lovely Okotoks, Alberta, the heartland of aviation knowledge in that part of the world, or so I've been told? Want to join me for a coffee? Bzuk 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Sounds good. I should be around. Once you know when you are going to be in my part of the country, email me or call me. Are you stopping by to see Nanton Lancaster Museum? I was hoping to get there again sometime. Perhaps we could meet up there. Lets keep in touch via email.--BC 21:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Survivors section
Bill, could you be so kind and look at this revert and my earlier edition? My point is that we use standard "Survivors" name for section about preserved aircraft, replicas etc. User:M Van Houten is trying to make this in his own way with "Reproductions" name. Another issue is order of sections - we use Operators first, Survivors later. I'll be happy to hear your opinion. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this article to WikiProject Aircraft with following comment In WikiProject Aircraft we use "Survivors" name of section and text covers details. Section "Survivors" is after "Operators", not before. Be so kind and start using Project rules.
 * I know I should talk with User:M Van Houten on his talk page but earlier discussion proved that he doesn't care about team playing and, as he said, he's taking care about few articles. From my POV it seems that he wants to show these articles as being "under his control" because I can't explain placing "Survivors" section before "Operators" in other way. It seems that we'll have hard times with this user... Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin B-10
Bill, it seems that we edited Martin B-10 article in the same time. Please check my edit because it could remove your edits and improvements. Sorry for additional work. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellanca 28-90
Nice work - a definite improvement! I'll just flag two issues: First, the External links section of an article is supposed to "direct the reader to further research that is accurate and on-topic... that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". References, on the other hand cite the origin of the content of the article (whether from a website or print source). Entries should not be moved from one to the other. Secondly, I have grave doubts about the copyright status of the image. The quote from the wings palette page says nothing about the copyright status of the image, just that it's publicly accessible without cost. In practice, many of the images on that site are evidently scans from books and magazines uploaded by anonymous contributors. My reading of the situation is that they have a cavalier attitude to copyright at best. We could of course turn a blind eye and feign ignorance, but in the long run we'd be doing Wikipedia a dis-service. --Rlandmann 01:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - I just thought I'd noticed you doing something similar with a few other articles I'd contributed when there hadn't been such extensive revisions. As to the provenance of the image, we really need to assume that it's protected by copyright unless we know for a fact that it isn't. Since practically nothing published prior to 1936 has entered the public domain through age and the Bellanca 28-90 didn't exist for another year after that, we have to assume that the image belongs to somebody - even if that somebody is an anonymous wingspalette contributor. You can even make out a tiny signature under the tail. IMHO, typical (if not exactly inspired) aviation profile art. --Rlandmann 01:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record... I'm concerned about the copyright status of the image! Following the link from the Google Images search result you found, the image comes from this page, that states that the photo was taken in New York, but doesn't provide any copyright or publication details of the photo. Note that in almost all cases, entry into the public domain anywhere in the world relies on the date of publication of the photo, not the date it was taken. If we don't know for a fact that the photo was actually published prior 1936, then we must assume that it's an "unpublished work" and therefore still protected by copyright. Furthermore, I can't say for certain about Irish law, but an "anonymous work" in most parts of the world doesn't simply mean that the person using the photo doesn't know who took it - it means that it was published anonymously (perhaps an uncredited newspaper photo) and that due diligence has failed to uncover the identity of the photographer (for example, a search of the newspaper archives). I'm definitely writing that FAQ! In the meantime, please cast your eye over this proposed notability guideline for aircraft and share your comments on the talk page if you care to. Cheers --Rlandmann 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellanca 28-70
You were right in removing the stub template. That was an error on my part. Sorry. Captain  panda  12:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversions of 6 July 2007
Hello Bill,

Seems we both have more than a casual interest in aviation ! I felt that I should talk with you about the edits I made & your reversions. The changes I made were with best intent; to clarify a few points for better understanding by readers less familiar with sports aviation than you or me. To the various points: The "claim" of being easy to fly. This claim was contained within brochures received by an SAAA member who sought my counsel in the late 70's. My opinion was not suportive of the claim. I suggest that later experience showed the original design, and even the later variants, to be not easy to fly. "Most popular aircraft in modern history", which I changed to "most desired, albeit unproven, light aircraft". I suggest that the most popular a/c in modern history is probably the 747; hence my qualification "light aircraft". Re "Most popular" it was probably the 'most unpopular' experimental cat. a/c among those who purchased kits; but as evidenced by the sales volume it was certainly the "most desired". Re my words "albeit unproven", the record shows that it was definitely an unproven design that was offered. Re "decidely fast" or my words "far too fast", this is mainly semantics, I think 'far too fast' gives a better understanding to the layman. Re "rewarding, if demanding', to which I added "to the pilot" because that is where the decision about any a/c being "rewarding, if demanding" lies. Go kindly Geoffrey Wickham 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks William for the courteous and thorough reply. I shan't go further with the BD5 article, it is pretty good as it stands. Best. Geoffrey Wickham 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Peregrine Falcon Jet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Peregrine Falcon Jet.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Article duplication
Bill, I'm getting really tired of you not beleiving me when I'm telling you your edits are duplicating the article. Please check it out carefully BEFORE revert me on this, please?? I've gone back to the version on the F-22 where you deleted the cite template, before the duplication happened. You must have some kind of bug in your browser, because something is duplicting the entire article, and this isn't the first time it's happened, nor the first time you won't beleive me. It's getting old. I TOTALLY beleive the duplication is inadvertant. I don't think it's my browser reading it worng, but I am willing to check that out. So please, trust me on this? Check this diff carefully. - BillCJ 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix-P-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix-P-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of St. Louis
Hi. I saw your post about the newbie. I see his point although his approach is wrong. He is trying to clarify the significance of the city to city and mainland to mainland nature of the Lindberg flight. The placement of the word "solo" was misleading in the context of the sentence, but important in the context of first solo across the Atlantic. --Kevin Murray 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BillZ, this guy has claimed in his edit summary that the "solo" part of the flight is insignificant. Strange, since I've NEVER EVER heard of the NY-Paris mainland to mainland aspect of this, but have heard gazillions of times about it being the first solo flight! Since he is claiming the solo part is insignificant, I would recommend citing that part up the wazoo! Add EVERY reference from every aviation book you have (except your own of course!) or can find, and every online reference from reputable sites to the talk page. Cite 4 books and 2 sites. We can then require that he cite reputable verifiable sources that show the solo flight was insignificant. I sincerly doubt there is one he didn't print himself! Anyway, ithat's my 2 cents US. - BillCJ 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm on the "this is bad" side of the line too. A stern warning has been posted. Maury 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of St. Louis
What you should do for your editing conflict is check to see if the said editor has done three reverts in 24 hours. If so, report the user at WP:AN/3RR. If not, continue to inform the editor of his or her mistake. After being warned repeatedly and with no change in behavior, an administrator may be contacted and informed that the user is deleting vital information from the article. Do this only when you are certain that the user is clearly informed of his or her errors. This hopefully will help you. If not, you may ask me any other questions that you wish to have answered. Captain  panda  04:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite tags/MLA
I noticed your reversion here. The output of the cite tag is almost identical to what you changed it to (I assume MLA), except for the position of the date. In the cite book template, the date field is actually in the same position as the MLA, but is different in output.  

We could probably talk to the editors of the "cite book" tag to see if they can adapt it to have the MLA style as the output? THis ought to be extremely easy to do, as it would only mean changing one template, but all the uses of the tags would change too (except for those that were SUBSTed). Might be worth a shot anyway. - BillCJ 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:CarolKaye.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CarolKaye.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dates in the aircraft article infobox
Sorry about the situation... I was not aware that there was a discussion going on; had I known this, I wouldn't change the date format in these articles. However, I'm not going to change it back, as I feel that edits which clearly contravene Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would not be productive. Once again, sorry for the inconvenience. GregorB 12:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Lindbergh
Hi. Don't want to get into a pissing match here, but this seems like a reasonable statement. Do you dispute that Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop from a mainland location to a mainland location? Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I have only been trying to edit other contributions into a more clear and concise text. I don't want to be difficult, but don't want to see good information omitted without reason. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix (static).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Phoenix (static).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg
Hi there,

I saw that you originally tagged this image as "PD-self", when in fact the tag "film screenshot" is the correct one (another user has already replaced it). It is important to try and add the correct image copyright tag, otherwise the picture risks getting nominated for deletion.

Apart from a copyright tag, an image also needs a source. If I didn't read the that article the image links to, I would not have known that the screenshot is from the film, "The Flight of the Phoenix". The source is necessary so that other users van verify it as the source of the image, as well as the given license tag.

Images from films are subject to copyright, although they might be used when accompanied by a fair use rationale. Please see Image use policy for all the details and feel free to ask any questions you might have on the talk page there. Anrie 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(from User_talk:Anrie)

Hi there. Can you check over the changes I made to the images I downloaded as screenshots. It's the first time I have ever used this kind of image and they were to replace an image that I had obtained that the author/owner had not replied with a public domain statement in time to prevent its demise. Thanks or your help. Bzuk 20:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Glad to help - many people deliberately neglect to add the necessary information, while others just don't realise what is required. I'm always hoping for the latter. I've checked and everything seems peachy to me (although I'm not an expert or anything). Happy editing, Anrie 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright questions
For the Phoenix image, if it's the only image of the aircraft and none of the aircraft still exist, you've probably got a strong case for using the image under fair use. It does look like you've had some success gaining GFDL or public-domain releases for images, though, and good work on that! If the author chooses not to release the image as GFDL/PD, let me know and a fair-use rationale can probably be written up for it.

As to Carol Kaye, taking a screenshot of a copyrighted image does not change the image's copyright status or make you the copyright holder of the resultant image. It would still be copyrighted by the copyright holder of the original image, under the same license they originally placed it under (or if they didn't specify any license, the default is all rights reserved.) Since the image is of a person who's still alive, it would likely be considered replaceable and be unusable under fair use. Of course, if someone will agree to a public domain or GFDL release of an image of her, that'd be great! But in answer to your question, there's no way to change the copyright status or copyright holder of an image by taking a screenshot of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadair Sabre
Hi Bzuk. Thanks for sorting out the mess - what'd I do? - I couldn't seem to sort it out, even though I seemed to have lost half the article. Novices, eh? Scoop100 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Date linking
FYI, I have had many many comments in GA and FA that linking to dates should only be done if the date in question is an important one that likely will have a link back. IE, a famous battle is likely to be linked to from a date page, and should thus optionally link back. Other dates should generally be left unlinked, they seem to result in complaints from the reviewers. Maury 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Manual of Style (dates and numbers): If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. - BillCJ 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Check this out!
I hope this link works... open this version of the page and read the last paragraph: []

Maury 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)