User talk:Centpacrr/Archive1

American Hockey League
I also hope you check out our hockey project page at WP:HOCKEY. Your knowledge of the American Hockey League and other minor leagues would be a valuable asset. In particular I was hoping someone would step up and give the Hershey Bears the article they deserve akin to the Springfield Indians. ccwaters 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AHL overtime loss
Your comments are sought at this talk page. Talk:American_Hockey_League. Thanks! !!!! Flibirigit 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant paragraphs
The following paragraps you added to the main text of the American Hockey League article are redundant with the introduction of the article.


 * The League offices are in Springfield, Massachusetts, to which they were moved from West Springfield in the early 1990's. The AHL's current president is David Andrews.


 * The AHL's annual playoff champion is awarded the Calder Cup, named for Frank Calder, the first President (1917-1943) of the National Hockey League. The defending (2006) champion Hershey Bears are now tied with the defunct original Cleveland Barons (1937-1973) for most career Calder Cup titles with nine.

These sections are better suited in the introduction. Flibirigit 19:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant paragraphs placed there in error. Centpacrr 21:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche & Diacritics
Hello Centpacrr, tried to reason with anon-user 86.198.206.162 about consensus to keep diacritics off NHL team pages. My efforts were in vain. I believe anon-user is more misinformed then a vandaliser, just not sure how how to convince him/her. GoodDay 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.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. 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

License information added. Centpacrr 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprising vs Comprised of
Regarding your edit to National Hockey League, believe it or not, "comprises" does mean "is made up of". Using "is comprised of" is seen as incorrect by many (though it's becoming more common). See, for example, thefreedictionary and M-W. Both note that there is a usage problem with the latter definition, hence my edit summary comment that "comprising" is "more correct". "Two conferences, each comprising three divisions" means "two conferences, each made up of three divisions", which is the intent of the sentence. In informal usage, "comprised of three divisions" may mean the same thing, and even though "opposition to this usage is abating" (thefreedictionary), I think we're better off with a non-controversial usage. Maybe it would be even better still not to use the word at all, and to choose an alternative. --Fru1tbat 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I must admit, however, that I find the contention in thefreedictionary relating to the usage of "comprise" vs "compose" while perhaps true, is nonetheless logically unconvincing because it introduces unnecessary ambiguity. For greater clarity (and also to add information on the actual numerical composition of the conferences and divisions) I have changed the text in the NHL article to the following: "The NHL is divided into two fifteen-team conferences each of which consists of three five-team divisions." Centpacrr 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "compose" is unambiguous. The problem is that "comprise" has come to mean both its original meaning and the exact opposite (kind of like "moot" ), so ambiguity is unavoidable, really. Traditional usage would be "the league comprises 30 teams". Modern usage might be "30 teams comprise the league". To me, that should mean "30 teams are made up of the league", but in reality you rarely see it that way anyway. That meaning is always (in my experience) used passively, i.e. "is comprised of". I accept that it's common, but it has become somewhat idiomatic -- I doubt many people who use that meaning would be able to define "comprise" by itself, without the "is" and "of"... In any case, I think the change you made to the article works well.
 * Thanks for the note on the railroad article, by the way. I notice you're in the Philly area (as I am). Can't be quite as much fun working Flyers games this season...
 * --Fru1tbat 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit that the logic as to why and how "comprise" may have fallen into a state of acceptable "androgynous" usage escapes me. A puzzlement to be sure.


 * It has indeed been a dismal hockey season in Philadelphia this year (both with the Flyers and Phantoms), but after working more than 3,000 pro hockey games over the past 37 years I don't get too wound up one way or the other about wins and losses. As my friend the late Flyer coach Fred Shero used to say, "I don't really think about the games, that just drives you crazy." The game is still fun for me, just not quite as much fun this year as it has been in others. (For more information see my informal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net.)


 * I hope you find the Stevens' Camden & Amboy article interesting. While not an engineer myself (I am a writer), I come from a long line of engineers. Both my father and grandfather were EE's, my great grandfather a CE, and great great grandfather a CE and ME. (He was the chief assistant engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad and did much of the engineering and design on for the original construction over the Sierras in the 1860's.) Centpacrr 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Firebirds
Hi. I figured you could clarify this: Were the Philadelphia Firebirds of the NAHL and the AHL the same franchise? I ask this because I know the Broome Dusters/Binghamton Dusters are actually distinct franchises: the Providence Reds relocated and assumed the Dusters identity. Just curious. Thanks. ccwaters 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both franchises had the same ownership, wore the same uniforms, used some of the same players, and had mostly the same front office staff, but were otherwise distinct franchises. The NAHL folded in the summer of 1977 and all of those franchises died with it. The owners of the NAHL clubs in Philadelphia and Binghamton, however, wanted to continue to operate teams.  Binghamton bought and moved the inactive Providence Reds franchise while the Firebirds acquired an expansion AHL franchise which they operated in Philadelphia for two seasons. (In 1977-78 they were affiliated with the Detroit Red Wings and in 1978-79 with the Colorado Rockies, which both at the time very poor NHL clubs.) After the 1978-79 season the Firebirds' owners moved the club to Syracuse and were affiliated with the Quebec Nordiques for the 1979-80 season after which they suspended operations. Binghamton operated as the Broome Dusters (also using the same name and uniforms as the NAHL club) from 1977 to 1980. The franchise was acquired by the Hartford Whalers in 1980 and operated as the Binghamton Whalers for the next ten seasons, and was then taken over by the New York Rangers in 1990 and played as the Binghamton Rangers from 1990 to 1997. For the next five seasons (1997-2002) the Broome County Icemen of the United Hockey League provided professional hockey to Binghamton before the AHL returned in 2002-03 with the Binghamton Senators. Centpacrr 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

National Defense Reserve Fleet
Cen, I reverted your addition of the photo of the USS Iowa, because I don't believe it is part of the NDRF. With very few exceptions, NDRF is for merchant-type ships. I didn't see Iowa in the current NDRF inventory at the bottom of the article. Iowa is probably in some other fleet. If I'm wrong about this, by all means put the photo back in. Lou Sander 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration National Defense Reserve Fleet Inventory Jan. 31, 2007, page 16 Centpacrr 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! Before I removed the photo, I went through that list twice, looking for the Iowa and not finding it. Should have used Windows' Find, I guess. Sorry. Lou Sander 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually took this photograph myself from the deck of the SS Jeremiah O'Brien on a cruise by that 1943 Liberty ship to Suisun Bay in August, 2005, so I had no doubt as to the Iowa's identity or location. Centpacrr 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple months ago I spent some time working on several articles about mothball fleets of various kinds. It wasn't easy, because the official names of these places have changed over the years, and ship's histories will say "she ended up in X" when X isn't around any longer. The NDRF has its nice, frequently updated inventory, but I haven't found anything like that for the combatant ships. And of course it doesn't help when there's a big battleship sitting in the midst of all those merchant-type vessels. Overall, it's kind of interesting seeing where ships end up. When I was a naval officer in the 1960s, we used to say "they made razor blades out of them." My ship, the USS Rankin ended up as a fishing and diving reef off the coast of Stuart, Florida. Lou Sander 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

High and the Mighty
I do mightily appreciate and like what you've contributed to this article. The film's emphasis on character development (and its lack of any real violence) sets it way apart from those "Airport" movies which followed (though they do seem to have been clumsy imitations). Any changes I make are meant only to get the article's syntax and structure in the realm of standardized language and punctuation, along with some minor WP factoring standards. As it cleans up, the character capsules seem more and more ok and helpful to me as they are. Anyway, I only wanted to let you know my thinking! Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sesquicentennial Exposition
What a wonderful addition to this article! --Butseriouslyfolks 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:1938 IAHL consolidated.jpg
Hello. I would like to use this pic in wiki fr to illustrate the AHL article. Where do you find it please? Supertoff 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I scanned the article from an original in my files. You are welcome to link to it at  Centpacrr 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Thanks, I imported it in wikimedias commons here, i hope you will agree. Supertoff 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maritime trades invite
Hey Centpacrr, I'm bouncing this invite off the Wikipedians I can find that mention they are current or former mariners. If the project seems interesting, well, the more the merrier! Cheers. Haus42 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia Rockets
I have recently created the Philadelphia Rockets article. Could you please help improve this entry in Wikipedia? Thanks. Flibirigit 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope
Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Donner Pass
Please discuss why you reverted my changes (as I discussed why I made them on the talk page). While I'm not perfect I still contend my changes were appropriate and a good start. Namely:
 * The article in its current state is excessive in links to cprr.org. Needs to rely less on a single source.
 * The article is not correct, by todays names Yuba pass is not traversed by a railroad (it is traversed by California Highway 49) and so the article is wrong without noting the change in name. The pass mentioned here is now called Emigrant Gap as I corrected in the article before you reverted it. In fact I was and still am debating if this paragraph needs to be removed and placed on the wikipedia page for Emigrant Gap.

see: http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=23049 amongst MANY others as evidence that the current wikipedia page is wrong.

I'm not saying the article in its current state is bad, in fact somebody did a lot of work. But it can always be made better.

Please advise Davemeistermoab 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While working on a minor clarification involving Yuba pass and Emigrant gap, I'm noting that the Central Pacific Railroad Museum's website is linked EXTENSIVELY and is the only source used. While I agree this is an excellent resource and good site. We don't want it to appear like wikipedia is just cloning someone else's work. I'm going to consolidate some links to this site and instead list them as a reference. Not meaning to offend. Please discuss any objections.Davemeistermoab 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The links and references to, and materials and information derived from, the CPRR Museum site are used with permission as I am the original author and/or compiler of these materials and the photographer/creator of the digital images and 360º interactive QTVR panoramas of Donner Pass. Because of the vast scope of our site (more than 5,000 pages) I have included specific links to relevent pages and images which would otherwise be hard to find for the casual visitor. Centpacrr 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can respect and agree with that, I've browsed the cprr.org site and agree there is a LOT of info. I also respect and am amazed at the work done both here and at cprr.org.

But still, links change, servers change. All it takes is only one change in management at the cprr.org site and every link on this page will be broken. Most other project I work on encourage any external link as a footnote with (last retrieved on XXXXXX) next to every external link. I would argue that that is the right thing to do. I would also argue that it should be noted that the cprr.org has given their permission for wikipedia to "borrow" content, and the source of that permission should be included as a footnote. It's been my experience that 10 years later, when somebody asks, these details are difficult to find.

I also still feel it was right to note that this is not the same Yuba pass as todays maps denote and this content is more appropriate at the Emigrant Gap page. I meant no harm by the changes. Cheers Davemeistermoab 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have spent many hundreds hours over the past eight years since the online CPRR Museum was launched in February, 1999, researching and writing about the CPRR (including a 445-page book published in 2005) and have personally walked and photographed many sections of its Sierra grade between Newcastle and Donner Pass much of which was surveyed, located by, and then built under the personal supervsion of my great great grandfather, Lewis M. Clement, who was the CPRR's Chief Assistant Engineer and Superintendent of Track during the entire construction of the line (1862-69) and beyond until leaving the company 1881. The railroad related text in the Donner Pass entry is not borrowed from the Museum but was written by me for the entry here. I have written very much more extensively on this same subject in pages I have created for the Museum some of which are included in links within the text. The additional external links are to my extensive photographic gallery and interactive panoramas. As I am also personally involved in the operation of the Museum site, there is no chance that links to it would not be updated by me if in the Donner Pass entry if any of them were to change. The links to the site contained with the text are to pages containing relavent original source materials which I have collected, transcribed, annotated, and illustrated, and which by in large can be found nowhere else on the internet.


 * I have also removed your footnote about Emigrant Gap which is erroneous, The 1952 stranding of the "City of San Francisco" did indeed occur at Yuba Pass on Track #2 adjacent to Tunnel 35 (Track #1) at about MP 176.5. Emigrant Gap is located a little more than four miles further West along the Sierra grade. Thank you for your interest.  Best. Centpacrr 06:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your diligence. I'm both embarrassed and still pondering. I have stood, if not at this exact spot, close to it on a few occasions and have never seen it marked with a name. contrary to the [CA-49] Yuba Pass which is marked with much fanfare. I assumed the names changed with time, but that's not right either. According to your museum the engineers considered routing the rail over the [ca-49] Yuba Pass and called this the Yuba Pass alternative. So why did somebody name this spot on the railroad Yuba Pass when a pass just 30 miles north already had this name? Oh well. Anyways thanks for researching this and correcting me. It was not my intent to make the page inaccurate. Davemeistermoab 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This location on the CPRR was apparently called Yuba Pass by the railroad from the beginning as this is how it is referred to in the Report of the Chief Enigineer, S.S. Montague, of December, 1865, in which he quotes L.M. Clement, the Engineer-in-Charge of the Second Dvision (Colfax to Summit), at page 13: "From Owl Gap to the Summit, a distance of twenty-four and one-half miles, the work is of much less expensive character, and a good location has been made upon a grade of eighty-five feet per mile. From Owl Gap to Emigrant Gap, a distance of three miles, and thence for four miles along the northern slope of the divide to the Yuba Pass, the work will be light. From the Yuba Pass to Holt's Ravine, the cuttings, though generally light, are mostly in granite or gneiss, and for a short distance in the vicinity of Butte Cañon, in trap. For nearly three fourths of the distance between the Yuba Pass and Holt's Ravine, the work will consist of light side cutting and embankment, and between Holt's Ravine and the Summit, almost wholly of the latter." Centpacrr 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the page on cprr.org I was referring to is here: http://www.cprr.org/Museum/Galloway6.html "The fourth route crossed the canyons of the South and Middle forks of the Yuba River and continued up the North Fork of that river via Downieville and the Yuba Pass, and through Sierra Valley to the Truckee River." Which is the route of modern CA-49 and CA-89 between Aubern and Truckee. Davemeistermoab 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The real source of the confusion is that there are actually two places in the Sierras which carry the name "Yuba Pass" -- one in Nevada County at MP176.5 on the CPRR Sierra grade located four miles East of Emigrant Gap and three miles West of Cisco, and another in Sierra County through which CA-49 now passes. Centpacrr 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania
Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
 * Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
 * Join our mailing list
 * Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up!  Cbrown1023   talk   02:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The High and the Mighty
Since we seem to have a serious disagreement on the format of this article, I suggest we list this on Third opinion. Clarityfiend 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Belfast, ME page
Your history of the Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad is fine, but it should appear on the B&ML RR page (which contains almost nothing) instead monopolizing the Belfast, Maine city history page. Regards,--Hugh Manatee 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have elected to delete my contributions to this page. Centpacrr 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MLG 1931w.jpg
Hi. Thanks for uploading this image to Wikipedia, and digitally enhancing it. However, the image risks being deleted from Wikipedia due to copyright concerns, unless you are able to provide the following information to the image description page: Thank you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You assert that the image is in the public domain. You need to explain why/how it is in the public domain.  Remember that it needs to meet both Canadian (as an image first published in Canada) and American (as the Wikipedia servers are located in the United States) criteria for public domain images.
 * You need to provide the source of the image.


 * Toronto Maple Leafs program from the first game at Maple Leaf Gardens, November 12, 1931.
 * Scanned from original 1931 program cover digitally restored by the contributor.
 * In accordance with Sec. 12 of the Crown Copyright Law of Canada, this image would have entered the Public Domain in 1981. (“12. Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year." [S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 60(1)]”)Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the Crown copyright provision of the federal Copyright Act. In other words, it only applies to works produced by the federal government.  I doubt the government produced and published the program for the Maple Leafs game on November 12, 1931.Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sec. 6. The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author dies, and a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. (R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 6; 1993, c. 44, s. 58).Centpacrr (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's better, but still not enough. In order for that to apply, you need to know the name of the artist and his or her date of death, so as to show that the required 50 years has passed.  And the image needs to have become public domain prior to 1996 (i.e. the 50 year period expired), so as to also be considered public domain in the United States.  I hate to be hassling you, but Wikipedia is becoming stricter and stricter with this sort of thing -- this is a good image, and it will be deleted at some point unless this information is provided.  Do you know who the author is?  If not, perhaps a fair use rationale would suffice in this instance (at least for now).  Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The copyright for the publication, of which this cover illustration was an integral part, was vested in its publisher ("Maple Leaf Gardens, Ltd") which, as a limited liability corporation, was not a "natural person" and therefore would have no date of death. That being the case, under Canadian law copyright would thus appear to have lapsed 50 years after the year of publication (1931), i.e., in 1982, at which time this illustration would have entered the Public Domain.Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The High and Mighty
Hi Bruce. If you check the film article, I have restored your original edits and tried to massage the text some more. You may not have realized who Gwen is (the nom de plume for a very accomplished (published) author/editor) nor my userid. I am an aviation author primarily but I have dabbled in the film world as a filmmaker at times. Both of us use the Wikywacky world as a retreat from our daily grind- G from Switzerland and myself from the wilds of Canada. Speaking for myself, the Wiky editing work keeps me "sharp" and I treat it as a workshop experience. Take a look at the changes, see if they work. Feel free to drop me a line, I love talking to other writers. FWIW my sons are both writers and one of them worked in Winnipeg as the media rep for the Manitoba Moose (the re-incarnation of the late-departed and much missed Winnipeg Jets) and now as the media rep for the University of Manitoba Bisons sports teams. Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your note. I first saw this film as a child when it was originally released in 1954 and have watched it many times in the years since. Needless to say, I was delighted when it was finally restored and released on DVD after many years on the deep freeze. I wrote most of my contributions on this between Dec., 2006, and Feb., 2007, but eventually deleted them all in July, 2007, after a seemingly endless series of edits by a variety of people that so badly confused and muddled the article that I just gave up decided to let it sit for six months or so before taking another look at the issue (See "Cleaned Up" in the film's talk page). As a professional writer of both hockey and transportation (primarily railroad, and to a lesser extent aviation and maritime) history for almost four decades (four books, several thousand articles, and a variety or websites including one on the First U.S. Transcontinental Railroad (CPRR.org) which exceeds 10,000 webpages), I pride myself in the care with which I am able to observe, understand, reference, and clearly relate detail in my writing.  You can see from my Wiki user page (Centpacrr) that I have worked in professional ice hockey for almost 40 years in many capacities during which time I have "worked" more than 3,000 games in one capacity or another. (See my personal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net and my History & Trivia blogs on HockeyBuzz.com.) I also learned to fly in 1964 (in a Beech Bonanza) but have not been an active pilot for some time. I do have have an extensive collection of unusual aviation artifacts which I have built over the years including Charles Lindbergh's last paycheck as contract U.S. Air Mail pilot (dated February 15, 1927, three months before he made his solo flight from new York to Paris), a small piece if the silver colored fabric skin that he removed from the "Spirit of St. Louis" at Le Bourget field in Paris the day after his arrival on May 21, 1927, and that presented to the Belgian Ambassador to France, several pieces of fabric from the "Graf Zeppelin", a charred nine-inch spar brace recovered from the "Hindenburg" after it crashed at Lakehurst, NJ, in May, 1937, a control cable pulley from the Martin M-130 "China Clipper" PAA flying boat from 1935 (acquired from the estate of a Glenn L. Martin Company. engineer), etc, etc. I still have some differences in interpretation and appropriate structure of the "The High and the Mighty" article, but I think those can probably be worked out. I also spoke with one of my friends in Winnipeg this morning who told me that it was -30C there today. In Philadelphia (where I live) things have been a little better this winter with no measurable snowfall at all this winter and the temp hit 70F last weekend for the third time this winter. (We'll probably pay for this in March with a Nor'easter though I expect.)  Many thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi Bruce, we do seem to have some related interests although I can't claim to have anything like historical artifacts other than some bits and pieces of the late-lamented Avro Aircraft Ltd. plant in Toronto where I and a film crew were working. I did find a large painted wooden sign featuring the Spirit of St. Louis and Charles Lindbergh that was made after the Lindbergh transatlantic flight at a movie set (I did say I was also into movies, didn't I?) where Northern Exposure was being filmed. I offered to buy the original sign and to my surprise, the owner agreed. I am also a great fan of all the "lost causes" including the Hindenburg saga, Amelia Earhart's disappearance and on and on (that's where I stumbled upon our mutual friend: Gwen Gale). I have subsequently written three books about the demise of the Avro Arrow which has eclipsed into modern folklore in Canada. I am presently an editor of an aviation magazine, which is mainly a trade journal devoted to industry news but I do sneak in a heritage piece every issue. One story that recently took place in our neck of the woods was the remarkable discovery of the "Ghost of Charron Lake" which was a Fokker Universal transport that alighted in the modest of a storm but had slipped through the ice and disappeared. Even though its location was well known, over 60 years of searching had not resulted in any finds yet last year a new sonar search located the aircraft situated on an outcropping that had foiled earlier sonar sweeps. I am also a pilot, mainly general aviation types stemming from a time when I had gained a private pilot's licence as an Air Cadet. Like yourself, I and my family are "sports nuts" and follow everything from amateur to professional sports although my only real involvement was as a community club and high school coach (except for my foray into sports car racing in my mid-life crisis years). Keep up the good work, I enjoyed your writing and only had some reservations about following a consistent encyclopedic style. BTW, Gwen is also an excellent writer and has made quite a mark for herself in her chosen genres. Nice to check six with you. I also do not fly more than a desk at this point since my heart operation in 2000 but I do try to keep my hand in whenever the occasion offers itself. Other pilots never seem to mind to have an old fart sit in a right-hand seat and not only "shoot the bull" but also let me take the controls. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC). And your friend in Hades Winnipeg was being upbeat, it hit -42 degrees C a few days ago. Bzuk (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC). I have actually moved on from the High and Mighty to tackle The War Lover which I saw as a very incomplete "stub" article and will do my standard, "pull it up by the bootstraps" effort. Bzuk (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC). BTW, check out the Island in the Sky (1953 film) article, I did some work on this one as well. Bzuk (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Hi again Bruce,can you look over the article The High and Mighty which is pretty well done. I hope I have preserved your original "voice" and if you look at the final edits, there is simply some elaboration on the very unique perspective that you brought. I don't think I've seen another film article done in quite the same way, but in Seinfeld speak, "not that there's anything wrong with that!" I will take a final look at the combined efforts of yourself, Gwen (I hate to call her that as I know her real name) and my own pithy submissions after giving it a week's rest or more. FWIW, G/H "spanked me about" numerous times in our messy collaboration but I think the final result may stand up. Bzuk (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Will do in the next day or two. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Rewatched the entire film and made a variety of corrections in technical details of the flight, and in the plot and aircraft sections. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Airmail
You have added a lot of information to the airmail article but all of it is unsourced. You are no doubt well aware of the criticism that Wikipedia is unreliable and to that end, nowadays, it in necessary to provide verifiable references. I hope you can do that for the edits you made. If you need help with making inline citations, juts ask. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I am not finished yet, but I have only added information (and images) so far on the first U.S. Air Mail in 1918, and corrected the information on first CAM flights. (The previous entry -- which curiously was sourced -- that I replaced claimed that the first CAM route to go into operation as being CAM-5 on April 6, 1926, which is completely wrong as both CAM-6 and CAM-7 both began service three weeks earlier on February 15.) All of this information can be easily found in the all editions of the American Air Mail Catalogue. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
 * P.S. I have a very extensive collection on aerophilatelic postal history specializing in rare early flown (pre-WWII) US air mail, CAM, FAM, Lindberghiana, and Zeppelin covers, and associated ephemera and artifacts. I have also used Apples and Macs exclusively since 1981, and once worked with the late Jef Raskin doing extensive testing of the Canon Cat (Information Appliance) on which I wrote three of my books and which he co-developed with my brother-in-law. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
 * I recently asked Tirkfltalk to translate the German airmail article, which is a German WP:FA, into English because this one is very lacking and I would love to see a second philatelic featured article. I have been waiting for him to get back to me when it has been proof-read and is ready for adding references and citations. What you have been adding is, on the other hand, very detailed, possibly too detailed, for a general airmail article like this and very US-centric. Somewhere in all that there should to be a balance that covers the major events of airmail and its history worldwide, somewhat in the coverage of James A. Mackay's Airmails, 1870-1970 book which you may have. Let's talk about it later on. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Philately WikiProject and Portal
BTW, the Philately wikiproject is in need of experienced, knowledgeable philatelists to help edit articles, patrol existing articles and write new ones. You may also be interested in knowing about the Portal:Philately that I maintain for now. I hope you can help. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:1976_77_Firebirds.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1976_77_Firebirds.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This publicity image (in which I appear) was created under my direction in 1976 and was published for promotional purposes without notice or claim of copyright. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Possibly unfree Image:1925_26_NYAmericans_NHL.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1925_26_NYAmericans_NHL.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a publicity/promotional image that was first published in 1925 and done so without a copyright notice of any kind. Per U.S. Copyright Office Circular #22, prior to 1978 such publication without any copyright notice or claim "....indicates that the work is not protected by copyright" and therefore it would be in the Public Domain. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Charles Lindbergh
I am thoroughly impressed with the wealth of knowledge and research that you have provided to this article – great work! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you. Besides my interest in him as an aviator, over the years I have built up a rather interesting collection of "Lindberghiana" which includes many unusual, and some absolutely unique, items and artifacts connected to Lindbergh most of which relate to his aerophilatelic postal history. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

The High and the Mighty
When this article achieves a measure of equilibrium and stability, I would like to propose it as a Good Article candidate (or ask you to champion it, which is probably more akin to its "dad" being involved). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC).
 * What does that entail? (Centpacrr (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Finishing it off to your best version and then recording a fairly lengthy period of stability with no contentious issues arising and no edit wars, are minor requirements. If the article appears ready, then a call for a peer review is made, and this can be duplicated in both the film and aviation project groups where experienced editors will "line-by-line" review the content and verify format and referencing consistencies. After that a formal submission to a Good Article Review will result in one of the prolific reviewers in this "stream" making an appraisal that will complete the process. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Them tricky dates
See:. Generally speaking, the WP:Aviation Project group recommends dates written out as 20 April 2008 or 20–21 April 2008. Note no use of commas or "&."

Thanks for the note about franking. Is franking the marking of mail by a company or government that offers free or low cost postage privileges, or the convenience of sending bulk mail without using normal postage stamps? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Re Dates: While Lindbergh was certainly famous as an aviator, this is not really exclusively an "Aviation" article but the biography of a complicated public figure who was also involved in many other areas such as politics, exploring, inventions, and other fields. I have used the format 20 April 1928, throughout which automatically inserts a comma after the day and the year. This confroms with the format used throughout the rest of the article most of which was written by others and that I have not worked on.


 * Re Franking: Franking refers to any written or printed mark, or affixed postage stamp, to indicate that the item may be processed and delivered by the Post Office. This includes "free" franking such as the handwritten or printed facsimile signature of a Member of Congress, a written "free" such as for soldiers in war zones when authorized, or US Government or USPS "Official Business" "penalty" covers. "Postal" franking (or postally franked) means that there is an indication that actual postage has been paid.  This includes affixed adhesive postage stamps, a "Postage Paid" Permit marking (such as on return business mail), PB meter postage, etc. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * One of the issues that I have tried to address is that inconsistencies in writing/editing style tend to crop up when formatting an article. In date conventions, there is a tendency to use two or three formats concurrently which has been pointed out as a matter of style choices. When using the ISO format of 2008-04-12, foreign users had indicated that it was not a familiar format and a confusion was left, was it April 12, 2008 or December 4, 2008? In WP:Aviation Project Group, a decision to use the "formal" convention of d-m-y, as opposed to the "familiar" m-d-y style, "standardized the style usage.


 * Another consideration is that editors and readers can also set the date preferences to the style they would like, however, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are "guests" or irregular users who will not have this preference set. The use of a common or consistent format is the simplest manner of dealing with the use of different date styles. If you check the style established in the article, new edits are usually conformed to match existing styles.


 * Commas are also a bit complicated as Wiki usually eliminates the comma between the month and day in the date line when written in formal style: e.g. "20 April 2008," although in familiar style, it is still correct to write: "April 20, 2008." When you get a phrase such as "in April 20, 2008," the use of double commas is discouraged in most style guides. The use of a comma in a list, the so-called "Harvard comma" which adds a comma before an "and" is also now less common. In this example, "such as politics, exploring, inventions, and other fields" would be written as "such as politics, exploring, inventions and other fields." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks for directing me to the Wiki Manual of Style re: date formatting which i have read carefully and come up with the following as a solution to the question of American vs International date formatting in the Lindbergh article:


 * As this is in the en.wikipedia site, is primarily a biographical (as opposed to an "aviation") article about a controversial, multi-faceted historic American (as opposed to a Commonwealth or European) figure for which his association with aviation was important, but nonetheless represented only a part of his activities and fame, and contains within it many direct quotations and citations from US articles all of which use the "American" formatting of dates, I have reverted all the date citations back to the American format as specified in the Manual of Style so that they will display consistently throughout. (As you pointed out, the majority of these dates are also "bracketed" so that they can be displayed in several other formats for registered users who are logged in and have a different "autoformat" selected in preferences.) I have also removed bracket formatting from any multiple dates as using "piped links" (as the Manual of Style points out) breaks the date autoformating function. This seems to me fulfill the precepts of the three guidelines for resolving date formatting for this article, i.e., Consistency within articles, Strong national ties to a topic, and Retaining the existing format. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Regardless, your changes still required reformatting because you made mistakes in nearly every instance. The one aspect of your argument that you have neglected is that when a writing style or format is established, that is the prevailing style that is maintained. However (note, modern use of "however"), I have corrected the use of dates. Bruce, you certainly tax a fellow's patience, but I am willing to make the investment. Have a good day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your note. I had not included commas between day-date and year in the reformatted dates with bracketed month/days and years as when I checked the page in preview with preferences "off" they all still displayed correctly (i.e. "January 1, 1900") without a manually inserted comma so I figured adding such a comma would create an unwanted "double comma." It seems that Wikipedia must insert such a comma when missing by default in "bracket" coded dates so I guess it does not matter if it is inserted manually as well. I assume this is the formatting error you were referring to.
 * I am still puzzled by, and do not see the point for using, a military (or "International") dating format in this biographical article, especially when that does not seem to be the norm in other such Wikipedia articles about similar figures with a connection to aviation, Lindbergh, or both. (See for instance Wiley Post, Charles August Lindbergh, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Clarence Duncan Chamberlin, Richard Evelyn Byrd, Charles Nungesser, Hugo Eckener, Ernst A. Lehmann, all of which are bracket coded using "American" date formatting.) Please advise. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
 * One of the prime considerations in looking at the readership of the Wikipedia articles is to recognize that the vast majority of users are actually not editors nor will they have browser date preferences set. The easiest means of addressing a format issue to to provide a consistent and easily-usable format. This article and Amelia Earhart have been the constant target of vandals in the past. A means of addressing the vandal question is to have the article under the auspices of a project group so that the members of the group would be vigilant to the constant protection of a significant article. Since no other project group had "adopted" the article, the WP:Aviation Project Group undertook its "care" and tagged it as a significant aviation article. There has been a long-standing deliberation about the use of dates that affect aviation articles. The consideration was made to look at three different dating systems, the ISO date format, popular style (m-d-y) and the formal style (d-m-y). There is no "American" style although many people believe that the popular style is used primarily in the US, but it is actually a style used throughout the world, and is merely the "popular" style. The "formal" style is more often ascribed to the UK and Europe but it also is not linked to a particular nationality. It has some inherent advantages in editing as it eliminates the double comma in phrases and it is a clean and recognizable convention. After deliberations, the ISO style was considered difficult to read for foreign and new Wiki users. A toss-up occurred between the popular and formal styles resulting in a decision to adopt the formal style that is most often used in academic works and provides an unambiguous format that is acceptable worldwide. Simple as that, it isn't a question of US-bias, it is a question of accommodating the most users. FWiW, if you want more information about the reasoning, I would ask you to consider looking at the Aviation Project Group as a valuable resource aid. Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I understand the issue of vandalism and the necessity for vigilance, and appreciate the "adoption" of this biographical article by the aviation group to that end even though it is not strictly an "aviation" article. My issue is opting to use such a stilted style for dates which seems to me to be inimical to Wiki's general stated format, ie: "Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." Usage of the so-called "International" style (as the Wiki Manual of Style calls it) in a non-technical biographical narrative seems pedantic and wooden in comparison to employing the so-called "American" style (as it is styled in the manual) which is how people actually would use in speech and also how it appears in virtually all publications and documents -- even legal ones -- with the exception of military writing and documents. Imposing an ultaformal style on an article just because it is being watched by the aviation group seems to me to be inappropriate. My view is that this date format should really be used very sparingly, and only when there is some compelling reason to do so. It's usage in written prose tends to be generally offputting for anything other than a formal, bureaucratic, or administrative purpose because it is not the way people talk in real life...not even in academic circles. (See the other examples of aviation & Lindbergh related Wikipedia articles that I directed you to above non of which employs this dating format.) I have been writing professionally for more than forty years and have never used the date-month-year format in anything other than formal military or bureaucratic writing -- nor really have I ever seen it used anywhere in narrative or encyclopedic writing. I would urge the Aviation group to rethink this in the light of the above. Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Charles Lindbergh
You are doing a great job. I love when I see professional editors. I really appreciate your work.

I am wondering if you would be good enough to look over the Munich Crisis paragraph and Lindbergh's relationship with Dr. Carrel. Some of the writing is unspecific and unclear. I think if we can specify how Lindbergh found out about Anne's affair it will greatly improve the article.

GordonUS (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. While my primary area of interest and knowledge has to do with Lindbergh's aviation career and association with the Air Mail service, I'll take a look at the other sections later on when I am finished with these. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Covers
Strictly speaking, for covers like Image:FAM4 First Flight 1927.jpg you didn't actually have a hand in creating any of the artwork (such as the stamp or cachet) on the cover - you just scanned it, right? So there's really no basis for you owning any intellectual property that can be licensed with CC or GFDL. I've been putting images of covers into categories determined by cachet and/or stamps, or into PD-ineligible if there's just a bit of writing with no actual creative work. Stan (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

These are illustrations that I have created of unique postal history documents that I own and which I have then digitally enhanced or restored (to improve contrast, clean up stains, repair tears, etc) thereby making these unique images. US stamps issued before 1978 are no longer under copyright. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Ownership of physical item doesn't matter to copyright, and improving contrast etc doesn't qualify as creative work. (Otherwise I could say I own the hundreds of pre-1978 US stamp images I've uploaded here.) It would only be creative work if the scan were a *less* faithful representation, and presumably you don't want to be in the position of telling people that these are not maximally accurate representations. Stan (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not making any copyright claim on this stamp (or any other), just pointing out that US stamps issued prior to 1978 are no longer copyrighted, The cover as a whole, however, is a unique postal history document, and the image is an accurate representation of the cover. If you have a suggestion for a more appropriate licensing tag for this and similar images, however, I would appreciate the advice as the subtleties of the various tags are somewhat unclear to me. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Going from first principles, a cover is basically a composite work, consisting of stamp, some addresses, and maybe a cachet or other artwork. Addresses and such are uncreative, so no copyright pertains. For a US-stamped cover with a US govt cachet, then PD-USGov seems most appropriate. Private cachets, like from Artcraft, can make the cover non-free, so they would have be here under fair use only. In practice, cover images are tagged in all sorts of ways, with varying degrees of plausibility, so it is confusing; I piped up in this case because these are valuable images that we would eventually like to move to commons so the Germans and others can use. Stan (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the postal history cards and covers I am posting are significant because of the flights on which they were carried and thus their being unique artifacts associated with each flight. (There are no Artcraft other similar such first day of issue covers for stamps.) To me they are of interest because "they were there" when these key milestones in aviation took place. You will notice that I also have posted images of other non-postal aviation artifacts as well such as a piece of the frame of the "Hindenburg", and piece of fabric from the Spirit of St. Louis, a Lindbergh "WE" Banquet program, a couple of Zeppelin passenger pins, and a 1924 USPOD Transcontinental Air mail map among many others. Thanks for your kind words about the value of these images. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Unfortunately your concept of what is public domain is flawed. Copyright is treated very seriously here on Wikipedia. Significant, unique, because "they were there", key milestones, or unique postal history documents, etc., are not reasons for an image of something to be in the public domain and just because you can take a photo or scan of them you cannot make them PD until the copyright runs out. I suggest you carefully read the Wikipedia policy Public domain and for you the entry under Artwork is most likely the most relevant where it states: Artworks are likely to remain unpublished long after their creation date. A date of publication must be ascertained to establish PD status, and 1923 is the important year in this regard. Commenting on the specific images you mention above, the 1924 USPOD Transcontinental Air mail map, being a US government work, is correctly marked as PD, the Hinderburg and Spirit of St Louis artefacts are likely fine but the Lindbergh "WE" Banquet program is, in my eyes, a problem being an artwork published in 1927. The Zeppelin pins are also likely a problem and most likely fall under the same policy as other logos, though being Third Reich items they may actually be fine however I cannot find an appropriate template even though one exists for Deutsches Reich stamps on the commons.


 * Regarding the image Image:FAM4 First Flight 1927.jpg, the artwork, even though you worked on making it look better suffers from the same issue as other artwork as I already mentioned even though it is not actually a Derivative work. In these instance, you may be able to use a Non-free use rationale template when the item is still in copyright but Fair use has its own issues which we can discuss later if necessary. For instance postage stamps that are still in copyright may only be used in articles about the stamps itself and not to adorn a page about the person or item on the stamp. Hope that helps you see more clearly. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "First Flight" cachets on the CAM covers are all applied by the USPOD (in some cases also used to cancel stamps) making them Government "works" and the stamps were all issued prior to 1978 therefore no longer under copyright. In addition each cover is a unique document and historical artifact (or even a "work of art") the title of which passed to me and to which I would therefore own the right to its likeness. The "WE" program was distributed without charge at an event and carries no copyright notice of any kind nor is the creator (or "publisher") identified. The Hindenburg, Graf Zeppelin, and Spirit of St. Louis artifacts also all belong to me and I created the digital images that illustrate them. The lapel pins are promotional items created and distributed by entities that no longer exist, and I created the image that illustrates them. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Image replaced with self created digital illustration. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Airmail
Thanks for clarifying the info on the contract airmail flights. I was always under the impression that CAM 6 & 7 had been contracted first but that they didn't actually fly until a few weeks later. Sorry for the confusion & thanks for clarifying. Moschi (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:1976 77 Firebirds.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1976 77 Firebirds.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Siebrand (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue was dealt with in mid April (see above) and resolved. This is a publicity image in which I appear and and was created under my direction in 1976 for distribution for promotional purposes without any claim of copyright or restriction on reproduction. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Citation request at Transcontinental railroad
Re:Requst for citation at Transcontinental railroad. If you think there might have been an earlier one than the Panama Rairoad, please provide a reference mentioning this possibility. Thanks, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know of no earlier inter-oceanic railroad prior to the 1855 Panama Railroad, nor of any earlier transcontinental route than the three lines of the 1869 "Pacific Railroad" (WPRR from Alameda to Sacramento; CPRR from Sacramento to Ogden; and UPRR from Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs) which connected it to New York via the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific (Council Bluffs to Chicago), Lakeshore & Michigan Southern (Chicago to Buffalo), and New York Central (Buffalo to NYC) which I consider to be the true first transcontinental railroad. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Image source problem with Image:1934 "Graf Zeppelin" South America Schedule.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1934 "Graf Zeppelin" South America Schedule.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Undeath (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of content
Please see the ownership policy. Once you have uploaded content, it is not 'yours' to dictate where it is or is not used. You certainly can't decide they are not to be used. Unless you have a better reason than they are 'your images', please do not remove them from LZ 129 Hindenburg, they are fine where they are in my opinon, and there is no technical reason to remove them if major changes are in progress. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. When you click the "upload" button, you are relinquishing all your rights to the image except the right to be credited as its creator. That's absolutely central to the GFDL, the licence that you agree to each and every time you contribute anything to Wikipedia.


 * Furthermore, you are certainly not the copyright owner of the image of the propaganda leaflet and therefore don't even hold the right to be credited with its use. I doubt you are the copyright owner of the images of the various covers you've uploaded here (since I don't believe that these are even covered by copyright, although the stamps on them may be).


 * Finally, just a warning that you are about to run foul of the three revert rule on this article. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. The various flown covers are each unique philatelic postal history documents which are all contained in my personal collections of Zeppelin related materials and artifacts. I am certainly not claiming to own any interest in either the creation or design of their franking, and any copyright on these stamps would have long ago lapsed. I do, however, have an interest in the overall likenesses as I am the owner of each of these unique Zeppelin related postal history documents and/or artifacts.


 * The porpaganda leaflet is also an original historical document that is a part of my collection of Zeppelin related materials and artifacts. I do not, of course, make any claim that the leaflet itself is copyrighted which, as an originally freely distributed propaganda item produced by a government (which also no longer exists), there is no evidence that is was ever either subject to or intended to be under copyright or any kind. The digital image of the leaflet was created by me from the original document. I have tried to apply what appeared to me to be the most appropriate licensing tag to each image, but if you have a suggestion for one that is better suited that would certainly be appreciated as none of the tags from which I was asked to choose seemed to me to fit completely.


 * The operations of the airships Graf Zeppelin (D-LZ127) and Hindenburg (D-LZ129) were significantly financed by fees collected for carrying philatelic pc/ppcs and covers on their many flights as well as portions of the proceeds from the sale of special postage stamps used to frank them. Most of these items of Zeppelin postal history also contained specialized cachets and CDS applied on board the airships. The Zeppelin Company and DZR promoted these services assiduously for both commercial and promotional purposes, and they were a very significant part of their business and flight related operations. As this is the case, images of Zeppelin related postal history items are quite relevant to the history of both airships. I fully intend to restore the images in appropriate places in the now several Hindenburg articles after the heavy ongoing revisions are completed, but it seemed to me to be inefficient to keep trying to adjust the images and captions while the revision process was underway and the various articles (old and new) were still in flux. When the Hindenburg articles are settled in their final overall formats, I will be restoring the images to the appropriate places in the text and redoing the captions as necessary. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the response, which raises a number of different issues:
 * "I have an interest in the overall likenesses as I am the owner of each of these unique Zeppelin related postal history documents and/or artifacts". Actually, as far as I'm aware, the "overall likenesses" of the covers cannot be subject to copyright (since it is not a "Creative work"), and therefore your scans of them cannot be subject to copyright either.
 * "any copyright on these stamps would have long ago lapsed". In most jurisictions, copyright exists for at least 70 years after the death of the artist (the date that the work was produced/published is usually irrelevant). Unless these stamp designs are exempt from copyright (as 84user suggests below), works from the 1930s would normally still be protected by copyright unless the artist dropped dead almost immediately after producing them :)
 * "as an originally freely distributed propaganda item produced by a government (which also no longer exists), there is no evidence that is was ever either subject to or intended to be under copyright or any kind". Free distribution does not mean that a work is not subject to copyright. Production by a government does not mean than a work is not subject to copyright (unless it is the United States government, which is unusual in this regard). The fact that the Nazi government thankfully no longer exists is irrelevant - the Federal Republic of Germany is its Successor state. Intention is irrelevant - ever since the Berne Convention of 1886, copyright is held to come into existence automatically upon the creation of a work (again the old US practice of needing to assert copyright [prior to 1989] is anomalous here). So, the question is: Was the leaflet created by the German government (or by the Nazi political party, or by some other person/organisation)? And if it was a publication of the German government, does it fall under the category of publications that are free from copyright as an "Official Work" (Amtliches Werk)? If the answer is "no" to either of these questions, then the copyright in the leaflet may still belong to somebody. I guess the bottom line here is that we don't know and probably can't know. Usually Wikipedia doesn't use images under such circumstances.
 * These issues aside, the basic underlying problem here is that irrespective of the fact that you uploaded these photos (as well as ones that you unquestionably own the copyright to - like the girder section), you have no special say in when, where, or how the pictures get used, or what their captions may say. It's not up to you to remove them from articles, or to try to dictate their use. If you're not comfortable with this, you may need to reconsider before uploading any further images to Wikipedia. I know that probably sounds harsh- but that's a fundamental principle that contributors here (whether of images or of text) must come to terms with.
 * For whatever it's worth, I'm not for a moment questioning your good intentions here - let alone the priceless historical value of some of these images. That's quite a collection you have there! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I indicated, I plan to restore my images (which I placed in these articles in the first place) after the various revisions and splits of the entries are completed and i can then determine where they should appropriately go and what to include in the captions. Most museums and libraries that I have dealt with generally claim at least some interest (be it copyright or otherwise) in unique documents, artifacts, works of art, etc, (and even in non-unique photographs) in their collections. If you can suggest some more suitable licensing tag for them then the ones I had to chose from, however, that would certainly be appreciated.


 * |"Template:PD-German Empire stamps" from Wikipedia Commons indicates that German stamps issued prior to 1945 are in the public domain. The latest Zeppelin cover I have is postmarked on May 1, 1937, so the franking on all of them is in the public domain.


 * I don't know that there was a distinction made between party (NSDAP) and "government" (Deutsches Reich) in Germany in 1936. It is an interesting question. However I can't find any provision or creditable evidence in German Copyright Law (Deutsches Urheberrecht) that indicate any natural person or other party of any kind could be in a position to establish legal standing or make a defendable claim as being a legitimate copyright holder for this 1936 propaganda leaflet. (Its reproduction would also seem to be affirmatively permitted under Section II, Art. 5, and Section VI, Art. 48 & 52, as well as being "fair use" for educational purposes.) (Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC))


 * They are not "your" images in any meaningful sense; and it is irrelevant whether you, I, or anyone else "first placed them there". It's not up to you to "determine where they should appropriately go and what to include in the captions".
 * If you want to claim "fair use" for the propaganda leaflet, then that's a whole other ball game, and may indeed be the easiest way out, since it seems like there is no easy way to determine the copyright status or copyright owner (if any). The reference you make to Sect II Art 5 is exactly the provision I was referring to earlier - the possibility that this may be an Official Work. On the other hand, Section VI Art 48 has to do with reporting in print speeches that are made in public, and Section VI Art 52 has to do with public performances of copyright works in not-for-profit gatherings and venues, so I'm not sure what either of these have to do with the reproduction of this leaflet.
 * As far as I can see, all of the covers should be tagged PD-ineligible . The passenger badges and Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei patch should be Non-free logo. The propaganda leaflet is the most troublesome. The closest available tags seem to be Non-free promotional, Non-free poster, Non-free 2D art. There's also always the catch-all Non-free fair use in. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter too much which one of these you choose, as long as a detailed fair use rationale is provided, explaining why the use of this work is fair. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another user, far more knowledgable about philatelic issues than I, has just pointed to me that the covers should in fact be tagged (at Commons) PD-German Empire stamps since while they themselves are ineligible for copyright, the franking of them was, but is now expired. I agree that it makes more sense than my earlier advice on this. He also supports your view that the leaflet qualifies as an Official Work and should be tagged PD-GermanGov. I'll seek some further input on this and report back. --Rlandmann (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I referred to these as "my" images to distinguish them from images in the articles created by others (none of which I touched), but if it will make you less uneasy you can understand this to specifically mean the images that I created and contributed to Wikipedia of philatelic postal history items and other artifacts that are in "my" collections. As I said before, it has always been my intention to restore the images of my Zeppelin related items to the article when the revisions and rearrangements are completed unless, of course, there is some formal Wikipedia policy (as seems to be implied by your comments above) of which I am unaware that prohibits any editor from ever again accessing, placing, or captioning any (and for some unexplained reason only) those images which that particular editor created and contributed, and instead exclusively reserves that right to the universe of all the other editors in the community who did not create and/or contribute those particular images. If there is indeed such a puzzling formal policy, please direct me to where it is stated. If not, then I will understand that I have the same right to access, place, and caption the images I create and contribute as any other Wikipedia community editor does.


 * I included Sec VI, Arts 48 & 52, in relation to the propaganda leaflet as its text consists of a verbatim quotation from a public speech made by Hitler in the Reichstag ("Adolph Hitler in seine historischen rede im Reichstag...."), but "fair use" is probably the best choice for this image to avoid further controversy. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC))


 * It's called the ownership policy, as explained already above. You cannot edit war over the use of uploaded images on the basis that they are "your images". There is absolutely no reason to remove images from an article because it is being revised. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the extract from Hitler's speech were the entire content of the leaflet, then Art 48 would certainly apply; but it isn't. In particular, there's a logo involved.
 * You're as free as anyone to alter or edit images that you uploaded. But, more importantly, everyone else is as free as you are. Edits like this and this are therefore completely inappropriate. The comment that you left on that first edit - "Removing my images for now; I'll decide later where (or whether) to restore them" is particularly problematic. It seems clear to me that you were attempting to assert some kind of special prerogative over when, where, and how those images could be used. MickMacNee has already pointed you to the relevant policy, but even more fundamental to that is the realisation that when you release material under the GFDL you are surrendering practically all your rights to it. The only right that you retain is the right to be acknowledged as the original creator of the work. In the case of many of the images you've contributed, you don't even have that right, since the copyright doesn't belong to you (or anybody else in most cases).
 * Even if someone wanted to use those images in some manner that you found personally derogatory, you would have no right to prevent it: you've extended a licence to everyone in the world to do whatever they like with those images, use them wherever and whenever they like. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I also posted the following last night in another related thread on the talk page of User_talk:Rlandmann:

First let me assure you that all of the contributions that I have made to Wikipedia (both written and images) have been made in good faith and with the sole purpose of sharing both my knowledge and images of some of the historically significant items in my collections with those who visit Wikipedia. I have clearly stated both my purpose and bono fides on my user page, user:Centpacrr, so that anyone who wishes to know my background and areas of interest in order to evaluate my contributions can easily do so. (Unfortunately I was not able to find any such similar information on your user page so I really have no idea who you are, where you are located (although I am guessing either Canada or the UK), or how to evaluate your statements, advice, opinions, or contributions to Wikipedia based on your background or areas of expertness about which I know nothing.)

My problem is this: the licensing and tagging options which are offered on the image upload page are both quite limited (i.e., there are a great many circumstances and types of images that none of them seem to apply to), and are also quite confusing to me because they are not at all well explained. Trying to select an appropriate licensing tag is therefore always a problem for me, and that is why I ask for suggestions and/or advice on this from you and others. (Unfortunately this often leaves me more confused than before as many of the opinions and advices that I get this way end up being equally inconsistent, vague, or contradictory.)

You have noted that I have also tagged many of the images of unique or original items that I have posted as being from The Cooper Collections in order to provide at least some basis of sourcing and provenance for them. Over the past forty years I have built up a nice private collection of both transportation related artifacts and unique aerophilatelic and postal history items. However as it is a private collection it is not available to the public. In order to make at least part of it so in some way, I decided to post high quality images of as many items as I can in Wikipedia articles where they are appropriate and relate to the items. I could, of course, just keep these items locked away to be enjoyed by nobody but myself, but I feel an obligation to share them with as many people as I can, and Wikipedia seems to me to be by far the best place to do that. Many of these are historically significant in and of themselves and can help others in research. A perfect example of this is the of the Spirit of St. Louis fabric which the "papermodlers" found to be extremely useful in their research. When I found that they had a question about the fabric (which i became aware of by doing a periodic Google search for "The Cooper Collections" tag), I was able to post the information they sought in their thread on the issue for which they were very grateful. This is exactly the reason that I have chosen to share images of the items in my collections as widely as possible via Wikipedia.

As i have said before, all of this is being done in good faith. I am a longtime student of history, a professional writer (four books as well as many hundreds of published articles), operate a now decade old 10,000+ webpage railroad history website on the history of the Central Pacific Railroad with another family member, and have digitally restored thousands of historic images. My intention is to allow my contributions to be viewed and appreciated by as many people as possible. The major roadblock to this has proved to be confusing and hard to decipher copyright/licensing tag procedure on Wikipedia which makes it very difficult to find and select a "correct" tag. There often seem to be as many opinions as there are editors as to what the right tag is as well, so no matter what one I pick I can expect to be constantly second guessed by others who each think the image should have some different tag about which none can agree.

I have always been one who opts in favor of inclusion of relevant information rather than exclusion. This, of course, is far more difficult in "paper" publishing because of the expense of physical publishing the work. An internet encyclopedia is a far different animal, however, which is far more conducive to inclusion. To me detail is what gives history life and meaning, and so do images. As I have stated before, I intend to restore the Hindenburg images as soon as the several articles are "settled" in their new forms and I can put them in the most appropriate locations in the revised text and formatting.

I do not object to having images that I created and uploaded of items from my collections moved to Wikipedia Commons in order to make them more widely available as long as I am informed in advance and the original sourcing and provenance information is retained. Simply specifying "Another Wikimedia project" as the source, however, would not be acceptable.

One further thing. I would certainly have much appreciated that since you have decided to discuss how I use Wikipedia with other users, that you would have invited me to participate in this discussion instead of my having to find it serendipitously. I am quite keen to resolve this copyright/licensing tagging issue so that i can continue to post more of "my" images for others to enjoy without the hassle of having to repeatedly defend each one over and over again to every editor who has a different opinion as to how it should be tagged. These issues can all be resolved much more easily and quicker with a little direct open communication. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I'll preface my response with an apology if you feel offended by the discussion on my talk page - that was not the intention. The only new matter introduced was that of the captions, which I wanted to address with you after we'd talked about the ownership and licencing issues, rather than add a new layer of intricacy to already intricate discussions. I acknowledge that it would have been courteous to alert you to the discussion taking place, and for that I'm sorry. Once again, you've raised a large number of issues, some of them quite unrelated to each other. To help try to disentangle them, I'll respond to some major themes separately. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good faith
Good faith on Wikipedia is intimately tied up with the assumption that a person's motivation for making an edit is that the change in content is for the improvement of the encyclopedia (as they see it, even if no-one else agrees with them). And while I may not always agree with you, the only things I've ever seen you do that have made me question your motivation were the repeated removal of images from the Hindenburg article with the insistence that it was up to you and you alone as to when, where, and if those images could be used. Perhaps you could explain what was wrong with the placement of the images as MickMacNee restored them and which you instantly reverted? Or with the more selective group of images that I had in place and which you removed two hours later? Perhaps you could also explain why those particular images needed to be removed "while the articles settle down" while the other images in the article apparently didn't need to be removed. This is the behaviour that has raised concern from your fellow editors. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I indicated earlier that I would, I have now restored all of the images of my Zeppelin artifacts to the Hindenburg article, and as I also anticipated it required a good bit of rearranging to do it in a way that made sense. As for good faith I think you will find that a review of my contributions will reveal that the vast majority of my edits (way more then 90%) consist of or relate to my adding of new information, content, footnotes, images, and other materials in order to expand articles. (On the other hand, I have found that similar reviews of the "contributions" of most of the editors that I referred to that are constantly second guessing the licensing of the images I post, and to a lesser extent the research I add to articles, etc, consist almost exclusively of deleting, altering, and subtracting the contributions of myself and others while almost never adding to or expanding articles themselves.)


 * I perceived that this is what might be happening with the Hindenburg article on which the images I contributed were posted and so that is why I temporarily removed them (and this is also the only time I have ever done so with a group of images I had contributed since joining Wikipedia in September, 2006) until I saw how the article was going to end up. From past experience, I figured that there would be less chance of their being "attacked" again if these were temporarily removed during that process. (I did not touch any images that I had not first put there.) Perhaps the notice I left to explain my reason for this was inartfully worded, but that was more a result of frustration over how I had been treated by the "let me see what I can delete" editors. (Reviews of the talk pages of these users also reveal that they spend most of their time engaged in editing wars. I have no interest in that sort of thing, but I will defend my contributions when they are being gratuitously deleted or altered.) The Hindenburg images are now all back in the article.


 * As for the issue of whether or not The Cooper Collections are notable or not seems to me to be irrelevant. These are the collections in which the items happen to be located, and so that is their source. As noted above, it was by including this sourcing that it was possible for me to become aware of the interest in (and the critical value of) the image of the Spirit of St. Louis fabric sample to the "Papermodlers" group and was thus able to provide them the additional information they needed to use it in their research to determine the treatment, specifications, and coloring of the original fabric.)


 * Lastly, as I also mentioned before, it would be extremely helpful if your user page contained some information and bono fides about yourself so at least I have some idea whom I am talking to about these matters. As it is now, I have no idea who you are and therefore also have no basis on which evaluate any advice, statements, or opinions that you might offer on these issues. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Have you read and understood the Ownership policy?

It seems to me that you're missing the point. Nothing that you've said points to any justifiable reason for your removal of those particular images from the Hindenburg article, and the edit summaries that you left (whether artfully worded or not) leave little doubt in my mind that your removal of them was some kind of effort to exert a greater degree of control over the material than you're entitled to. If that wasn't the intention (and I'm still happy to assume that is wasn't) then when making such edits in the future, I would suggest that you indicate very specifically in the edit summary why you think that a particular image should no longer be used in an article. Because as it stands, if your actions weren't an inappropriate exercise of ownership, they were indistinguishable from such an exercise to your fellow editors.

Other editors changing material that you've contributed here cannot be construed to be an "attack" except in the case of blatant vandalism, as defined by the vandalism policy. The original contributor has no greater say in what happens to the material that they've contributed than anyone else does. This is a central and fundamental principle as to how Wikipedia works, and one that I'm not sure that you've fully appreciated the consequences of. As it says at the bottom of each and every edit page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

I appreciate that you have lengthy experience with the traditional publishing industry. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a very different animal in many ways, and it looks to me like you have some degree of unlearning to do. Your contributions here aren't sacrosanct, and anyone at all (even someone who hasn't registered an account here!) is free, within extremely broad limits, to revise it, reword it, delete parts of it, chop it up and spread it across multiple articles, or do whatever else they want to do with it according to their belief that what they're doing is creating a better encyclopedia (whether this agrees with your belief or not). More than that! People who have nothing to do with Wikipedia at all are free to take your writing, make whatever rewording they think is appropriate, and republish it, even for profit, without any further consent from you. The sole right that you retain is to be acknowledged as a contributor to whatever they eventually produce from your words, and they must provide a link back to (or a copy of) the Wikipedia article that they used as a starting point.

I regard you as a highly valuable contributor here; but I don't believe that you've really come to terms with what it means to be part of a community-based, open-source writing project where nobody really owns anything. In my years here, I've seen plenty of people who haven't been able to make that leap and to let go of things (words, pictures) that they're accustomed to thinking of as theirs. Inevitably, the project loses such people. I hope you won't be one of them.

Again, I am out of time. I will come back to the captions shortly. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say that I find your response quite puzzling. While you say that "Nothing that you've said points to any justifiable reason for your removal of those particular images from the Hindenburg article" (which, as I have pointed out, I have now restored as I always intended to), you then immediately say that I should be prepared to accept that nothing is "sacrosanct, and anyone at all (even someone who hasn't registered an account here!) is free, within extremely broad limits, to revise it, reword it, delete parts of it, chop it up and spread it across multiple articles, or do whatever else they want to do with it according to their belief that what they're doing is creating a better encyclopedia (whether this agrees with your belief or not)." apparently with no need to justify what they are doing at all to anybody, a completely contradictory position.


 * The "attacks" about which I am concerned are the constant threats ("this image will be deleted in seven days" unless you do this or that) to permanently remove images from the database and thus make them unavailable to others. Are you saying that I should never dispute this and not defend the retention of the images? (As I mentioned I have found that these "attacks" most often come from editors who almost exclusively delete and almost never actually "contribute" anything new themselves.) I have certainly never done this to the contributions of others because (as I have explained earlier) mine is a philosophy of "inclusion" as opposed to "exclusion."


 * Despite several requests now, you have also still not identified yourself in any way (as I have fully in my user page), so I still have no idea who you are (except that you are apparently interested in aviation and also wish to post the complete content of a large number of copyrighted books on that subject on Wikipedia "all thoroughly cross-referenced and made available freely to anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection") and thus have no basis whatsoever on which to evaluate your advice, opinions, and/or statements on these matters. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC))


 * No need to be puzzled - if you refer back to what I actually said, you'll note that I indicated that the freedom to edit other people's contributions on Wikipedia exists "within extremely broad limits". One of those limits is the ownership policy, that you have been repeatedly directed to. You are not free to edit material here in order to exercise or assert special rights over material that you originally contributed.
 * I respectfully suggest that the reason that you're running into "constant threats" is because you haven't yet come to terms with this "copyleft" environment and how Wikipedia handles copyright issues more generally (guilty until proven innocent, onus on the contributor to prove copyright status). Until you do so, it's inevitable that you will continue to run into controversy and resistance. I regret that up till now, I have been able to offer much in the way of concrete suggestions about some of these issues, but I've had limited time over the past few days, and responding carefully and accurately to new issues that you keep raising has meant that I don't seem to get there. We'll see how we go today.
 * I'm not for a moment suggesting that you should not work towards supplying adequate and accurate licencing information for images - that's why warnings get posted to contributors' talk pages. The fact that you choose to view these warnings as "attacks" or "threats" that you have to "dispute" and "defend" against is unfortunate - if you perceive it to be an adversarial process, this will eventually be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 * There is no obligation or even expectation for any user here to disclose any personal information about themselves, and your continued insistence that I do so is inappropriate. I had hoped that my silence on your original request would communicate my reluctance to make this information public. I regret that I must be more forthright now and simply say "no".
 * Your misconstruing of the "mission statement" on my user page is perhaps illustrative of some of your problems with understanding copyrights more generally. I want the information contained in all of those books (and more!) to be freely available - which is an entirely different thing from saying that I want to make the text or images from those books freely available. Information (per se) is not subject to copyright. The expression of that information - the words chosen - is most certainly subject to it, and images almost always are.
 * Well, time's up again. I'll get back to you in a few hours. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem with copyright/tags issue is that there is no consensus as to what is correct, and no central place to go to find all of them at one place. Once I have "satisfied" one editor, a few weeks later another one comes along with a completely different view, and I have to go through the whole process all over again to satisfy that one. And then this may happen a third time with somebody else who has yet another view and will only be satisfied if I go back to my original tag. I want "my" images (by which I mean the ones I have created and contributed of items in my collections) to be widely available and useful to as many people as possible and so that is why I am going through the process of trying to keep them from being deleted by every Tom, Dick, and Harry (many of whom also choose to be anonymous) who comes along with some other view of what copyright law, if any, applies. The problem is if "everybody is in charge, then nobody is in charge" and that leads to anarchy.


 * If you chose to be anonymous, than that is certainly your right. But the consequence of that, in my view, is that it severely limits your credibility to me as an authoritative source of information and guidance because I have no idea who you are, what your motives might be, what actual experience you have to speak with authority on any of these matters, or any other criteria on which for me to use as a basis to judge the validity of what you say. This is especially puzzling to me because you also hold yourself out to be a "Wikipedia Administrator" and therefore presumably a part of the "government" (such as it is) of the Wikipedia community. The concept, however, that it is appropriate to exercise "administrative powers" anonymously over the contributions and actions of other users would seem to me to be an anathema in an open community such as Wikipedia as it potentially invites abuse. Governance should never be anonymous or secret.


 * As you point out, however, you are perfectly free to remain anonymous if you so chose, and now that you have expressed that I will not ask you about it again. But then please also understand that this being the case you should not necessarily expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to automatically accept anything you say without seeking independent verification in the form of documented policy, etc, and, if I choose, to also feel free to reject any or all such statements, opinions, or advice if I can't find concrete independent support for them. The key to credibility of anything on Wikipedia, I have heard over and over again, is verifiability of its sourcing of information (i.e. ), and I certainly agree. Everything you say might be perfectly fine. I just have no way of knowing.


 * I also agree that "information" is the property of all, but that is not what your "mission statement" seems to imply, at least as I read it. (You may want to state your intention more concisely to avoid further misinterpretation of your intentions.) I will, of course, accept that you mean something else and wish you the best in finding a way to accomplish your objective without running afoul of any other Wikipedia editors who may have different views on the appropriateness of how you do it.


 * In any event, I have restored the images of my artifacts to the Hindenburg article as I said I would. As I explained above, the reason for this (although perhaps inartfully explained originally) was not to exercise or assert special rights over material that [I] originally contributed as you seem to believe, but I will let my words above speak for themselves and not repeat them again here. Beyond that, I guess I will have to continue to try to satisfy as best I can all the myriad of conflicting views on tagging and copyright since there seems to be no consensus as to what any of this means in the wacky world of Wikipedia and just leave it at that. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I certainly sympathise with your predicament, which coupled with the undeniably high value of the images you have contributed is one reason that I'm eager to continue dialogue and try to assist you to work within the community, rather than at odds with it. The way things are going, you appear to be swimming against the stream. In my experience, this almost always results in an editor becoming increasingly frustrated and eventually leaving us in disgust, or continuing to beat their heads against the brick walls of policy until they eventually get blocked or even banned in extreme cases. I intend to (eventually!) discuss licencing and tagging issues with you; but for now will simply say that your predicament seems to be a mostly a product of the fact that many (most?) of the images that you contribute here are far less straightforward than the vast majority of images we get here. It's usually not this convoluted - honest! Many of these images contain multiple elements, the copyright and licencing status of each one needs to be considered when coming to a decision about what the overall status of the image might be (which will be equal to the most restrictive element in the image). More on this later.


 * To a very great extent, there is nobody in charge here. The community is largely self-governing and policies and guidelines arise and evolve here through consensus over the years. We seem to avoid anarchy pretty well most of the time. The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the project (and pays the bills!), very rarely intervenes in any direct way in the day-to-day running of Wikipedia. This is, of course, radically different from how most publishing efforts are run, and for a project of this size, I'll bet that it's unique.


 * You are, of course, free to evaluate the advice and opinions of anyone you encounter here according to whatever criteria you choose. You will find, however, that (pseudo-)anonymity is the norm, and that attempting to use your fellow editors' off-Wikipedia credentials to assess their credibility will be a frustrating and disappointing experience. I can't immediately recall seeing anyone with as much personal information on their user page as you have. This includes our administrators and even our bureaucrats. You may draw your own conclusions about what this says about the degree to which the Wikipedia culture as a whole pays attention to off-Wikipedia credentials. It's something that we've certainly been criticised for in the past. (On the other hand, we've had people fraudulently abuse purported off-Wikipedia credentials as well). Getting used to that may be another cultural adjustment that you need to make if you're going to be comfortable contributing here in the long term. It seems to concern you, but I don't think that you're likely to single-handedly change the culture.


 * We seem to be at an impasse regarding the Hindenburg edits. You seem unwilling or unable to see why they have caused such concern to your fellow editors, or why they were problematic according to policy. I will therefore leave the ball in your court, and simply say that I remain open to discussing ownership with you if you so desire; although I honestly don't know I can make it any plainer to you than I already have. But I will not initiate such a discussion with you again in connection with this particular incident.


 * Hopefully, next time I have time to respond here we can move onto some specific licencing issues and maybe even get to the captions. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, we'll see how it goes. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Copyright and licencing tags
A complaint you've repeatedly made is the difficulty of selecting an appropriate tag from the options presented during the upload process. The options available on the upload page are undeniably limited; they are intended to cope with the licencing requirements of the vast majority of the images that get uploaded to Wikipedia. As I said last time, many (most?) of the images that you've contributed to the project don't readily fit one of these typical categories, which is why you've quite innocently run into trouble. If you can see that none of the options fit a particular image, then you're best off selecting the "Other" option on the upload page, leaving the licencing option as "none selected" on the next page, and adding a tag manually later.

What tag to choose, though? You've complained that there's "no central place to go to find all of them at one place". That's probably true, but they all should be under Category:Image copyright tags or one of its subcategories (whose names are, I think, self-explanatory). Choosing an appropriate one, is of course, the real trick, and like I said, images may contain multiple elements. Let's have a look at a really simple example with no problems or disputes around it, as an illustration of some of the factors that need to be considered in more complex images.

I got about 50% through a more complex example, but have to sign off for now. More later. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this is most useful. What tag (if any) fits best as a default for my postal history covers? (Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

I guess that one of the things I'm trying to communicate is that if there are multiple elements in an image, it's dangerous to think in terms of a default. Probably the closest generalisation would be to say that if there are no other elements in the image other than the postage stamps that are subject to copyright, then PD-USGov will apply to US stamps (and other works of the USPS) first printed prior to 31 December 1978, and PD-German Empire stamps will apply to German stamps prior to 1945. Let's go to an example.

Unfortunately, it's not always going to be so easy...