User talk:Centpacrr/Archive3

US Airways 1549
This sentence has been removed. It was previously moved, and can still be found, in the aftermath section. This sentence does not belong in the introduction to the article... it is minutiae. The introduction is a place for broad information about the incident, not the insurance disposition of the plane. Thanks.
 * "The almost ten year old airplane (N106US, c/n 1044) was written off.  "


 * I've removed the "Sully" drink from the article. Reasons given on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Colgan/Continental Flight 3407
I was debating whether I should upload the approach plate or not for that article. I was thinking the approach was becoming more relevant after learning of the weather and hearing the controller audio. One minor nitpick, the chart you uploaded expired before the crash. The chart effective dates suggest it is still valid but they omit the time the charts are effective on those dates. The chart expired that morning at 0901Z (4:01am EST) and was not valid at the time of the crash. I don't think there were any changes on the new chart so I'll leave it up to you whether it is worth adding the 0901Z 2/12/09 to 0901Z 3/12/09 chart instead. Skywayman (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This ILS approach plate is the most recent one that I have for Rwy 23 at KBUF. It was added by me to the article as much to indicate the location of the outer marker ("Klump") -- the approximate site of the accident -- with respect to the airport as to demonstrate the profile the ILS approach for Rwy 23. While what I see on this plate seems consistent to me with the approaches being flown by the Delta and US Airways ("Cactus") flights that reported rhime ice that I heard on the ATC tapes from Buffalo Approach Control, the plate as I posted it on Wikipedia is certainly not there to be used for navigation. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Bob Clarke
Thanks for the correction on Bob Clarke. I was unaware of the distinction. I corrected the link because Wikipedia has his entry under "Bobby Clarke". (Smel4727 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You're welcome. I have known him personally since he was drafted in 1969 and have never heard Clarkie refer to his first name as anything other than Bob. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Rev. (Domine) Everardus Wilhelmus Bogardus
While researching for the History of Albany, New York article I do recall coming across info on the Domine's widow while living in Beverwyck. Google books has Albany Chronicles by Cuyler Reynolds published in 1906. If you havent used the google books website before its pretty easy, just search for the title and once you bring up the book, it will have a "search in this book" search field on the right side, type in her name and itll list every single page with her name on it and her name will be highlighted in yellow in every instance it shows up.Camelbinky (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am quite familiar with Google Books and have used it frequently. Also I have added some additional material about Anneke Jans and the "Dominie's Bouwerie" to my Lineage Chart which indicates that she removed to Albany somewhat later than another reference indicated. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Mike Emrick
Thanks for helping to clean up the Mike Emrick article. I know it needs some work (namely verifying some of the information), and I ran out of time earlier when I was rearranging some of the info, but now it's more accurate and easier to read. I appreciate your picking up where I left off. sme3 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I will be doing a little more to it in the future as "Doc" and I have been very close friends for 32 years (since 1977) and have worked together many times over the past three decades. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

World Series
I have posted a complaint about your consensus-defying behavior at WP:ANI. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you maycontest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I must admit that I am quite surprised by this action of "blocking" my access to editing Wikipedia for any length of time without so much as a warning or seeking my side of the issue. (According to the time stamps User:Cirt blocked my account just five minutes after User:Baseball Bugs (age 13) posted his "complaint" about my supposed "disruptive editing.".) If Cirt had instead taken the time to review my record, he would have found that I have made over 4,300 constructive edits on Wikipedia since September, 2006, and contributed 111 image files, without ever once being accused of "disruptive editing" (or any other misconduct) except by User:BaseballBugs in the instant case. The vast majority of my contributions have been to add information and research (I am also a professional historian and the author of four published book) to articles about subjects which interest me (see my user page for a listing and my background) while my deletions or reversions have been limited almost exclusively to obvious vandalism made by unregistered (IP) users, changing material that I has previously contributed myself that I later decided to change or update, or to make reversions of the deletions of my own contributions which were made by others without providing any reason or justification for doing so. The last of these best describes the edits and reversions in the instant case. As has been noted, this all revolves around the contention and apparent belief by some that the winning of Major League Baseball's annual "World Series" tournament also automatically entitles its winners to adopt for themselves that they are also entitled to be considered as the exclusive and internationally recognized title of "World Champions of Baseball." Despite the views of BaseballBugs, this is by definition an impossibility. Official "world championships" in all organized sports are determined only by competing in international tournaments which are sanctioned, administered, and regulated but the several International Federations which govern those sports. In the case of baseball, that is theInternational Baseball Federation which was founded in 1938 and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. No other organization -- including a privately owned, for profit corporation with self limited membership such as "Major League Baseball" -- is recognized as having the authority to sanction "world" championships and determine their winners. Also such championships in team sports may be competed for in these international tournaments only by national teams organized and certified by each country's National Federation for that sport, This, of course, excludes privately owned and financed professional teams. As this distinction did not seem to be clearly made in the intro to the World Series article I added it early on April 25, but it was almost immediately reverted by BaseballBugs with the only reason given being an unexplained claim of "editorializing." As no explanation was given, I restored my edit with a notation that it was "not editorializing" followed by "see talk" where I then gave a full explanation of my reasons for its restoration. This, however, was then almost immediately reverted for a second time by Baseball Bugs with the only new reason given being a rather cryptic: "It is what it is." I then wrote a new edit to which I added a reference to the 2009 "World Baseball Classic" international (16 countries) tournament recently completed under the sanction of the IBAF, however Baseball Bugs again reverted for athird time (which would seem to be a violation on his part of the "Three Reversion" rule). I explained again in talk why I felt that this distinction needed to be made to which he responded that "It is not your place, as a wikipedia editor, to decide that this is not a "world" championship and to use a wikipedia article to try to editorialize on the matter." and accused me of being "disruptive." I then rewrote the contribution again to delete the discussion to the "World Baseball Classic" (about which he had also complained) and asked him to respond to my argument (see above) that it is impossible for a privately owned and operated baseball club winning a "World Series" (which is a tournament limited exclusively to the 30 member clubs of MLB) to then declare itself the "world champions of baseball" without competing for that title against sanctioned international competition. The only affirmative "argument" which he advanced in answer to that question was that "Major League Baseball itself calls the World Series champions "the world champions". Those are words straight from Bud Selig's mouth." I then explained to him in talk that as Mr. Selig is a paid representative and member of the management of MLB, his statement must be treated as being self serving as an encyclopedic source and thus not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on independent sourcing. As such Mr. Selig is not a disinterested or objective voice to support Baseball Bugs' contention this is a sanctioned world title. In an attempt to assuage his concerns, I then rewrote may entry as a footnote which Baseball Bugs reverted again (for the fourth time in less than 24 hours). When I restored the footnote and attempted to again explain the reasons supporting it, the entry was reverted (for a fifth time) and Baseball Bugs filed his "complaint" against me for alleged "disruptive editing" to which User:Cirt responded by unilaterally blocking me just five minutes later. (For this reason I was and have been unable to post my further comment in the World Series talk page on why I had restored it.) Baseball Bugs claims that "consensus" had been reached that the "World Series" and the "world championship of baseball" are the same thing (the falsity of which is the only point that I intended to address in my edit). A review of the section of the World Series talk page discussing this issue, however, hardly shows that to be the case. While I am not currently able to edit the talk page to add further comments there, Baseball Bugs has since advanced a second affirmative reason as to why they should be considered as the same, to wit: "That's where the money is" ("The players with the highest level of talent want to come to the USA because they can get the big bucks. HUGE bucks. This is a profession. It's about money.") Of course the players in the NHL, NBA, and NFL are also the highest paid professional athletes in their sports as well, but none of these leagues have ever claimed that their playoff champions are also the "world champions" in their respective sports. How much players are (or are not) paid to participate professionally in a sport has nothing whatever to do with whether or not they win championships. One additional word of explanation. I rather suspect that part of Baseball Bugs' real reason for "complaining" about me as an "editorializer" might well be that I had objected to his own earlier overt edtorializing on Wikipedia by his repeated attempts to introduce his own personal religious POV that miraculous devine intervention should be used to explain the successful outcome of the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the North River section of the Hudson River last January rather than crediting that to the plane's aircrew, their training, and experience as being responsible for saving the passengers' lives in the accident. While I do not claim to be an expert on baseball (professional ice hockey is my field), I will seek to get a more official detailed explanation of the real MLB position on this matter (and Baseball Bugs' expressed views on it) when I see my old high school classmate for four years (1960-64), Dave Montgomery, at out 45th Reunion Dinner next week atCitizens Bank Park. As the longtime President of the Philadelphia Phillies, the current MLB "World Series" champions, I think he can speak authoritatively on this subject. I would have much appreciated the courtesy of User:Cirt's both first reading the comments that I had already posted on the article's talk page and then contacting me before unilaterally blocking my access to editing without warning or explanation just five minutes after Baseball Bugs' made his "complaint" that I was being "disruptive." Doing so in this manner hardly seems like due process or investigating to me, especially in the light of my otherwise spotless record on Wikipedia, Baseball Bugs' own five reversions of my contributions in less than a day, and my extensive use of the talk page to state my reasons for my various edits whenever I made them. For this and the other reasons stated above, I therefore request that my account be immediately unblocked and that the blocking be expunged from the record of my account as inappropriately applied without investigation or due process in the first place. The block has already expired. Cirt (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note
 * That does not respond to the issues I have raised here. (See below) (Centpacrr (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

3RR
In the future please take care to observe WP:3RR. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the above really completely fails to respond to any of the issues that I have raised here, or to provide your rationale or justification for imposing a block on my account within five minutes after an unevaluated claim of "disruptive editing" was filed against me. Based on that timing (five minutes from the filing of the complaint to conviction and sentencing), you apparently failed to do any investigation or evaluation of the facts or circumstances whatsoever. Why, for instance, did you completely ignore that it was the the complainant (User:Baseball Bugs) who clearly started and perpetuated this little "edit war" by making five reversions to my various contributions (and changes thereto) in less than 24 hours without any explanation or serious responses to my postings in talk other than such cryptic notes as "editorializing" and "It is what it is", or using as justification of his position that only he is correct about a "World Series" title being the same as "world championship" because "Bud Selig says it is so" or "That's where the money is."


 * I have been an operator and/or administrator on many sites for more than a decade. (For instance I personally co-own and operate a massive and heavily visited railroad history site that has been online since February, 1999, and currently contains more than 10,000 pages and 5,000 image files.) The first rule of good website administration is to recognize that there two (or even more) sides to every dispute. If I had made a compliant first instead of Baseball Bugs, would you have just blocked him instead in just five minutes without looking into the merits of my complaint (or his response) at all? Baseball Bugs would not have deserved to be treated that why, and I would not have wanted him to be. All editors should be equally respected.


 * A complaint is only a charge which needs to be evaluated before being acted upon. Prior to taking anyadministrative action, it is incumbent upon any administrator to at least attempt to view and evaluate the record and/or give the charged party notice and a chance to respond. Not doing so would be the equivalent in law, for instance, of treating an indictment (the "charge") as a conviction (the final ajudication) without bothering with the trial, although I recognize that there are still lots of countries where that remains the case. That, however, hardly seems to be the kind of due process that the volunteer members who make the Wikipedia community work should expect from those who are entrusted with regulating it.


 * I am gratified to see that a group of other editors are now seriously discussing the original issue that concerned me (that a "World Series" title is NOT the same as a sanctioned "world championship") and are attempting to correct the article with edits of their own. That's all I ever wanted to have happen and I will leave it to them to fix the problem there. However I spent a good deal of time posting above my detailed position on this matter and the reasons for my good faith edits. Please have the courtesy to at least acknowledge that there is another side to this issue and respond to the points that I raised above. Baseball Bugs (as plaintiff) and I (as respondent) both deserve at least that level of care from any administrator. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I turned myself into the admin, who can issue a block if he so chooses. Meanwhile, I see that the Phillies own official website labels themselves as "World Champions". Apparently that's how Harry Kalas called the final out also. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots 20:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The International Baseball Federation is, by international consensus, the only organization that can sanction a "world champion of baseball." Please provide me with a single link to a verifiable source stating that the IBAF recognizes the "World Series" champions as the legitimate "world" champions as well and I will support and defend your position on this without reservation. If you are unable to find such a source, however, I trust that, in the name of objectivity and accuracy, you will drop your contention that it is. That is all that either of us is trying to establish in the Wkikpedia World Series article.


 * In the meantime, as promised I will discuss your contentions and the marketing/PR position taken by the Phillies on their website and in their advertising with Dave Montgomery when I am having dinner with him next weekend at our high school class reunion and ask him to provide me with the same level of evidence to support it. You are obviously a bright, dedicated, and passionate editor. So am I. We all have the same objective here -- to make Wikipedia as accurate and unbiased as possible. Please don't make this something personal. (It is not with me.) I have worked in professional sports, and as a professional writer, communicator, and researcher for more than forty years, and I take verifiable facts seriously. All I am asking is that you support and independently verify your contentions with something other than personal views, and I will do the same. The ball is now entirely in your court on doing so, and I will accept whatever the verifiable evidence shows to be true. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I would like to see a link that says that anyone cares about what the IBF thinks. The fact is that MLB has players from all around the world. MLB is the highest level of baseball in the world. The World Series winner is, and always has been, the true world champions of the sport. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well therein lies the rub -- and you have thereby (albeit apparently inadvertenty) made my point exactly. Your unilateral statement that "The World Series winner is, and always has been, the true world champions of the sport." is your unsupported personal opinion -- i.e., the very epitome of "editorializing" about which you so bitterly complain in others. As for your demand that I provide a link that verifies "that anyone cares about what the IBF thinks" I direct you to the Wikipedia entry on the IBAF which states in its first paragraph:


 * "The International Baseball Federation (IBAF) is the worldwide governing body for the sport of baseball. It sanctions play between teams sponsored by the national baseball federations of member countries through competition tournaments including the Baseball World Cup, the World Baseball Classic (in conjunction with Major League Baseball), the Intercontinental Cup, and the Olympic baseball tournament (in conjunction with the International Olympic Committee). Its headquarters are in Lausanne, Switzerland."


 * Wikipedia requires that to be included in an article, such a statement as you made must be supported by independently verifiable and objective sources. Your contention that ""nobody cares" what the IBF thinks" without such independent sourcing makes it a specious argument. Including it in a Wikipedia article under those circumstance is in absolute contradiction of that central and fundemental Wikipedia policy requiring verifiability and objectivity. Whether or not you like or personally agree with it, the International Baseball Federation (as are the other International Federations that govern the other organized sports in the world) is the only internationally and universally recognized organization with the authority to sanction "world champions" in its sport. That being the case, by definition it is also certainly not the function of Major league Baseball, a privately owned and operated for profit corporation with a restricted, self limited membership engaged in the entertainment business, to dictate to the 114 member nations of the IBF what constitutes the club (if any) that their own federations are to recognize as the "world champions" of their sport. To quote you, "That's just the way it is."


 * As for your statement that you have "turned yourself into an administrator who can issue a block if he (you) so chooses" I remind you that administrative privileges are granted by the Wikipedia community as a privilege and as a matter of trust in his objectivity and sense of fairness. However it is an absolute abuse to use them to settle anydispute or differences of opinion with another editor in which the administrator has any personal interest in the outcome. In such cases, the dispute must be referred without prejudice to another administrator or moderator for resolution. There is probably no more serious abuse of these extraordinary powers and privileges then to use them against another editor for one's own personal reasons. For an administrator to insert him or herself as "judge and jury" in any dispute in which that administrator is also the "complainant" (or has any personal interest whatsoever) constitutes an absolute violation of the trust essential to be effective and accepted as objective in such a position and requires his or her recusal. Breach of such trust, or the misuse of these powers in any other way for personal gain, would subject such an administrator to serious sanctions.


 * I trust that is not what you intend to imply by your statement to me as being the reason for your becoming an administrator. It is an absolutely forbidden practice for an administrator to use their powers to circumvent the obligation to provide transparency and due process in the settlement of disputes. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Hold the phone. I am not an admin. I intended to say "I turned myself IN ... TO an administrator." If they want to block me for 3RR violation, that's up to them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, on the WBC home page initially I don't see anything that claims Japan is the "world champions of baseball", but merely that they are the champions of this tournament called the world baseball classic. Notice, "classic" not "championship" in its title. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not contending that National Baseball Team of Japan is the "world champion of baseball" -- only that the Philadelphia Phillies (or any other "World Series" champion) is not. I am perfectly willing to accept that there is NO sanctioned such world champion. I am also not now asking -- nor have I ever asked -- that you (or anyone else) should be blocked over this or any other difference of opinion, and don't see any reason why you should be. (It was you who did that.) I only ask that you not "editorialize" and adamantly make claims of "fact" (i.e., "The World Series winner is, and always has been, the true world champions of the sport.") without providing independently verifiable references and sources to support that which you have not so done (see above). Please answer the questions I have posed to you there. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That comment of mine is here on a talk page, not in the article. The sources say that the Phillies are the world champions of professional baseball. Therefore, as per wikipedia's standard of "verifiability, not 'truth'", that's what they are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can certainly say that this is claimed to be the case on the Phillies website. That is a verifiable statement fact. But a private business making a self serving PR or marketing claim that they are not actually authorized to make (only the IBAF can sanction a world championship of baseball) does not in any way independently verify or actually make the Phillies the "world champions of baseball." A team cannot self anoint themselves with any other title than the one they have actually won: the 2008 World Series champions of Major League Baseball. However neither MLB, any of its member clubs, on any other baseball organization in the world is authorized by the IBAF to call themselves "world" champions. Lots of companies and other organizations make marketing and PR "claims" all the time to be the "world's greatest" this (ENRON comes to mind) or the "world's champion" that. These self servingly adopted titles, however, do not make it true or verifiable that they are actually that, only that they "claim" to be. For such a title to be valid, it must be sanctioned by whatever organization is, by international "consensus" (remember that term?), authorized to do so which in the case of baseball is the IBAF. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Reply
Essentially, see and - posts from four days ago now archived from your talk page. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

US Airmail Stamps
As reading on your user page, it seems you may be interested in helping with the article List of United States airmail stamps. I am building the page myself and would greatly appreciate any help I can get. The references on the bottom of the page will provide any information you need. I have pasted them here for convenience. Thank you in advance! :-D


 * 1) http://www.junior-philatelists.com/USStampsHistoryAirM1.htm
 * 2) http://usstamps.coinsandstamps.com/Airmails/airmailsc1c15.htm
 * 3) http://www.stampandcoin.com/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?client=96060179&action=serve&item=airmail.htm
 * 4) http://www.americanairmailsociety.org/html/u_s__air_mail_stamps_1918-1919.html
 * 5) http://www.1847usa.com/Air%20Mail.htm
 * 6) http://www.americanairmailsociety.org/html/u_s__air_mail_stamps_1920-1929.html
 * 7) http://www.americanairmailsociety.org/html/u_s__air_mail_stamps_1930-1939.html
 * 8) http://www.americanairmailsociety.org/html/u_s__air_mail_stamps_1940-1949.html
 * 9) http://www.coinandstampgallery.com/Plate_Block_1/Plate%20Block%20V1%20102.htm

Jonverve (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for images of early Air Mail stamps? I can probably scan some of those that are still missing on your page from my collections, but most of what I collect is air mail postal history (especially first flights (CAM, FAM, etc), historic flights, Zeppelin flights, Lindberghiana, etc) so if I scan stamps from them (or the entire covers) they would be cancelled. What do you do at NASA? (Centpacrr (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Image on Philadelphia Phillies
It seems to me that your image may have more context if used in the article Citizens Bank Park instead. By moving the Cira Center image out of the section that mentions the 2008 World Series, context for that image is lost. I will likely move the images within the next 24 hours or so. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the "Cira Center" image back to the Phillies' "recent history" section, moved the digital watercolor version of my "Full House" image to the "fan support" section (where I agree it seems more appropriate), and added the larger original photo version of that image (from which my digital watercolor was derived) to the CBP article two paragraphs below my older (2005) "Philadelphia Sports Complex" panorama. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

AHL
i think we should wait till after the season ends to add the new teams to the timeline .Warriorshockey1 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The change of ownership of the Phantoms' franchise occurred on April 27, 2009, when it was approved by the AHL Board of Governors at their meeting in Chicago, and the Philadelphia Phantoms ceased to exist as an member of the league under that name on that date. While the relocated team has not yet played a game in Glens Fall, NY, under its new name of Adirondack Phantoms, the club is now conducting business there, is selling seasons tickets (reportedly 1,700 already sold), and have an active affiliation agreement with the Philadelphia Flyers as their NHL parent club. The Philadelphia Phantoms, on the other hand, have ceased ongoing operations and now no longer exist under that name as a member club of the AHL.


 * I have been working in professional hockey (NHL, AHL, NAHL) in Philadelphia, Hershey, and Portland, Maine, for more than forty years and was intimately involved with the Phantoms for their entire 13 seasons in Philadelphia. An AHL club begins to exist as an ongoing entity when it is granted a franchise (or acquires and transfers one) as a member club of the league which always occurs before the team that it operates (in this case the Adirondack Phantoms) plays its first game under that name. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC))


 * ok, thank you for clearing that up Warriorshockey1 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad to help. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Why did you revert this to the lower-quality version? Better quality is always preferred for public domain images. --NE2 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you believe you hold a copyright on the higher-quality image. Can you please explain what creative modifications you made that pass the threshold of originality? Thank you. --NE2 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The higher resolution version is a copyrighted restoration of mine which I licensed to the privately owned railroad history site with which I am associated from which you downloaded and substituted that file for the lower resolution version that I chose to release to Wikipedia. I purposely did not release, nor do I grant permission to use, the high resolution version outside of that private, copyrighted site. Please do not revert this again, and do not post any images downloaded from my other site on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) which constitutes a violation of its user agreement. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Can you please explain what creative modifications you made that pass the threshold of originality? Thank you.--NE2 16:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While not an expert in such matters, it seems that your restoration is a simple derivative work and because the original is in the public domain any derivative work will retain that licence and does not give you the right to apply a more restrictive licence. You may well want to discuss this further at Media copyright questions. Cheersww2censor (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not claim ownership of the original map which was produced in 1887 by the Government. I do own the copyright to the image I contributed to Wikipedia, however, which is a lower resolution version of adigital restoration that I created from two damaged copies of the large (20.5 x 18.5) original map from my own collections which I spent a great many hours to scan, reconstruct, digitally composite, repair tears, remove creases and foxing, color correct, and make literally hundreds of other "pixel by pixel" adjustments and repairs to produce the final copyrighted high resolution digitally restored image which has been on my family's private railroad history website for seven years. I decided yesterday to contribute and release a lower resolution (100dpi) version of my restoration to Wikipedia which is the version I uploaded. The copyrighted high resolution restoration that was substituted for it is a different file which was downloaded from my family's private website and then uploaded to Wikipedia, both of which actions are violations of our site's posted user agreement.(Centpacrr (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Possibly unfree File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg, has been listed atPossibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
 * See above. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Better source request for File:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

File:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded asFile:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Better source request for File:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

File:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded asFile:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Image or Media Permissions
Thank you for uploading an image or media.

Whilst, the image or media appears to be licensed, It would be helpful if you could confirm the photographer, author or copyright owner of the media concerned, has granted release under the licenses shown. You can do this by getting them to make a formal release,or by confirming any permission you obtained, by writing to the OTRS permissions queue as detailed in WP:COPYREQ.

If you have already approached OTRS, then please get an administrator with OTRS access to update the image information to confirm this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:ZRS-4 USS Akron Memorial Cover 1933.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:ZRS-4 USS Akron Memorial Cover 1933.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image descriptions/information
I will assume from having read the previous message you know what's needed, so will only list affected images in compact form below. If any restorations have archive reference numbers, that something worth mentioning in the source section. It helps researchers find them in your museum, archive and library. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

List of items needing updated/expanded details: * File:Wells, Fargo & Co. Display Ad 1868.jpg missing description details, better source request. Done
 * File:WWI Pen Franked "Soldier Mail" Cover.jpg missing description details, better source request.
 * File:George B. McClellan Patriotic Cover 1861.jpeg missing description details,better source request.
 * File:CPRR & UPRR Display Ads May 1869.jpg missing description details, better source request.
 * File:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.jpg better source request.
 * File:ZRS-4 USS Akron Memorial Cover 1933.jpg missing description details, better source request
 * File:ZR-3 USS Lss Angeles Delivery Flight Cover 1924.jpg missing description details,
 * File:Syd Howe.jpg missing description detials,
 * File:J Cooper Smeaton.jpg missing description details,
 * File:1947 Red Wings Roster.jpg missing description details,
 * File:Phantoms CalderCup 2.jpg missing description details,
 * File:1947 48 Rockets.jpg missing description details,
 * File:1938 39 Ramblers.jpg ‎ missing description details,
 * File:1930 31 Quakers.jpg missing description details,
 * File:1929 30 Arrows.jpg missing description details,
 * File:Myhockeyoffice.jpg missing description details,
 * I have contributed a great many image files over the past three years and know what they are, The information you are asking for is already included in the summaries there in the format specified by the upload page. I really do not intend, however, to now spend days going back over all of them and redo the summaries in a new template when the information is already there. Apparently you are asking for information needed if the images are to be moved to Wikipedia Commons, but this is not where I intended for the images to be placed so it was not included. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

"aircraft are machines and therefore gender neutral"
Many regard aircraft as ships of the air, air-craft, and therefore far from gender neutral.

I'm not necessarily including myself.

Varlaam (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in colloquial speech in English, but not in encyclopedic or technical writing. (The same goes for ships and other transport machines and devices which are all also gender neutral.) (Centpacrr (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Ah, no. I am a technical writer. Which variety of English are you referring to? Countries and ships were always feminine when I was a kid. They stopped being universally feminine during the 1970s, but that's still a correct and valid usage. I don't personally know any sailors who call their boats an "it". They all say "she". As do I. I personally call an aeroplane an "it", but calling it a "she" is perfectly acceptable.


 * It's like spelling. For me, "center" is a misspelling that would lose you a mark at school. But millions of people think of that as the correct way. Fine. So be it. There is room for variation in English.


 * There is not a single, completely rigid form of English. There are different varieties which may differ from your personal variety, but that does not make them incorrect.


 * When I correct things in Wikipedia, I correct things which are categorically wrong, and not simply written by someone conforming to a slightly different standard of English than the one that I happen to conform to due to the accident of my place of birth.


 * If an article is written in Australian English, then I don't change it to some other variety of English. If you change a spelling, you change it to conform to the existing standard (Australian), not to some other nationality.


 * I think originators of articles get some say in the standard that those articles will be using. And if they choose a standard different from what I would have chosen, that's fine. It's not wrong.


 * Varlaam (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg
Just a reminder: you guys need to knock off the reversions, you're both well past 3RR and someone's very likely to bean you for it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not plan to revert this again and have posted it on WP:ANI requesting resolution. The issue is User:NE2 has substituted a different file for the one I uploaded which was pirated from my website. (Centpacrr(talk) 20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Charles Lindbergh
Good day to you, I am working on getting some of the Medal of Honor articles upgraded to GA or better (theres about 150 our of 3000 Medal of Honor recipients that are doable at this time) and I was going to renominate the Charles Lindbergh article for GA but when I did a page analysis I noticed you edited that article around 555 times. WOW. Well done. Since you have done, by far, the most work on this article I wanted to talk to you first. Please let me know what your feelings are about submitting this article for GA review. I will be away from my computer until at least Sunday night so if I don't respond right away thats why.--Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It is true that I have made a great many contributions (including 15 images) to this article, but they were virtually all limited to two areas: "Introduction" through "Crime of the Century" and "Honors and Tributes" through "Popular Culture." (I don't recall editing anything in the sections "Pre-war Activities" through "Death" although I may have.) As I am not currently actively editing this article, however, I don't have a particular view one way or the other on nominating it for anything. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
 * OK thanks, I will probably nominate this one sunday night or Monday after I give it a good read through.--Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Charles Lindbergh
I wanted to let you know that I submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for peer review. Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the sections (aviation, air mail, kidnapping, awards, books and film) as well as the 17 images I have created and added over the past two years and think they are in pretty good shape. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

ECHL task force
I have been working on many ECHL articles since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago and am in the process of petitioning WikiProject Ice Hockey for a separate ECHL task force. As you are an avid hockey fan in general and have made many edits and contributions to relevant articles, I felt that you would be qualified to help with the task force. I am asking ten other Wikipedians and am hoping for at least five commitments before I petition the WikiProject. Would you be interested in joining this potential task force? Rik (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi,

Thanks for the nice note you left on my talk page. It's fun to meet another Wikipedian with similar interests. Your web site about the B&ML looks very interesting; I look forward to spending some time reading it.

If you're able to visit Portland while in Maine this summer, be sure to check out the Kotzschmar Organ summer concert series. I'll be at the Felix Hell concert. He's great!

—BMRR (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For sourcing :). The text is also at a much more relevant place. --  Luk  talk 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

United guitar issues
You are wroting 'item covered elsewhere', but didn't seen until other editor '128.189.195.157' he put back. So, you wroting something incorrectly. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The item is the last entry in the section entitled "Recent news" Centpacrr (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh
I was going through some of the articles I have been working on for a while to see which ones where ready to submit for various things (FA, GA, A, peer review, etc) and I think this article is well beyond the requirements for GA so I was going to submit it. Before I did though I wanted to run it by you since you are the number 1 editor by far. I will already left a message on Bzuk's page since he is #2. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am basically indifferent to such "merit badges", etc. My major concern about putting mature articles up for such reviews is that it tends to bring out lots of people who don't know the history of the article and how it was developed who then make all kinds of changes that reopen issues that were discussed and settled long before. The net result of this is the principal editors, who have worked for years (in some cases) on the particular article under review, are forced to end up spending hours on end refighting old, well settled battles about content, language, formatting, images, style, sourcing, etc, all over again which tends to just muddle the issue. Centpacrr (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After all the work you have put into the article of the years I can appreciate your reluctance to dealing with the can of worms that a GA or FA review brings and I don't really care about the merit badge as you put it either. In fact I didn't even mess with getting articles reviewed until the last couple months because I had much the same opinion. However, it has been my experience (admittadly I don't have any books published yet) that the vaste majority of WP readers (not typically the folks that edit actively) have the perception that an article with content that doesn't have at least a Good Article status cannot be trusted. And many feel that anything less than FA (I typically hear something like with the little star in the corner) can't be trusted and that you need not bother reading it but scroll to the bottom and go straight to the references. The reason I hear this a lot, in case your wondering, is because it is common knowledge where I work that I actively edit WP and I actually get a lot of folks (typically a couple a day at least) ask me about it, what I do, whats on it, or how they can find something. So to make a long story even longer, I personally do it because it gives the article and the WP project in general a sense of credibility and since I deal primarily with Medal of Honor recipients and military related biographies thats important to me and to several of the readers of the articles (some of which are the people I am writing about or family members). So not that I expect Charles to come back to life and shake my hand for getting his article to GA or better status, I think this article deserves to be GA or better and if that means I need to compromise and remove an image or make a seperate article for his honors and awards because the page is hitting critical mass then so be it, I don't "own" the article. --Kumioko (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for GA. Before I make any changes (presumably there will be some suggestions) I will consult you and Bzuk and although there are several categories he could fall in I placed it in the Transport category. I already left a message on Bzuks talk page.--Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League
You really need to stop edit warring on this article. You are currently opposed by three different editors, which puts you on the wrong side of consensus. Discuss and build support for your argument. You are risking a block if you continue to battle over a word. Resolute 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not changed the original misleading wording again, I have only asked for a reliable source for using the word "throughout" (which is being misused here.( Please see the definition in the dictionary which I have provided in the NHL article's Talk page.) In order for franchises to be located "throughout" North America then there would have to be franchises located in México, Central America, and the West Indies as well, which, of course, is not the case. This is NOT an edit war, it is a request for a reliable source to be supplied to support the use of an overbroad and misleading term. There is ample reliable sourcing for the accuracy of the change that I made, i.e., that the NHL's franchises are located "in the United States (24 teams) and Canada (6 teams)." Are you claiming that this is an inaccurate statement? If so, then please tell me just exactly how it is wrong. Centpacrr (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page, I am willing to consider your idea on changing the wording, but you need to discuss your change, not try to ram it through because you have a personal disagreement with the use of a word. And yes, you have been edit warring as Wikipedia defines it. I'd suggest just leaving the article itself alone for the moment, and focus your effort on building consensus on the talk page. Resolute 04:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my three extensive comments (and "edit summaries") already there and address the arguments (and my support for them) that I made there. In the meantime, please also provide a reliable source to support the dubious claim that the franchises are located "throughout North America." Centpacrr (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bruce
Long time no talk, btw, nice job on the Boeing 314, one of my (and obviously) your favourite subjects. Note, I still write in Canadianisms, and I long ago, discarded the Harvard comma as redundant in a list, but I do see your point, and many other authors/writers are still hanging onto the earlier convention. FWiW, what's your latest project? I am getting geared up to do another book but contemplating the amount of research required is daunting. Bzuk (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I have been working all summer on a book (my fifth of which three are on ice hockey and two on railroad history) to be published in the spring entitledThe Classic Western American Railroad Routes (Chartwell Books, 2010) on which I am both one of the writers as well as the "Consultant Editor" for the project. It will be a fancy all-color "coffee table book" with about 50,000 words of text and many hundreds of full color illustrations. A fair number of these will be images I have produced of items in my large personal collections of U.S. railroad history as well as from my 10,000+ webpage family operated website, The Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum which celebrated its tenth anniversary of being on-line last February and which has had more than 2,000,000 visitors over that time. Although the book will be published in the US, all the editorial, graphics, and other pre-publication work is being done in the UK. Fortunately all of my writing and copy editing work is all but done now although I will be reviewing and "blessing" the page layouts as the pdfs are sent to me through the end of October. (I am told that if it does well to expect to be engaged to do two more of these with one on Eastern US Railroad Routes and another one on Canadian Railroad Routes.) It has been an interesting project, but it will be nice to finally get back to hockey with that about to get underway and will be working my first two Philadelphia Flyers telecasts of the season next week (pre-season contests with Detroit and New Jersey).


 * As you may be aware, I have quite a collection of Air Mail postal history items and aviation artifacts many of which I have posted images of on Wikipedia. Many of these covers and artifacts relate to Pan Am Clippers (including a pulley from the original China Clipper), Zeppelins (including a well singed cross brace from the Hindenberg), and lots of Lindberghiana (including his last paycheck as an Air Mail pilot dated three months before he flew to Paris, and a small bit of fabric taken from the Spirit of St. Louis right after it arrived at Le Bourget.) You can find images of many of these items as well as historic Air Mail covers on the appropriate Wikipedia pages, Best. Centpacrr (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't hit the broad side of a Zep
Conceded. There were, nevertheless, nonstop flights (Alcock & Whitten-Brown come to mind) before Lindy. His record was for a solo. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  16:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Orteig Prize for which Lindbergh and the other aviators (none of which others made "solo" attempts) were competing for was for making the first "non-stop flight between New York and Paris" in either direction, a distance of roughly 3,600 statute miles. Alcock and Whitten-Brown's non-stop trans-atlantic flight in 1919 was made between St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Clifden, Ireland, which, at roughly 2,000 miles, was 1,600 miles shorter than (and thus not remotely comparable to) the distance Lindbergh's non-stop flight between New York and Paris covered. The fact that he also happened to accomplish it "solo" was not, however, a required element of setting the "record" of doing so first, nor would any competitor have had to do so to make a successful claim for setting that record and thus winning the prize. Centpacrr (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, conceded. Neither is any of it on point, since the claim was for the first nonstop, which it obviously wasn't... BTW, thanx for the info.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the information. I only provided the further details of the Alcock and Whitman-Brown flight as it related to the Lindbergh flight because you raised it as an earlier non-stop trans-atlantic crossing by air. Lindbergh and the Spirit of St. Louis indeed were the first to make a solo non-stop New York to Paris flight, but that flight was also the first non-stop one of any kind as well. As such, this broader, more inclusive "record" is the more important of the two, and is also the one for which the Orteig Prize was awarded. Centpacrr (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Devils
Thanks for clearing that up.Mustang6172 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome sir. Centpacrr (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Do you have to edit war everything? I was actualy reverting someone elses change back to the original. When the debate about the head office came up in the hockey project recently it was found that in the coyotes bankruptcy filings that the NHL actually was calling the head office to be in Montreal. To be exact 1800 McGill College Ave, Suite 2600. The head office they may work out of could be NY. But the legal entity is registered to Montreal. But none of that mattered, information in such lists through all our other infoboxes is alphabetized.-DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it appears it was your change against previous consensus now that I look here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On page 2 of his June 9, 2009, Declaration filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman states the NHL Structure to be as follows:


 * The same language also appears in Articles I and II of the NHL Constitution and are the sources upon which I based my original edits. The NHL has also had a majority of it Member clubs located in the United States continuously since 1926.
 * Based on your logic of listing the location of clubs alphabetically by country as opposed to in descending order based on the numbers of clubs in each country, then presumably you would define the structure of both Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association as professional sports leagues or organizations with member clubs "in Canada and the United States" which, contrary to your assertions, is not the way they are described in the infoboxes for either MLB's or the NBA's Wikipedia pages. Centpacrr (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

NHL head quarters
You should take your proposals to the NHL talk page. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the reassurance (at DJ's page). GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) == Transmoutain Railways ==  Beg to differ, but the Pakistan to China Railway which is 1100km long through extreme mountains is as significant as an Ocean to Ocean Railway. You didn't ask to delete this. You should put it back. Similarly with Myanmar to China. Tabletop (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) :If you are interestied in starting a new article called "transmountain" railroads to cover such lines you are free to do so, but the two proposed (not even built) railroads you added do not meet the definition as stated in the intro to the Transcontinental Railroad article which reads: "A Transcontinental Railroad is a railroad that crosses a continent from "coast-to-coast." Terminals are at or connected to different oceans. Because Europe is criss-crossed by railways, railroads within Europe are usually not considered transcontinental, the Orient Express perhaps being an exception." Inland mountain railroads, no matter how difficult to build, simply are not "transcontinental" railroads whether or not they are as "significant" (which is a subjective term) as an "ocean to ocean" road. Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Franking
Dear Centpacrr,

I wish to contest your deletion of

1. I believe this image enriches the article by adding the formal aspect of Military Mail franking (by "formal" I refer to the official triangular "stamping" versus improvised hand-written remark). Since this aspect is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, it might be constructive to open a new section dedicated to this use rather than deleting the relevant image.

2. If the image caused undesirable shifting (which I missed) there are other ways to overcome the undesired result, like adding a new section, or moving the image into a newly formed gallery.

3. Any significant change in an article should be justified. "displacing several existing images and forcing them away from the sections of the article relating to them" is not a sufficient justification for a total deletion, especially because you did NOT object to the inclusion of the image in the article, but to its location.

I would appreciate it if you reconsider your deletion.Etan J. Tal 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)
 * I issue with the image of the cover from Israel is that there is already a long standing image in the article that provides an example of "soldier mail" free pen franking and censorship markings, Adding another example to illustrate the same thing is therefore superfluous and also overwhelms the relatively short page that has a dozen other images already. The image you added also already appears in two other Wikipedia articles on Military mail and Israeli Military Censorship for which it is far more appropriate. The best solution is to add a wikilink to the Military Mail page which I have now done for you. Centpacrr (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

National Hockey League
If ya wanna use American spelling, that's fine. If ya wanna has the USA flag above the Canadian flag (in the Infobox)? I don't mind. Neither will overly effect the article, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment which is much appreciated. All I did was raise an issue and ask for someone to provide me with a rationale for why the article's style was changed to Commonwealth English, and gave my reasons for asking the question. As "Cardinal Fang" would say in Monty Python, however, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition." ;-) Centpacrr (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. PS: Could you guys (American) give us at least a couple of your franchises? say the Coyotes & Thrashers? They'd look better in Saskatoon, Winnipeg or Quebec City. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally would be delighted to see three or four more NHL teams in Canada as I think it would strengthen the game. Unfortunately, however, I think this is not very likely to happen anytime soon because of the great difficulty in moving current franchises owing to the draconian financial penalties and fees any likely candidates would face in order to break their existing long term leases (often with decades still to run) in the buildings in which they now play. As was the case with Phoenix, these arenas were built with many millions of Dollars of public monies to accommodate these teams in exchange for their long term commitments to play in them. The fees to break such a lease often exceed several times the total value of the franchise itself making such a move all but financially impossible to accomplish. In addition Article 4.2 the NHL Constitution (relating to territorial rights) and Sections 35 (Transfer of Ownership) and 36 (Transfer of Franchise Location) of the NHL By-Laws impose many other difficult hurdles that must be cleared in that process before moving a club can even be be put up for a vote of the Board of Governors. Centpacrr (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Prince Edward Island won't be getting an NHL franchise soon. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Many thanks and the same to you good sir! Centpacrr (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dice Head Light change
Thanks for that -- I'm a little perplexed how I could pull such a move -- both the file names and descriptions are clear and there are no confusing circumstances. ???? . . . . Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. (The wrong picture really jumped out at me when I saw in on the new Dice Head Light page as I also took and posted the images of both of these lighthouses last July.) Centpacrr (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Phrase
I'm fine with making a distinction between cable an broadcast, but the phrase "national over the air television" is just ridiculous, especially considering the (lack of) context in the sentence at Mike Emrick. I'm not going to counter revert because I trust you to come up with a better edit yourself, which addresses your own need to make the "over the air" vs. cable distinction and my own criticism of your language. Thanks. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I have been working professionally in the both pro hockey and the media (including radio & TV) continuously since the late 1960s. (I have also often worked with Mike Emrick since 1977 and will do so again next on and for NBC on January 24th.) Over those more than forty years I have never heard or used a term other than "over the air" television to describe television programming designed to be broadcast without charge to the public by line of sight VHF and UHF analogue or digital TV transmission. TV programming which is delivered for a fee by either coaxial or firberoptic cable, or by direct broadcast satellite (DBS), is only available to the public by subscription and is generically referred to as "cable" television. "National over the air television" is therefore the correct term to describe television programming delivered free to the public when transmitted by and over a national network of local television stations. Centpacrr (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I never disputed the point that your making regarding the difference between broadcast and cable tv (and, incidentally, I care about your professional resume about as much as you care about my own, I'm sure). What I dispute is the need to highlight the distinction in the sentence/paragraph we're talking about here. If it's something that you see as vital, I just provided one alternative above, which would be something like "broadcast television". The phrase which your edit warring over is simply awkward, grammatically. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be clearer if I put it this way: the phrase "national over the air television" is jargon, which should be avoided. The link to Terrestrial television is there, as is appropriate, which should provide plenty of context for those who are interested. If this were an article which was about broadcast technology I likely wouldn't object (although, I'd probably still copy edit the phrase for structure), but since we're discussing a biographical article here we should use less technical terminology. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned my broadcasting background as the basis upon which I am discussing the validity of using the term "national over the air television" as the standard and well accepted way of referring  to line of sight broadcast transmission of TV programming that is free to the public at large when it is distributed nationwide over the transmission facilities of FCC licensed stations of a national television network. This is hardly technical "jargon" for this concept (that would be "terrestrial television", a somewhat ambiguous term that is not even commonly used in North America), but is instead a well established expression in wide general use that provides a clear description of exactly how the signal carrying such programming is distributed to the public, i.e., "over the air." You are free, of course, to find "national over the air television" to be "grammatically awkward" in your own personal view of the English language, but that would not seem to be acceptable grounds for replacing an existing perfectly clear and accurate phrase with something less precise.  Centpacrr (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I might be hyper-sensitive to this, considering the fact this this intersects my own professional life. Regardless, I've put too many balls into the air to follow though with this right now. Maybe we can revisit this discussion in a month or two... — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This intersects with my professional life as well (as a one time high school English teacher, an author of five books, a broadcaster, and four decades working in pro hockey) and it is on that basis that I have taken the position I have on the appropriateness of this term. (I don't know what your profession is so have no way of judging how it intersects with it.) Coincidently Mike Emrick happened to call me this afternoon and so I asked him if he understood the meanings of terms "national over-the-air television" and "terrestrial television" as they applied to broadcasting. He said "over-the-air" was the only way he had ever said it, and that he had never before heard the expression "terrestrial television" and did not know what it meant. ("Over-the-air" is also the language that the FCC uses as well as, for instance, in the the "Over-The-Air Reception Devices Rule" as promulgated at 47 CFR §1.4000.) After our conversation I also made some corrections to the article relating to the correct order of his early over-the-air network assignments (1992 Olympics on CBS, followed by NHL on FOX, NHL on ABC, and NHL on NBC) which he confirmed to me were indeed incorrect as previously written. Centpacrr (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Railroad" vs "Railway"
Hi, why was railroad reverted to road? --Mistakefinder (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "railroad" already appears in the article title as well as four times earlier in the paragraph thereby well establishing the type of road being referred to. Centpacrr (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit conflict
If you're gonna OWN so much, so quickly here, at least make sure whatever you're watching so aggressively has a proper introduction section and otherwise conforms with the MOS. thanks // Fra nkB 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Given that editor's experience on Wikipedia, it's highly suspect that he would be so inclined to remove something that is clearly granted an exception under WP:Peacock, let alone make an argument against it. Did he just magically miss the last section of the article? ...Or perhaps he's not as skilled as I thought; maybe he's just a terrible editor.Luminum (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindburgh?
See: my response. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ping Older biz Fra nkB 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * re your ping answer


 * Per Via_Rail, 'tis precisely the sort of network I described and suspected makes up the majority of Transcon RR's. Transcon's are a "Press Name" I suspect. Glitz and glimmer and advertizing pizzaz... no substance, just whiter teeth and supposed to give better sex!


 * Save for the Panama Isthmus road, I doubt there is any single carrier anywhere in the world that owns and operates a Transcon route wholly on its own rails. Canadian Pacific Railway almost certainly gives  to Via Rail.     The Trans-Siberian had the best long distance claim in the Soviet days, but I misdoubt the Russian Federation still has a Baltic Port. Irktusk... Kamchatka for sure, but Baltic outlets were mostly those small nations I think I recall. St. Petersburg maybe... yep! Anyhow, nice to meetchya -- just watch yer assumptions. // Fra nkB  00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the Via Rail ref I made in the intro which was my bad. Also while there may not currently be any transcontinental railroads that run over trackage owned entirely by a single railroad, I don't know that this has never been the case. As this article refers mostly to the history of such lines lines going back as far as the mid 19th century, however, it seems to me then that the possibility that such a situation likely existed for one or more such roads at some point in time and therefore needs to be accounted for in the definition. Centpacrr (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Colgan 3407
Sorry about the dates, coffee not kicked in yet! Well spotted. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Centpacrr (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)