User talk:Lommer/Archive3

Weather_Fronts.png
I was wondering if you would consider adding the dry line symbol to your image. I anticipate the need to link to it in the future for other meteorology pages.--demonburrito 03:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

General aviation
Hi Lommer – re: your change to Vancouver airport, charter aircraft and private jets are general aviation. Adding them is redundant. (Any flight that isn't a scheduled airline or a military flight is general aviation.) —Cleared as filed. 01:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you already changed it. :)  —Cleared as filed. 01:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I realized that about 2 seconds after I made the edit. -Lommer | talk 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Templete: BRAC
After thinking about the discussion you and I had about the templete I decided to add some instructions for its future use. Let me know if this makes the templete easier to handle. TomStar81 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Edwards AFB
Lommer, just thought I'd let you know you've done excellent work on expanding the EAFB article. That was a lot of work! I anticipated doing it earlier this year. . . but didn't for various reasons. Isn't the Wiki wonderful that way? (smile) Keep up the good work! --avnative 22:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I'd like to get the article to featured status, but I've lost momentum as of late. -Lommer | talk 06:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Holy smokes. I didn't even realize that you'd given me a barnstar. Thank you very much (it's my first one). -Lommer | talk 06:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006
In the course of informal discussions at Wikimania in Frankfurt the possibility of having Wikimania 2006 in Vancouver was raised. What makes Canada desirable for such a meeting is the capacity to draw delegates from the United States. For many overseas delegates, however, U.S. visa requirements make that country less attractive. All else being equal, Europeans see Vancouver as a more interesting Canadian city to visit than Toronto, the only other Canadian city to receive significant consideration.

Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005. A short list will be drawn from those bids. Is there enough interest and energy to put together such a conference in Vancouver for August 2006? The people in Frankfurt put on a tremendous gathering, with a core organizational group of about a dozen people. Some 400 people attended from 52 different countries.

I expect that a North American Wikimania could be a little smaller, but we would still need a suitable facility. It would be good to know that such a facility is available for a conference; the type of youth hostel facility that was used in Frankfurt does not exist in North America. What would be the cost of hosting such a conference at UBC?

I'm looking for interest and commitment. To that end I am proposing a Vancouver meetup for Saturday, Sept. 24. If someone has a reasonably accesible place for such a meeting please let me know. (I live in Richmond, but something in the city of Vancouver would be more appropriate.)

I am spammiong this to all Vancouver area Wikipedians that I can find. Please reply to my talk page. Eclecticology 21:50:16, 2005-09-03 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply and support. For now I am trying to establish the crucial Sept. 24 meeting.  I have suggested the downtown SFU campus at 1:00 p.m. if space is available.  If the meeting carries on longer we are not far from Chinatown.  I hope you can make it to that. Eclecticology 04:46:28, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

SR-71 Blackbird
I am a new Wikipedian and yesterday entered my first "edit" to the History section of SR-71 Blackbird. It explains the origin of the Blackbird's A-11, A-12 and SR-71 numerical designations. I thought you would be interested in it. Today, I see my input has been moved to the "discussion" page followed by a note from a Egan Loo wanting someone to confirm my remarks. Loo does not have a user page however, so I'm contacting you to ask for suggestions and who to contact next. I was one of the original eight B-58 crew members selected from the B-58 Program in early 1965 to start the USAF Crew Training Program at Beale AFB, Ca for the SR-71 Blackbird. I attended the first USAF Crew Training School conducted within the Lockheed Skunkworks in May and June, 1965. Our instructors were Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich themselves, plus other Lockheed Instructor personnel. My additions, as you will see them on the SR-71 Blackbird "discussion" page contain things told to us by Kelly and Ben personally and I hold one of the R-12 Crew Training Certificates made out to me and dated 18 june, 1965. Question to you as a more experienced Wikipedian: How do I communicate this and to whom so that a judgement can be made on the accuracy of my input.

Thank you and I have also opened a Wikipedia account ( David Dempster ) and you could answer on my "talk page". Hope to hear from you soon.

David P. Dempster Colonel, USAF Retired

Stealth Comments
Lommer, you might find my added SR-71 stealth comments of interest on the SR-71 Blackbird Discussion page. David Dempster

David Dempster 23:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote.
Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to expectations. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

EUROCONTROL Copyvio
Hello. On September 3, you listed EUROCONTROL as a possible copyright violation, citing that it was copied from []. Would you be able to clarify which part of the work was used in the article?

Also, please remember if you add add a copyright problem on the WP:CP page, please also add the copyvio template to the corresponding article. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, it is appreciated! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006
This is a reminder to all that there will be a meeting of Vancouver area Wikipedians on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. for all interested persons. We will meet in McDonald's at 897 Granville St. and Smithe in downtown Vancouver. This site was chosen simply because its central location and easy recognizability would make it easier for people who have never seen each other to find each other. Please feel free to bring additional interested people.

There are two questions to be discussed:
 * 1) Is there any interest for starting a Vancouver (or BC) chapter of Wikipedia?
 * 2) Is there enough interest and ability to make a Vancouver bid for Wikimania 2006?

Eclecticology 06:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts in this. Simon Pole was the only other person besides me to show up for the September 24th call-up, so there does not appear to be enough manpower available to organize Wikimania 2006 in Vancouver.  Thus far it appears that Toronto has the best bid. Eclecticology 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians of British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 20:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sig
Hi there. I recently added a little flag to my sig, but I've just been told that this might irritate people. Is there an admin policy on this sort of thing? Thanks-- Xiph o  n    16:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any formal policy, but I do know that wikipedia generally discourages it because it sucks up bandwidth to have images that are repeated all over the place where they are not strictly needed. They may indeed annoy people, but I think the decision is squarely in your hands. -Lommer | talk 20:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specs policy
Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo   talk 05:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

IFR abbreviated
Hi - why do you think that instrument flight rules should be condensed to IFR where it appears (such as in the Transponder code article)? It seems to me that at least once in each article, the abbreviation should be spelled out for those who don't recognize the abbreviation. They shouldn't have to click on the wikilink to figure out what the acronym means. IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 01:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm of two minds about this; On the one hand, I fully see your point. On the other hand, this only makes sense if you expand every acronym in the article (i.e. VFR, SVFR, etc) and in some articles that can get to be quite lengthy, not to mention it disrupts the flow with all the abbreviated acronyms in brackets behind the term. If the acronym is linked and properly disambiguated, however, a user doesn't actually have to click on the link, they need merely mouseover the link and a tooltip will pop up with the full term. In light of this, I'm inclined to go with the condensed version for acronyms that are quite common, and rely on the tooltip for users that don't know what they mean. Overall though, it's just personal preference. The only thing I would ask though is that if you change it back, make sure you apply the same technique to all the acronyms so that we're at least consistent. -Lommer | talk 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

George Vancouver image rights
Hello: I need a little help, please. I found an image of George Vancouver and emailed wikipedia regarding it's ownership. I am producing a video on Olympic and Mt. Rainier National Parks and would like to use this image in this project. The specific image was found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Vancouver. Wikipedia has responded to me and sent me to you for this information. Do you know who holds the rights to this image? Thank you. Sandra Cekot, Ambassador Video Productions, ambvideo@gulf.net. Oct 12, 2005


 * Hi, I uploaded that particular image to wikipedia, and I came across it on the internet. A quick google search reveals several other websites hosting the image, and a larger version of it as well (see:, ). I am unsure as to the ownership or authorship of the image, but one can be assured that the copyright has expired on it and it is now in the public domain (George Vancouver died in 1978, so any images of him must have been painted before then). I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help; good luck with your video, I'd be interested to see it when it's completed. -Lommer | talk 17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. I will email this correspondance to you to ensure its receipt. -Lommer | talk 17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwings 2.0
;) ericg &#9992; 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * YES! YES! YES! That's perfect! -Lommer | talk 02:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Boundary Bay
It turns out the code is YDT. Normally I search through these three IATA Site, Airline codes and Airport Tech. This morning I typed in ZBB in the first two and all I got was the railway station. I typed CZBB in the second and got nothing and checked the first two for Boundary Bay (under location) and got nothing. There was no listing for Boundary Bay at all in the third one so I changed it to N/A. After you changed it back I went to the Airline codes and typed in Boundary Bay under the airport name box and success I got YDT. I then tried YDT in the first and again got Boundary Bay. I then noticed that it also said Vancouver. So I checked all three for Vancouver (location box) and sure enough it's listed every time. One good thing about this is that I now have a better idea as to searching for the IATA codes. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very, very, interesting. Good investigating. -Lommer | talk 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cessna 152 Max Gross
Howdy! I've left a discussion regarding a recent edit of yours in Talk:Cessna 152. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 21:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ford Nucleon
Better go and remove the reference from the Back to the Future page, 'cause that's where I copied it from. DV8 2XL 19:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hrm. It still doesn't seem right, but I'll put it back in until I can conclusively show otherwise. -Lommer | talk 20:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job on talk:fire
I just thought I'd mention that I think you've handled the discussion about burnination and fire superbly, staying calm and civil even when insulted. Good job! Peace, delldot | talk 18:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I try... -Lommer &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Lommer&#124;&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Image Licence Help
Hi Lommer, I need a hand working out which licence to use for an image. Could you give me some advice? The image appears on a website which has no copywrite notices, but in addition I have obtained the person's permission to use his pic. Thanks in advance and sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place! Baby Jenga 6 December 2005


 * Thanks for asking! I assume website owner owns the copyright to the pic? If so, then he can release it in a number of ways that are suitable for wikipedia; Public domain is one possibility, but many authors don't like this because it means they relinquish all rights to their work. The other popular licences are the GFDL and the Creative Commons Licenses (Note that some, but not all creative commons licenses are acceptable for wikipedia). There are a few other possibilities, but merely releasing the image to the wikimedia foundation (the people who own wikipedia) is not sufficient, as they demand that others be able to use the image too. How to choose? I usually use the GFDL for images I upload, because it retains attribution for your work but is otherwise pretty open. There's a lot to know about licences, but those three options (Public Domain, GFDL, and Creative Commons) are fairly clear-cut. I'd steer clear of fair use claims, as they're legally murky and uncertain. This is really brief, and probably confusing, but there's a longer explanation at Copyright FAQ. Let me know if you have further questions. -User:Lommer | talk 19:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 21:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

DKE
Hi Lommer,

I would like to reproduce the Deke Crest in a book about GW Bush. Is it in public domain, or can you direct me to the source?

Thanks,

Jeff


 * I'm not 100% sure of the copyright status of the deke crest. The old one seen on that page is public domain for sure, but the new one was created in the 1980s (I think) and could therefore be under copyright. I pinched it from a deke chapter website and threw it up on wikipedia under fair use. You might want to try contacting DKE's internation headquarters and asking them. They'd probably know, or failing that would be able to grant you permission to use it. -User:Lommer | talk 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Kenn Borek Air
I noticed that the link to Maldivian Airlines has remained red for a while now. I was just wondering if you meant airlines in the Maldives or a company called Maldivian Airlines. Thanks. [unsigned message from CambridgeBayWeather]


 * Nope, I meant a specific company called Maldivian Airlines. I don't really know enough about them to write an article, but I know a guy who flew for Borek and went down to the maldives for a few months every year. -User:Lommer | talk 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't know anything about them either and couldn't find them in Google but I did see that Maldivian Air Taxi has Borek's Twin Otters Company site. That's why I wondered. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah crap you're right. It is Maldivian Air Taxi (I recognize the pics on their site) that I was thinking of. I've heard a lot of people call them Maldivian Airlines, that's why I was confused. -User:Lommer | talk 05:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to fix it but I see you already did. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Lommer
just flipping through airlines and aviation. Your user name intrigues me. Does your last name happen to be Lommerse. Lommeri 11:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, your name caught my eye too and I checked it out. No my name isn't Lommerse, Lommer is a name I made up as a kid for my pet rabbit, that's all. -User:Lommer | talk 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Canadian fair use
Candaian Crown Copyright allows non-commerical use of their images, non-commerical use is actually incompatible with Wikipedias licencing and images under such licences were not supposed to be uploaded to Wikipedia after May 2005, and technically should be deleted. Since non-commerical Canadian Craown Copyright has no special staus on Wikipeida these images have to be treated like other fair use images (unfree images), this means that to appear in articles they need to be correctly tagged, have fair use rationales provided on the image description page and most importantly fo fair use be used and expalined in the context of the article. So while you may be able to justify 3 or 4 images from the Canadian Coast Guard, you cannot rationalise the use of 30+ tehcnically unfree images in an article, and Image:Golden Hawks.jpg is probably fiar use in the Golden Hawks article it is not fair in a general article on the F-86 Sabre where there are already alternative free images shown. Image copyrights are a pain, but they need to be addressed.--nixie 03:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blue_Devils_1949.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blue_Devils_1949.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.


 * Hi, looking at Carnildo's talk page it looks like you've figured out why I re-tagged that image as no license. A decision was made to delete CanadaCopyright because it's a non-commercial-only licence, and I'm in the proess of orphaning it.  So, that's why I re-tagged the image.


 * For images that are likely still copyrighted and for which it wasn't clear to me whether they were indeed from an official Government of Canada source (e.g. your one was from a .org site), I tagged as no license instead of noncommercial. If I tag an image with noncommercial, it becomes a speedy candidate immediately.  However, if I tag an image with no license, it gives the uploader seven days to try to obtain the image under an open content license or claim fair use before it becomes a speedy candidate.  Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi Lommer. I see that you've included fair use images at User:Lommer/images. Unfortunately, under the terms of fair use, such images can't be used on user pages, only in mainspace articles. Please could you therefore remove these images? Thanks, CLW 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's done. -User:Lommer | talk 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)