User talk:N328KF/Archive 1

Hi there - looks like you're making some aircraft contributions. You might want to take a look at WikiProject Aircraft, which is where you can find links to naming conventions and templates for the data tables. You might even want to put your name down as a participant. Cheers --Rlandmann 01:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry. See Talk:supercarrier for proposal. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Strategic Bombing
Nice edit on Strategic bombing. Stargoat 21:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maritime Geography
Hey, thanks for GulfMex_WaterTypes.png! Well done! --the Epopt 00:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Embraer E-Jets
Good job on consolidating and rewriting these articles. ElBenevolente 19:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg
Please go here: and change your comment to whatever you want it to be... I just copied it from your other comment temporarily... &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:47, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've explained what was missed in the fair use analysis for this image on VfD. You might find that and the case I've mentioned helpful - I particularly recommend reading the full decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and ideally some other fair use decisions - it's tough to understand how to apply fair use until you've read some decisions which do. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music may alsobe of interest and if you're really keen on musical fair use you might visit Columbia Law Library's music copyright site Jamesday 11:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Date conventions
BTW, we've generally been following the DD-MM-YY convention for US articles on military subjects, since that's how the US military does things. Changing USS Constitution just makes an old oddball more consistent with the hundreds of others. Stan 17:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

EADS trainer
Hi. I think the name of the EADS HEAT trainer is "Mako", not "Meko" (see www.eads.net). But I wanted to check that with you before moving the entire article. Do you agree ? --Iediteverything 12:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clips
They're against policy because they're MP3s, see Sound. I wasn't addressing whether they're against policy on fair use, sorry if that wasn't clear. --Michael Snow 21:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge
He he, I guess I’m inspired today. --GeneralPatton 21:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IBM logo
You added IBM's logo Image:IBM logo.jpg a little while back. That is a registered trademark of IBM. You should probably assert fair use and tag it like the Microsoft logo here Image:Microsoft.JPG. Autiger 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to actually pull those in; unlinked. Autiger 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Action Directe
Why have you italicized Action Directe in the Action Directe (gang) article? --Edcolins 21:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there some sort of Wikipedia convention or style guideline for this, or is it a general written convention even outside Wikipedia? I never italicize names of foreign origins... Maybe I should? --Edcolins 22:26, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright! Good to know that... --Edcolins 22:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging re: Image:Battleship row.jpg
I saw your note from June on Image:Battleship row.jpg that I created. I suggest you read the Copyright FAQ that James and I wrote. Basically, taking something and modifying it creatively creates a new copyright on it. And the in the future, *do not* tag images when you are unsure of their status. &rarr;Raul654 00:16, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Username
Hey Joseph, so there I am reading my issue of Flight International and the picture of SpaceShipOne seems to stand out, why does the registration seem so familiar to me? So that's the reason behind your username, am I the 1st to notice or just the person who took the longest to work it out? Mark 19:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lacrosse
When deciding whether to change a redirect to a disambiguation page, you must first determine whether the current page being redirected to is used in the majority of references. If it is, the suggested approach is to keep the redirect but add a link at the top of the page redirected to, pointing to a disambiguation page. In the case of Lacrosse, almost all of the current links to the page refer to the sport. Thus, I believe keeping the redirect to sports is the preferred solution. Also, if you decide to change a redirect to disambiguation, it is YOUR responsibility to fix all the links. If you are not up to this responsibility, then don't change the redirect to disambiguation. Add your concerns to the discussion page instead. RedWolf 02:35, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Skadden
Thanks for the addition and comment. Skadden is a LARGE firm (as I am sure you are aware), so it is definitely not a vanity page. Anyone in law or investment banking has heard of Skadden. All information in the article is factual and NPOV. I don't state anything like "prestigious", "respected" or "best". Overall, it looks like a lot of work is needed on law firms pages (see all the red links at List of law firms), not a task I desire to undertake. Take care. Nelson Ricardo 04:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Blohm & Voss
I know that the company now refers to itself as "Blohm + Voss", but note that this is a relatively new development in typography. Certainly, whilst the company was manufacturing aircraft it was "Blohm & Voss", as can be seen in the company logo of the time. I agree that the name used in the article on the company should reflect current usage (and if we could have + in the article title, it should be moved there), but I'm not sure it belongs on WWII-era articles... --Rlandmann 02:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that change too - my usual habit has been to favor the name used at the time of construction, while relying on link/redir to connect to current name. Otherwise you get articles on sailing ships that were constructed by "Nuclear Hydrofoils Inc", :-) reads a bit anachronistically. Stan 13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * See my response at User talk:Rlandmann. -Joseph 14:26, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

featured tag
Hi there - only goes on the talk pages of featured articles. --mav 01:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop the script from switching to supercripts
Please for the love of gawd. :( It makes baby jesus cry. Superscripts should only be used when writing formulas. Each browser behaves differently with these and some of them fuck up the document's format. So please, if you can, stop running that in your script.   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 04:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

N328KF wrote:

I sympathize with your plight, but superscript is HTML compliant. If I'm doing everything by per specification, doesn't that mean you should get a better browser. No offense, this is pure discussion.

Yeah, it is, the same way that   and target=_blank are, and   was.. but we don't use them, do we? ;-) You see, it really doesn't matter what browser you have, super and subscripts will always fuck up the rendering because of their natural behavior: they are, should, and will always be placed in the outside boundary of a text line. That is why it is recommended to use them on mathematical formulas only. The real questions is: are the sub/superscripts necessary for other type of texts? does the use of sub/superscripts in other cases (non-mathematical) justifies the rendering consequences?   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 15:35, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

N328KF wrote:

Just what browser are you using? Gecko-based browsers and IE seem to be fine with it.

They seem fine cuz Wikipedia's Monobook Skin uses a bigger line-height, which prevents these problems for superscripts on the first level. Switch to the Classic skin which uses the standard line-height and check out if it renders it in the same way. At least Mozila doesn't. ;-) See for an example of what I'm trying to tell you about the sub/sub behavior. (I gotta go now, talk ta ya later)    &mdash;Joseph | Talk 16:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just so you guys know, if you're just doing squared & cubed, you can use  &amp;sup2;  or  &amp;sup3;  and it doesn't screw up line heights like    does. -eric 06:20, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Link?
Well, I took that from the existing phrasing "nearly as accurately". Could you please refer me to a link that "exactly" duplicates the memo using MS Word, taking into account that the bottoms of the letters are not level with the baseline? Thanks. Wolfman 04:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. But I don't see it right up top, and that's a lot of links to wade through.  Would you mind just pointing me directly to the Word file someone has created that exactly duplicates the memo. Wolfman 04:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks my bad. I got distracted by looking at his list of links there, instead of the text itself.  Will have a look. Wolfman 04:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll have to leave it to the experts. Those certainly don't look the same to me.  In particular, look at the baseline.  For example, checkout the bottom of 'd' & 'b' in the word 'feedback'.  Also, look at where the 'th' is in the memo, compared to the Word Doc. There are lots of things like that.  But, whatever.  I personally don't much care.  Just trying to provide some balance to the article with minimal effort. Wolfman 04:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. I would be happy to let those who are both more knowledgable and neutral write the article.  Based on the pre-existing writeup, I am forced to conclude that one of those attributes is missing. Wolfman 05:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great additions to the Killian Memos doc!
Sdaconsulting 21:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FYI
I am not a leftist, nor am I adding "leftist perspective" any more than you are adding "rightist perspective". Evidence is neither left nor right. Honestly, I don't give a hoot about this issue. It's just that the page was so blatantly unbalanced that it got under my skin. I am, in fact, a libertarian who is currently somewhat more annoyed with the elephants than with the donkeys. Wolfman 05:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian
I'm a libertarian too, and what gets under my skin is the media lying about this shit. Facts are not negotiable, and the 60 minutes story is based on a pitifully fraudulent document, as many, many leftists, rightests, libertarians and folks of every other stripe agree. I'm flabbergasted about the lack of reality testing that many people appear to have. Sdaconsulting 20:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page moves
When moving a page, (like John J. Pershing) be sure to fix the links to direct to the new article location; especially make sure that there are no double redirects. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

C-17
I was considering removing this line from the C-17 page and similar references throughout RAF specific pages,
 * "In RAF service, the C-17 is referred to as the Globemaster C1."

As far as I am aware this is not official and any such designation, C.1 or not, will only be used once the lease period is over. The RAF continues to refer to the aircraft as the "Boeing C-17". A Google search of Globemaster C1 turns up pages that are copies of the Wikipedia page and as such I think it would be important to correct this error. e.g. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/C-17_Globemaster_III. Any thoughts? Mark 20:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Space Race revertions
Please stop reverting the Space Race article to include the moon rock sentence without discussing it on Talk:Space Race. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

redirects
you've been creating a few redirects about american ships (USS Chandler (DD-996), etc.), but they redirect to nonexistent pages. Are you planning on writing these pages? blank redirects like that can be confusing. Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks. just want to make sure you weren't leaving these behind.  those hydrofoil articles are real nice, btw. Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GWB Military Service Controversy
Wow! Thanks for spotting that signature. What a bone-headed move by me. I have over 1500 article edits and that's the 1st time that happnened. Yikes! 17:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rutan Long-EZ
Hi - just curious about why you moved this page to "Rutan Aircraft Factory Long-EZ"? We don't generally use the full names of manufacturers in titles, and Google shows that practically nobody else does either (700 hits for "Rutan Long-Ez" against 1 single hit for "Rutan Aircraft Factory Long-EZ"... --Rlandmann 22:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scaled Composites Proteus
You added that the Proteus was developed into the Tier One's White Knight - I'm not sure this is true. Just take a look at the two side by side and you'll see that they're pretty substantially different. Proteus is tandem-wing, for starters, whlie the white knight has a single long wing with a pair of t-tails. The similarity seems to lie in the appearance of the cockpit pod and the fact the engines are sort of shoulder-mounted. Anyway, I'm not going to change it back because I could be wrong, but do let me know where you got your information. Thanks! -eric 19:21, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, definitely see where you're coming from now. The article is clearer as well. -eric 19:28, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Rutan Quickie
Why the addition of the model number? I've never seen it referred to with a model number, particularly as it was not solely Rutan's own design. It was also not an RAF design, marketed instead by the Quickie Aircraft Corporation. -eric 05:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point on the article title... I'm now not sure where it should go, actually. I just learned about the shared design responsibility & QAC today, looking up the model number for the Quickie. What resource are you using to find the Rutan / Scaled model numbers? -eric 06:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Paratroopers/Fallschirmjäger
Sigh. Could you at least be bothered to take part in the discussion at Talk:Operation Weserübung before you revert my (well-founded, I honestly think) edits for the n'th time? I place no prestige whatsoever in this, I simply mean that referring to paratroopers is the correct way of doing it in this instance. Heck, I admire the pioneering German WWII Fallschirmjäger as much as any other well-informed WWII history nut. Nevertheless, in general English-language usage they are known as German paratroopers. Or? --Wernher 19:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Crete
To say "British" when one is referring to New Zealanders or Australians is not being "specific", it's simply wrong. Grant65 (Talk) 14:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Besides which you have just junked a lot of other changes which had nothing to do with that issue. Grant65 (Talk) 14:50, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Grant65 (Talk) 00:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Changing Apollo program to Project Apollo
I noticed that you moved Apollo program to Project Apollo, but I couldn't find any explanation of this on the Talk:Apollo program page. AFAIK, "Apollo program" is the best known name of the topic, so unless you can provide some references as to why "Project Apollo" is a more correct name, I think the article should be titled "Apollo program". Please respond on the talk page. JesseW 01:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Aeroflot
I don't see anything on there.

And if you are wondering why I removed Amman from the destination list, I think we shall only list destinations that the airline flies to with their own planes. WhisperToMe 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australian navy ship articles
Is there a particular reason why you are moving these from pages named after their year of commission, to pages based on their ID numbers? I had started to disambiguate like-named RAN ships by year, which is an easier way to identify them for non-expert lay people, who have no idea about navy ID numbers. Grant65 (Talk) 00:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

HIJMS
I see you gave in to the urge and started moving Japanese ships to "HIJMS". As has been discussed a number of times in various places, the available evidence is that this is a concept made up by some Western writers who apparently couldn't stand the idea of a nation not having ship prefixes; the real authorities, such as Morison, don't use it at all, while using USS etc freely. Putting HIJMS into article titles just gives the term a seemingly official status that simply doesn't exist. Stan 00:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm also very doubtful about "HIJMS". -- Arwel 01:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We should assemble all the talk page discussion into an HIJMS article for the benefit of all and sundry. :-) Stan 15:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (ships) says not to use made-up ship prefixes for navies that don't use them. You should have discussed this first say at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). It is going to be very annoying to put all these articles back where they belong.  Gdr 18:54, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

CFD's
I noticed that you listed a few articles as candidates for deletion (such as HMAS Anzac (F150), HMAS Arunta (F151) and others). When you have said that it has been replaced by another article, I redirected to that article. They seem to be different titles for the same thing, but if I'm wrong, please make a note on my talk page, and I'll probably delete the offending articles. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 03:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II
If you are interested please cast a vote in the straw poll.

Re: Australian frigate article deletion
Since it's a mistake with the nomenclature, and articles do link to the incorrect versions, I don't see any harm with simply redirecting them unless they'll cause confusion. We do sometimes have redirects for very common typos. It doesn't look to me like it violates the criteria for deleting a redirect. In fact, it seems that it will make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, aid accidental linking, and possibly aid searches on certain terms (these are 3/5 reasons for not deleting a redirect). If I'm wrong, feel free to notify me on my talk page, or list it on Redirects for deletion. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|&#9997;]] 11:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missile defense
Given that we have articles on specific systems, like National Missile Defense, I don't see much value to this article. It's essentially a dicdef. If it had been created by an anon I would have listed it on VfD. Because you're a "real" person I figured I'd first ask you whether you can explain something I'm missing that justifies having the article. Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane 07:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I must admit I'm still dubious.  Missile defense means defending against missiles.  There might be little value to saying much more.  For example, one of the links (via redirect) is from 1985 in Canada.  Instead of saying that Mulroney and Reagan agreed on "cooperation on Missile Defence", it might be better to say they agreed on "cooperation on the Strategic Defense Initiative", assuming that to be true (i.e. that Mulroney was on board with the specific SDI plan).  Still, given that there's someone who intends in good faith to expand the article at some point, I'll refrain from listing it, so that we can see what develops. JamesMLane 16:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RINO/DINO
You're probably right; to me "RINO" is a term of praise. I don't have much use for the DINOs, but there isn't a lot of chance of anyone I like ending up on that list! Anyway, since it is a list of people who have been called these things, I would only remove an egregious entry; I don't think I've seen one yet. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Non-participant
What does it mean that you are a non-participant on WikiProject Ships? Just curious. Gdr 00:54, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to... using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
 * 1) ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
 * 2) ...all articles...


 * Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff.  So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the   template (or    for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace   with   . If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Quoth: Why?
 * Basically because I (and others) want to use Wikipedia's articles in projects such as WikiTravel, but that requires explicit permission from the editors of those articles in order to allow us to use those contributions under the license that those projects use. Simply: We can't use Wikipedia's articles with other projects that don't use our license without permission by people like you.  -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 15:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you have more questions, see the Multi-Licensing FAQ -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Featured Articles
You forgot to sign in when editing Battle of Inchon FAC. Thought you might want to add your sig. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Misty (satellite) or Misty (Classified program)
You did write an article about misty. My inquiry is, wouldn't it be more accurate to say misty is a program instead of a satellite? In fact, the Washington post article you have linked to use the word program instead of satellite. Quote "The satellite in question would be the third and final version in a series of spacecraft funded under a classified program once known as Misty" If you don't agree with this, what would you call the combined 3 satellites? One last question, what do you mean by "and decayed on March 31, 1990"? I think STS 36 ended in March 4th and the satellite surely must have stayed longer than 30 days. Do you mind clarifying that please?

Requested moves
Please do not attempt to enforce your opinion of article names by removing requests at WP:RM and by attempting to block moves. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * See your talk page for my response to your inaccurate accusation. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:32, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

AMST
Why can't an article about a US military transport research project go under the Category:U.S. military transport aircraft category? The category involves everything concerned with "U.S. military transport aircraft." It seems a research project on the subject should go there. If I were to make a subcategory in that category called Category:U.S. military transport aircraft research projects (which i don't plan to) would you still change it back? BrokenSegue 04:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strategic bombing during World War II
You seem to have placed a comment on the talk page before the article was written! Please see Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aegis combat system
The US Navy uses "Aegis" as much as AEGIS. Therefore we go with the standard English spelling. I'm willing to take this to adjudication if you want. Grant65 (Talk) 05:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Lockheed Martin also uses "Aegis".Grant65 (Talk) 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago
Because of your work with the Chicago article I'd like you to take a look at it if you have the time & desire. It is currently up for Peer Review (see Chicago Talk) and I would enjoy hearing your feedback to help us all guide the growth of this article. Jasenlee 01:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jolly Rogers
Currently in process to do that. PPGMD 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Contributions
Your contributions to aviation articles are pretty incredible. Well done. &#9992; James C. 04:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications survey
Hi again Joseph - just a heads-up on a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of WikiProject Aircraft's standard specifications section. --Rlandmann 00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
I'm sure that you're aware that there is a rediredt on your user page to Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne, there is a message there for you on that talk page. AllanHainey

Hi there, N328KF! Judging by your valuable contributions to the Soviet Navy, I thought you'd be interested in checking out my latest article on Imperial Russian Navy. Please, let me know what you think. It'd be especially great if we could upload some pictures and stuff (I'm still not sure how to do it, tried many times :)). The article is still missing info about the development of the Russian Navy after the Crimean War until the October Revolution. Info on the Russo-Japanese War would also be much appreciated, I suppose. Hope to hear from you soon! KNewman 20:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Mikoyan (disambiguation)
I've left a message on Talk:Mikoyan (disambiguation) about piping that I'd like you to take a look at. --Commander Keane 01:03, September 13, 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 05:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

International Lease Finance Corporation
If GE has more aircraft, on what basis is International Lease Finance Corporation the largest?

Also, why do you have your user page redirected to an article?

WikiDon 05:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL sorry about that
I added "The Insder" section on the 60 Minutes section. I actually hadn't watched the film, so I didn't know about it, just knew that it was controversial. Hbdragon88 22:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Friendly note about edit summaries
This is just a note to bring the policiy against personal attacks (WP:NPA) to your attention. Although your [edit summary today at [[Airbus A380]] is not a personal attack in my personal opinion, it could be interpreted as such by a very sensitive and/or stressed out user. I'd encourage you to be a little more careful with your phrasing, before you piss somebody off - personal attacks benefit nobody. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any queries or want to comment. Thryduulf 17:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

747
Sorry about that, somehow I had a cached chunk of pages - I was reverting the 'that puppy can hold a lot' vandalism that Sylvain Mielot had apparently corrected. I have no idea how that happened, as my most recent change was the vandalism. ericg &#9992; 16:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

C-17 edit
Your edit:
 * In November, 2005, Boeing disclosed work on a "C-17A+" model, without indicating specific features. Potential EIS of the C-17A+ would be 2011, if approved.

What the heck is "EIS"? --Rogerd 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

747 Advanced
Just wondering why you redirected the above back to Boeing 747? The only discussion I can find is here, where 4/5 people disagreed with the merger of 747 Advanced into Boeing 747. Perhaps there was some discussion elsewhere? Regards Mark83 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The common course seems to be discuss and decide. The decision as I see it is 4 to 5 in favour of two articles. That no one else seems bothered that you ignored this convention is not really the issue. I would also argue that given:
 * The aircraft has been offically launched, and
 * The 747-8 information added has tipped the page over the ideal size;
 * it would be better as a heading and paragraph at Boeing 747 and a full description and analysis at Boeing 747-8.


 * Finally as far as I am aware there are absolutely no time limits on challenging edits. I could blank the 747 page and replace it with "its a big tube with wings and engines" &mdash; If you then objected 23 days later I wouldn't argue my case on some notional time limit! Mark83 00:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "POV" in C-17 article
In your recent edit to the C-17 article, you gave the edit summary as "Remove POV statement by anonymous", but it appears as though you inserted POV, not removed it. Please enlighten me as to why you did this. Thanks --rogerd 17:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't think you would have done that on purpose. --rogerd 19:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Antonov revert
If you didn't like the red-link removals, why don't you just add them to the table I made? Also, you reverted the edit where I only added the logo of Antonov (it said so in the edit summary). kallemax 10:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page
I've taken the liberty of changing your user page from a redirect. It's a neat reference, but redirecting into or out of the article namespace from elsewhere generally isn't appropriate, as the encyclopedia section should be self-contained. I trust the version I changed it to can accomplish essentially the same effect just as nicely. --Michael Snow 00:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your input on AfD is requested
I have entered an AfD for the article Chair force. I feel this is an inherently POV article that is degrading to the United States Air Force and besides, there is already an entry in military slang for this topic. I would appreciate it if you would review the article, other comments and if you are so disposed, please add your opinion/comment. Thanks. --rogerd 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

UKUSA Community template
Hi N328KF. I put the Template:UKUSA Community up for deletion because it's a template of very limited use and is only composed of a chunk of text works better being included bodily in the article. Using templates for most of the text of an article creates usability issues because most casual editors don't know how to access a template to edit it. If you disagree with deleting the template feel free to comment on that, but please don't remove the notice before the process has completed. --NormanEinstein 16:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Potenential A350 customers?
Is there any way you could come up with a small list of potential A350 customers? We have one for the 787 and 747-8. I do believe that United, Emirates, and Ethiad are potential 787 customers as well as A350 customers. Also, I do believe that there are more potentail 787 and 747-8 customers than the ones listed. Andros 1337 23:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Image sources
Hi, Image:Scaled Model 202.jpg and friends don't have a listed source, and even the company's website doesn't seem to have them either. Can you pinpoint where these come from? Presumably they're promophoto type images, but it would be good to have some concrete evidence to point to. Stan 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Armies Of Russia
I changed modern Ukrainian Trezub emblem to old image "Spas Nerukotvorny" for the  "Armies of Russia" template used as a battle flag by Kievan Rus Druzhinas. It is more historically accurate. Fisenko 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me!
. Please see Military ranks of the Soviet Union to see what needs to be done, thanks. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted image
I assume you're referring to Image:Ulyanovsk line-art.png? With its source of "This image is likely from the Russian government. However, this hasn't been determined for certain.", which had been unlicenced since upload on 16 July 2004 and which had been tagged as unlicenced since 7 July 2005? Please explain how you believe my deletion of this image was improper. CLW 08:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're going to leave comments on my talk page like the one you left, would you please do me the courtesy of answering my question? What exactly was wrong with my deletion? If I'm doing something wrong, I need to know about it! Thanks CLW 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now I at least understand why you took issue. However, any images tagged as licencing unknown are speedyable once the tag has been in place for at least seven days, with no need for discussion. Please see Category:Images with unknown copyright status. Please also see Jimbo's comment at the top of User talk:Jimbo Wales. Regards, CLW 16:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Orel
Howdy, I noticed your contribution about project orel. Rather than create several pages with the same content, it is usually prefered to create redirects, see Redirect for more information. Feel free to leave me a note on my Talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks for all your great contributions! --Hansnesse 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Que? Posting response to User talk:Hansnesse. N328KF 16:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Shoot. My mistake entirely.  I think I've been at this too long.  You're quite correct.  --Hansnesse 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo jihad
Can you be more specific? All the images I deleted today were flagged 7 days ago because they dont have any source. --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * N328KF - will you please stop accusing other editors of jihadism. Please take a moment to read the information I linked to above and check that any images you feel passionate about have the correct licence and source details. If you're unsure of how the process works, give me a shout and I'll see if I can do anything to help. CLW 10:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Special words of the Wikipedia
N328KF, can you please write me those special words of the English encyclopedia into my talk? I chose you because you've written the article International Launch Services. I have written it in the German Wikipedia. Because I am a --Crout 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean words like theese three I know:stub (It's the same word in the German Wikipedia), template and current survey. How shall I call words like this? Technical terminology? My English is really bad, isn't it? But I think you English Wikipedians will laugh about it, when you read more in it. --Crout 19:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that words, wich I have to know, when I'm in the English one of the WP. All right? In the German Wikipedia I'm a bit longer, since May. Wich I must, I know. But here? It's not so easy, I think. I read some articles, and I saw, there were different stubs for different articles. I'll sometimes look for your answer. Where can I see, how articles about space travel? Then good bye, I have to work in the German Wikipedia now. --Crout 13:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit too much? Why do we need so many sorts of stubs? That's interesting, but who can keep the names of those templates in his mind? But thanks for the answer. --Crout 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

frames policy
there is no standard on whether or not to use the thumb or frame tags. however they align the text away from the logo making a neater appearance. it is untrue to state that there is a WP policy against those tags, thats why frame and thumb exist. EdwinHJ | Talk 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RR MT50
I took your advice and did a domain search for rolls-royce.com to find "MT50". I would suggest RR have quietly cancelled the project. Mark83 16:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first one http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/product/gasturbines/mt50.jsp is inoperable,
 * The parent page http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/product/gasturbines lists the following as RR's marine gas turbine range:
 * Allison 501
 * MT30
 * Spey
 * WR-21
 * Of the other links that refer to MT50 the references have either been removed or are contained within old pdfs (e.g. 2002 annual reports etc). I have studied the 2004 Annual Report and there is no mention of the MT50, only the MT30.

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc./BAE Systems Aerostructures
Do you know if the sale includes the defence-related aerostructures business? From what I have read it is strictly the civil side, but the sale includes the Samlesbury factory which makes parts for the Typhoon and F-35? Nice work btw on the updates (new name & percentage of business with Raytheon/Airbus/Boeing) Mark83 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. While the civil side is not "core business" according to BAE you would think manufacture of major parts of military aicraft is! Mark83 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a guess but perhaps BAE and Airbus didn't like the idea of Airbus UK (including Aerostructures) supplying Boeing &mdash; although revenue is revenue, no matter who the customer. Mark83 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Evil Monkey tattoo
Hahaha. Very nice. If I ever go for body modification I now know what to get :-) Evil Monkey - Hello 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Constellation
I'm sorry about nixing your ref tag. The way it was placed, I thought it referenced the "rumored" paragraph. My bad! - Emt147 Burninate!  04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd vs 2d; 3d vs 3rd
The military just uses 2d and 3d, not 2nd and 3rd. See Image:2 SOPS emblem.png --Pmsyyz 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the AWACS thing, I didn't realize there was a dispute move there, I just saw it when I was cleaning up easy tasks in Double redirects. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Groundbreaking submarines
Very cool graphic. Shouldn't the Nautilus (1800) have a French flag? Thatcher131 15:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on whether Napolean sought out Fulton ("commissioned" as the article says") or if Fulton sought out the French, then the English. If Napolean sought out Fulton I might give it the French flag even though it was ultimately rejected.  I may be able to do some research on this. Thatcher131 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

EA-6B Prowler
Curious as to why you deleted the brief section on the ADVCAP prototype on 15 Feb -Unsigned comment by J Parker on 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

C-17 in RAAF service
Hi, Did you add the information that No. 36 Squadron will operate the Australian C-17s? If so, what's your source for this? --Nick Dowling 10:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. However, seeing as this is a rumor I've qualified the wording in the C-17 entry. It strikes me as being quite likely that a new Squadron will be raised to operate the C-17s - the RAAF historically has had very few squadrons operating a mixed fleet of aircraft and the famous No. 35 Squadron is currently off the RAAF Orbat and available for use. --Nick Dowling 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 29% for major edits and 25% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 15:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

exoatmospheric tests
Not sure precisely why you felt it was necessary to add this category. I looked into it, and the reason I didn't add the category myself was not all of these tests (Program 437, Operation Hardtack, Operation Dominic I, and the tests listed at HANE) were "exoatmospheric." Also, the government listed them as atmospheric, but some were at 400km+. I felt it was murky.

At any rate, I've fleshed out the text in the category page, as I see no reason to remove it. Thoughts?

Btw, like the username. ... aa:talk 06:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a bot
Not a bot, just an AWB-assist. BD2412 T 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ping.
Just as we were just editing the same site, I wanted to drop you a note. I suggest to redirect Superfund to the Superfund (environmental law), as no one actually links to the Investment Group. We should add a { {dabinfo}} on top of the law site though. -- Ravn 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Taylor
I'm not the person whose edit you reverted, but I was curious why this IP user popped this in. It does appear that indeed Charlie Taylor was a notorious English gangster...just how notable this is, I'm not sure however. I figured you might be interested in knowing. --Kickstart70 04:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: your edit to Charlie, I agree. Thanks for clearing that up and putting in the comment. Cheers, Kickstart70 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Renaming of companies
Nobody ever refers to ILFC as "International Lease Finance." They always use "International Lease Finance Corporation." A simple Google search verifies this, but if you knew the industry you'd know this. The company name just sounds weird without the "Corporation" on the end. In this sense, people genuinely use "Corporation" as part of the common name. I suggest knowing the context in the future. The examples given for SAIC and BOAC are apropos here. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies and thanks for fixing it. I have renamed over 150 companies according to the convention and have made my best guess at how people in the field in the field refer to the company and can only rely on people like yourself to fix me when I screw it up.  The problem is that I simply can't know it every company in every field and do my best based on the information in the article such as abbreviations (which I clearly missed).  You may have noticed that the original poll never addressed issues like SAIC and BOAC, that was something I ran into while renaming, so I am well aware of the issue and appreciate the correction.   ILFC was one of the unfortunate companies at the top of the renaming list before I saw the trend for inclusion of legal status and failed to correct.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of galaxies
You just can't change the names of the NGC galaxies. Those beggining names are part of the rules of astonomical wikipedia. I moved those vandilisms back to normal. Plese don't change them again. &mdash;  Hurricane Devon  @ 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the typo. LOL, I'll make sure I watch my typing. &mdash;  Hurricane  Devon  @ 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

BAE/Airbus
Hi. I saw that BBC report too. I was deliberating whether or not to add it. They seem to be reporting a definite fact, on the other hand its very light on detail. Anyway, glad to have a second opinion. Big US move on the way?? I think so. Mark83 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pentagon would have a fit over General Dynamics though. The world's largest land systems company being merged into BAE's Land & Armaments - the 2nd largest! Raytheon would be very interesting. I think I read somewhere that they've decided against L-3. Nice work on the refs, it's a much better system. I only came across it after I had referenced the article. I reogranised the article following peer review advice and the references were a nightmare to fix (the old system doesn't renumber them if the order changes). Mark83 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * BBC News 24 is running the story with a "BBC Exclusive" strap, which might explain why its so muted so far. So that makes WP only the second website to pick it up! Mark83 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

resizing
I'm curious why you added &lt;div style="font-size:90%;"> around the references section in Antonov An-225 (and perhaps other articles, I've not noticed). As the ordered list has a class of .references, doesn't it make more sense to just edit the css? ericg &#9992; 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, just wondering. It seems like a kind of unnecessary move - they could just propose a css change instead and save a buttload of article-specific code. ericg &#9992; 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Monroe County Airport
I'm not disputing the accuracy. You're quite correct. I just felt the word "dominated" was a little too POV. That's why I rephrased. --Durin 14:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: User ID
No, nothing as interesting as that just my initials and birthday. Sc147 17:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
From User_talk:Johnwalton:

I respectfully disagree. The edit(s) in question are not "bigotry," merely a tidy-up exercise. jo hnwalton (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate!  18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples!
Thank you for the examples in Reverse takeover! I structured the article a while back into a proper Wikipedia article, and this is just what the article needs. So for that, I thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Burt know you have his tail number?
Is Burt aware you have his tail number? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 02:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

BBJ
Wow...that was quick. I hadn't finished my editing before you were revising my first edits! You might want to take a look again, I've reworked a bit of the content and some other things now. Anyways, thanks for the help with those revisions on the Infobox and elsewhere. --KPWM_Spotter 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory facts
In your recent edit to Reverse takeover, your passage contradicts the NYSE Group article. See Talk:Reverse takeover for further discussion on the issue. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Qantas flight numbers
I reverted your edit. Personally I don't think the flight numbers need to be there at all, but if they're going to, then the consensus was that there would be a summary in the main article, not a separate article for them. I cut out the table and converted it to a list, which considerably shortened it. Someone now needs to take a second pass through and condense it even more. I would just say remove it altogether, but the odds are very high that someone will come around and restore it. Fans of a particular airline seem to have a need to add every single thing there is to know about that airline. Dbinder (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Storm Rising
Sorry to stumble over some of you other changes. The problem was as the difference display appeared (to me) it was not at all clear there were other changes being made in the opening paragraph, sorry. The heading may not "strictly" be in the manual of style, but is one exception and is a part or the standard Novels pattern article format. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. And it was not my idea by the way before you ask, I'm just trying to bring some consistency to novel articles etc. Sorry to have stumbled over your edits so much. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfree image cleanup
Hi. In the future, please don't revert unfree image cleanup. In this case, if there is a problem with the caption, please simply fix the caption, don't re-introduce a non-commercial-only image back into the article. Jkelly 21:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime military history task force
I just wanted to let you know that a Maritime warfare task force has been established. Hope to see you there:)Inge 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

JAO
From what I understand, you did not see my edit summary when you moved Jewish Autonomous Oblast back. Please note that per WP:RUS, which is a current Wikipedia policy, we omit apostrophes standing for soft signs, except in very rare cases (such as Kievan Rus'). All Russian geo and personal names are transliterated without apostrophes, JAO should be no different. Ukrainians dropped apostrophes in the names of their oblasts a while ago as well; also for readability reasons. I have moved the article back where it belongs. Please contact me if you have questions.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, please note that the word oblast in the title of this particular article is a part of the translation; it is technically not a transliteration (transliteration would be Yevreyskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast). Those few English dictionaries that contain the word oblast spell it without an apostrophe.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me&mdash;I'm always glad to help. Best,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"hijacking?"
I changed it because a person searching emission controls is much more likely looking for information on automotive emissions than a 'stub' article on an obscure military term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X570 (talk • contribs)

The only thing I have to say is that the fact that you are the only user (the creator of the topic) that has contributed to the topic, makes it obscure. And just because you know the term, as a military person, doesn't not make it obscure! And what you are disrespectful to me by at first coming off with an attitude and then telling me I'm new to this. I've had an account for at least 10 months and have been contributing since the beginning of Wikipedia. I know military people seem to live in a bubble and assume the general population knows all your 'jargon' but it may be a surprise to you that 99.999% of the people searching for emissions control are looking for information on automotive emissions and not 'EMCON'. Otherwise 'EMCON' wouldn't still be a stub after all this time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by X570 (talk • contribs)

B787
How did you know Primaris Airlines cancelled its Boeing 787 order? Reply me when you have it. Thanks -- Big  top  ( tk || cb | em | ea ) 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your wet dream ...
comment was not appropriate in the history section for Air Canada. Learn to respect other people's edits even if they are wrong. If the information is incorrect then you can edit it without nasty/rude comments. Thanks. Decimal10 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:AC Boeing 777 and 787.jpg
Joseph, I've listed this image for deletion. It exists under a fair use claim, a main justification of which is the absence of an alternative. We already have one fair use image of a 787-8 (Image:NW Boeing 787.jpg). I don't propose to list Image:AirNZ 789.jpg for deletion as it depicts a different model. If you disagree please raise your objection at Images and media for deletion. Regards, Mark83 11:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CO777-Sec41.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:CO777-Sec41.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Boeing 787
Nice attitude. People make honest mistakes and there's no need for you to have an attitude. From reading other posts on your talk page, it seems other people have the same opinion of you.

Personally I find the whole graph of Orders and Options to be quite confusing. It's being used as a timeline, not as a graph to show the current orders and deliveries of the aircraft. -NcSchu 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg
Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)