User talk:Centpacrr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 American Hockey League 2 AHL overtime loss 3 Redundant paragraphs 4 Colorado Avalanche & Diacritics 5 License tagging for Image:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.jpg 6 Comprising vs Comprised of 7 Philadelphia Firebirds 8 National Defense Reserve Fleet 9 High and the Mighty 10 Sesquicentennial Exposition 11 Image:1938 IAHL consolidated.jpg 12 Maritime trades invite 13 Philadelphia Rockets 14 Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope 15 Donner Pass 16 Wikimedia Pennsylvania 17 The High and the Mighty 18 Belfast, ME page 19 Image:MLG 1931w.jpg 20 The High and Mighty 21 WikiProject Ice Hockey March 2008 Newsletter 22 Airmail 23 Philately WikiProject and Portal 24 Possibly unfree Image:1976_77_Firebirds.jpg 25 Possibly unfree Image:1925_26_NYAmericans_NHL.jpg 26 Charles Lindbergh 27 The High and the Mighty 28 Them tricky dates 29 Charles Lindbergh 30 Covers 31 Image copyright problem with Image:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg 32 Airmail 33 Image source problem with Image:1976 77 Firebirds.jpg

[edit] American Hockey League

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

[edit] AHL overtime loss

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

[edit] Redundant paragraphs

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Colorado Avalanche & Diacritics

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

[edit] License tagging for Image:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Donner Pass Track 1 Grade.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Comprising vs Comprised of

Regarding your edit to National Hockey League ([1]), believe it or not, "comprises" does mean "is made up of". Using "is comprised of" is seen as incorrect by many (though it's becoming more common). See, for example, thefreedictionary and M-W. Both note that there is a usage problem with the latter definition, hence my edit summary comment that "comprising" is "more correct". "Two conferences, each comprising three divisions" means "two conferences, each made up of three divisions", which is the intent of the sentence. In informal usage, "comprised of three divisions" may mean the same thing, and even though "opposition to this usage is abating" (thefreedictionary), I think we're better off with a non-controversial usage. Maybe it would be even better still not to use the word at all, and to choose an alternative. --Fru1tbat 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, "compose" is unambiguous. The problem is that "comprise" has come to mean both its original meaning and the exact opposite (kind of like "moot" [2]), so ambiguity is unavoidable, really. Traditional usage would be "the league comprises 30 teams". Modern usage might be "30 teams comprise the league". To me, that should mean "30 teams are made up of the league", but in reality you rarely see it that way anyway. That meaning is always (in my experience) used passively, i.e. "is comprised of". I accept that it's common, but it has become somewhat idiomatic -- I doubt many people who use that meaning would be able to define "comprise" by itself, without the "is" and "of"... In any case, I think the change you made to the article works well.

Thanks for the note on the railroad article, by the way. I notice you're in the Philly area (as I am). Can't be quite as much fun working Flyers games this season...

--Fru1tbat 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I hope you find the Stevens' Camden & Amboy article interesting. While not an engineer myself (I am a writer), I come from a long line of engineers. Both my father and grandfather were EE's, my great grandfather a CE, and great great grandfather a CE and ME. (He was the chief assistant engineer of the Central Pacific Railroad and did much of the engineering and design on for the original construction over the Sierras in the 1860's.[3]) Centpacrr 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia Firebirds

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

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

[edit] National Defense Reserve Fleet

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] High and the Mighty

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

[edit] Sesquicentennial Exposition

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

[edit] Image:1938 IAHL consolidated.jpg

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

I scanned the article from an original in my files. You are welcome to link to it at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1938_IAHL_consolidated.jpg> Centpacrr 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Maritime trades invite

Pan pan. Pan pan. Pan pan. Attention all vessels. This is WikiProject Maritime Trades. Please be advised that the project has been created to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to shipping and the diverse maritime trades. Assistence is requested. This is Maritime Trades standing by on Channel 16.

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

[edit] Philadelphia Rockets

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

[edit] Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope

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

[edit] Donner Pass

Please discuss why you reverted my changes (as I discussed why I made them on the talk page). While I'm not perfect I still contend my changes were appropriate and a good start. Namely:

• The article in its current state is excessive in links to cprr.org. Needs to rely less on a single source.
• The article is not correct, by todays names Yuba pass is not traversed by a railroad (it is traversed by California Highway 49) and so the article is wrong without noting the change in name. The pass mentioned here is now called Emigrant Gap as I corrected in the article before you reverted it. In fact I was and still am debating if this paragraph needs to be removed and placed on the wikipedia page for Emigrant Gap.

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

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

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

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

The links and references to, and materials and information derived from, the CPRR Museum site are used with permission as I am the original author and/or compiler of these materials and the photographer/creator of the digital images and 360º interactive QTVR panoramas of Donner Pass. Because of the vast scope of our site (more than 5,000 pages) I have included specific links to relevent pages and images which would otherwise be hard to find for the casual visitor. Centpacrr 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can respect and agree with that, I've browsed the cprr.org site and agree there is a LOT of info. I also respect and am amazed at the work done both here and at cprr.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

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

[edit] The High and the Mighty

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

[edit] Belfast, ME page

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

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

[edit] Image:MLG 1931w.jpg

Hi. Thanks for uploading this image to Wikipedia, and digitally enhancing it. However, the image risks being deleted from Wikipedia due to copyright concerns, unless you are able to provide the following information to the image description page:

• You assert that the image is in the public domain. You need to explain why/how it is in the public domain. Remember that it needs to meet both Canadian (as an image first published in Canada) and American (as the Wikipedia servers are located in the United States) criteria for public domain images.
• You need to provide the source of the image.

Thank you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Maple Leafs program from the first game at Maple Leaf Gardens, November 12, 1931.

Scanned from original 1931 program cover digitally restored by the contributor.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The High and Mighty

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

Thank you for your note. I first saw this film as a child when it was originally released in 1954 and have watched it many times in the years since. Needless to say, I was delighted when it was finally restored and released on DVD after many years on the deep freeze. I wrote most of my contributions on this between Dec., 2006, and Feb., 2007, but eventually deleted them all in July, 2007, after a seemingly endless series of edits by a variety of people that so badly confused and muddled the article that I just gave up decided to let it sit for six months or so before taking another look at the issue (See "Cleaned Up" in the film's talk page). As a professional writer of both hockey and transportation (primarily railroad, and to a lesser extent aviation and maritime) history for almost four decades (four books, several thousand articles, and a variety or websites including one on the First U.S. Transcontinental Railroad (CPRR.org) which exceeds 10,000 webpages), I pride myself in the care with which I am able to observe, understand, reference, and clearly relate detail in my writing. You can see from my Wiki user page (Centpacrr) that I have worked in professional ice hockey for almost 40 years in many capacities during which time I have "worked" more than 3,000 games in one capacity or another. (See my personal hockey site at HockeyScoop.net and my History & Trivia blogs on HockeyBuzz.com.) I also learned to fly in 1964 (in a Beech Bonanza) but have not been an active pilot for some time. I do have have an extensive collection of unusual aviation artifacts which I have built over the years including Charles Lindbergh's last paycheck as contract U.S. Air Mail pilot (dated February 15, 1927, three months before he made his solo flight from new York to Paris), a small piece if the silver colored fabric skin that he removed from the "Spirit of St. Louis" at Le Bourget field in Paris the day after his arrival on May 21, 1927, and that presented to the Belgian Ambassador to France, several pieces of fabric from the "Graf Zeppelin", a charred nine-inch spar brace recovered from the "Hindenburg" after it crashed at Lakehurst, NJ, in May, 1937, a control cable pulley from the Martin M-130 "China Clipper" PAA flying boat from 1935 (acquired from the estate of a Glenn L. Martin Company. engineer), etc, etc. I still have some differences in interpretation and appropriate structure of the "The High and the Mighty" article, but I think those can probably be worked out. I also spoke with one of my friends in Winnipeg this morning who told me that it was -30C there today. In Philadelphia (where I live) things have been a little better this winter with no measurable snowfall at all this winter and the temp hit 70F last weekend for the third time this winter. (We'll probably pay for this in March with a Nor'easter though I expect.) Many thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi Bruce, we do seem to have some related interests although I can't claim to have anything like historical artifacts other than some bits and pieces of the late-lamented Avro Aircraft Ltd. plant in Toronto where I and a film crew were working. I did find a large painted wooden sign featuring the Spirit of St. Louis and Charles Lindbergh that was made after the Lindbergh transatlantic flight at a movie set (I did say I was also into movies, didn't I?) where Northern Exposure was being filmed. I offered to buy the original sign and to my surprise, the owner agreed. I am also a great fan of all the "lost causes" including the Hindenburg saga, Amelia Earhart's disappearance and on and on (that's where I stumbled upon our mutual friend: Gwen Gale). I have subsequently written three books about the demise of the Avro Arrow which has eclipsed into modern folklore in Canada. I am presently an editor of an aviation magazine, which is mainly a trade journal devoted to industry news but I do sneak in a heritage piece every issue. One story that recently took place in our neck of the woods was the remarkable discovery of the "Ghost of Charron Lake" which was a Fokker Universal transport that alighted in the modest of a storm but had slipped through the ice and disappeared. Even though its location was well known, over 60 years of searching had not resulted in any finds yet last year a new sonar search located the aircraft situated on an outcropping that had foiled earlier sonar sweeps. I am also a pilot, mainly general aviation types stemming from a time when I had gained a private pilot's licence as an Air Cadet. Like yourself, I and my family are "sports nuts" and follow everything from amateur to professional sports although my only real involvement was as a community club and high school coach (except for my foray into sports car racing in my mid-life crisis years). Keep up the good work, I enjoyed your writing and only had some reservations about following a consistent encyclopedic style. BTW, Gwen is also an excellent writer and has made quite a mark for herself in her chosen genres. Nice to check six with you. I also do not fly more than a desk at this point since my heart operation in 2000 but I do try to keep my hand in whenever the occasion offers itself. Other pilots never seem to mind to have an old fart sit in a right-hand seat and not only "shoot the bull" but also let me take the controls. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC). And your friend in Hades Winnipeg was being upbeat, it hit -42 degrees C a few days ago. Bzuk (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC). I have actually moved on from the High and Mighty to tackle The War Lover which I saw as a very incomplete "stub" article and will do my standard, "pull it up by the bootstraps" effort. Bzuk (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC). BTW, check out the Island in the Sky (1953 film) article, I did some work on this one as well. Bzuk (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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

[edit] WikiProject Ice Hockey March 2008 Newsletter

edit   WikiProject Ice Hockey Newsletter Dear Centpacrr! You are receiving as you are a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey There's been many more new things going on at WP:HOCKEY, and I think this will help you to stay informed. Since the last newsletter sent out in October, there have been many new changes. I'm hoping to make this newsletter a bit more regular; Kaiser matias and Skudrafan1 asked for a new issue a week ago, but sadly, I've been a bit lazy and committed to other things hence this other delay. --Maxim(talk) edit   New recognized content By Maxim There has been numerous new recognized content, so much that it's too time-consuming to sift through the "trophy cases" on WP:HOCKEY. Some interesting achievements: Hockey Hall of Fame was featured on the Main Page on March 7, 2008. AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic was promoted to Good Article status. Kaiser matias has been steadily promoting lists of NHL players per team to featured status. As of press time, List of Columbus Blue Jackets players is at FLC. Although covered in its own section, National Hockey League awards being promoted to featured topic status deserves a mention here, too. It seems that after October's issue, an interest in getting articles featured on the Main Page's Did You Know section has piqued. Half of the project's DYKs were made after October 2007. Krm500 assisted in promoting an ice-hockey related image to featured status. The featured version is Image:Wgretz edit2.jpg. Last, but certainly not least, Kim Williams has single-handedly gotten Nottingham Panthers, a British ice hockey team, promoted to featured article status. edit   Task forces By Maxim There was a new taskforce created within the WikiProject to deal with topics related to the Boston Bruins. It was originally founded as a separate WikiProject, but was quickly turned into a taskforce within WikiProject Ice Hockey. The list of participants is located here. Located at WP:BRUINS, the taskforce's goals are to make Boston Bruins and Bobby Orr featured articles. Good luck! edit   New Administrators By Maxim Since October, there have been three new admins promoted within the project: Kaiser matias (RfA) - Promoted with a final tally of 30/3/2, nominated by Epbr123 Djsasso (RfA) - Promoted with a final tally of 46/1/0, nominated by Maxim Rjd0060 (RfA) - Promoted with a final tally of 67/5/5, nominated by Ryan Postletwhaite A previously admin-only feature has been made available for all users. The rollback feature allows a user to quickly revert vandalism with one click. If you wish to have rollback, contact an active admin or post a request to WP:RFR. edit   Featured Topic Drive By Maxim The original featured topic drive, initiated by Scorpion0422, has concluded succesfully. National Hockey League awards is now a featured topic, with 24 articles in total. Of them, 20 are featured lists, one is a featured article, and the other three are trophy articles that were too short to become featured lists. Eight users signed up to help out, shown here. The next Featured Topic hasn't been decided upon, and the ideas and organization for it fell apart. If you have any ideas, don't hesitate to share them at WT:HOCKEY. edit   Notes More editors are needed to help out with the newsletter. Maxim doesn't have an infinite nor perfect supply of ideas, and thus he might omit some interesting news. Portal:Ice hockey is being considered for featured status. Feel free to nominate features at Portal:Ice hockey/Suggestions. Should Chris Pronger have been suspended for more than eight games for stomping on Ryan Kesler? Vote here!

Note: You have received this because your name is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/List. If you no longer wish to receive this message, remove your name. MonoBot (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airmail

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

Actually I am not finished yet, but I have only added information (and images) so far on the first U.S. Air Mail in 1918, and corrected the information on first CAM flights. (The previous entry -- which curiously was sourced -- that I replaced claimed that the first CAM route to go into operation as being CAM-5 on April 6, 1926, which is completely wrong as both CAM-6 and CAM-7 both began service three weeks earlier on February 15.) All of this information can be easily found in the all editions of the American Air Mail Catalogue. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

P.S. I have a very extensive collection on aerophilatelic postal history specializing in rare early flown (pre-WWII) US air mail, CAM, FAM, Lindberghiana, and Zeppelin covers, and associated ephemera and artifacts. I have also used Apples and Macs exclusively since 1981, and once worked with the late Jef Raskin doing extensive testing of the Canon Cat (Information Appliance) on which I wrote three of my books and which he co-developed with my brother-in-law. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

I recently asked Tirkfl^talk to translate the German airmail article, which is a German WP:FA, into English because this one is very lacking and I would love to see a second philatelic featured article. I have been waiting for him to get back to me when it has been proof-read and is ready for adding references and citations. What you have been adding is, on the other hand, very detailed, possibly too detailed, for a general airmail article like this and very US-centric. Somewhere in all that there should to be a balance that covers the major events of airmail and its history worldwide, somewhat in the coverage of James A. Mackay's Airmails, 1870-1970 book which you may have. Let's talk about it later on. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philately WikiProject and Portal

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

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:1976_77_Firebirds.jpg

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

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

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:1925_26_NYAmericans_NHL.jpg

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

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

[edit] Charles Lindbergh

I am thoroughly impressed with the wealth of knowledge and research that you have provided to this article – great work! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you. Besides my interest in him as an aviator, over the years I have built up a rather interesting collection of "Lindberghiana" which includes many unusual, and some absolutely unique, items and artifacts connected to Lindbergh most of which relate to his aerophilatelic postal history. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The High and the Mighty

When this article achieves a measure of equilibrium and stability, I would like to propose it as a Good Article candidate (or ask you to champion it, which is probably more akin to its "dad" being involved). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

What does that entail? (Centpacrr (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Finishing it off to your best version and then recording a fairly lengthy period of stability with no contentious issues arising and no edit wars, are minor requirements. If the article appears ready, then a call for a peer review is made, and this can be duplicated in both the film and aviation project groups where experienced editors will "line-by-line" review the content and verify format and referencing consistencies. After that a formal submission to a Good Article Review will result in one of the prolific reviewers in this "stream" making an appraisal that will complete the process. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Them tricky dates

See: [4]. Generally speaking, the WP:Aviation Project group recommends dates written out as 20 April 2008 or 20–21 April 2008. Note no use of commas or "&."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As this is in the en.wikipedia site, is primarily a biographical (as opposed to an "aviation") article about a controversial, multi-faceted historic American (as opposed to a Commonwealth or European) figure for which his association with aviation was important, but nonetheless represented only a part of his activities and fame, and contains within it many direct quotations and citations from US articles all of which use the "American" formatting of dates, I have reverted all the date citations back to the American format as specified in the Manual of Style so that they will display consistently throughout. (As you pointed out, the majority of these dates are also "bracketed" so that they can be displayed in several other formats for registered users who are logged in and have a different "autoformat" selected in preferences.) I have also removed bracket formatting from any multiple dates as using "piped links" (as the Manual of Style points out) breaks the date autoformating function. This seems to me fulfill the precepts of the three guidelines for resolving date formatting for this article, i.e., Consistency within articles, Strong national ties to a topic, and Retaining the existing format. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Regardless, your changes still required reformatting because you made mistakes in nearly every instance. The one aspect of your argument that you have neglected is that when a writing style or format is established, that is the prevailing style that is maintained. However (note, modern use of "however"), I have corrected the use of dates. Bruce, you certainly tax a fellow's patience, but I am willing to make the investment. Have a good day. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. I had not included commas between day-date and year in the reformatted dates with bracketed month/days and years as when I checked the page in preview with preferences "off" they all still displayed correctly (i.e. "January 1, 1900") without a manually inserted comma so I figured adding such a comma would create an unwanted "double comma." It seems that Wikipedia must insert such a comma when missing by default in "bracket" coded dates so I guess it does not matter if it is inserted manually as well. I assume this is the formatting error you were referring to.

I am still puzzled by, and do not see the point for using, a military (or "International") dating format in this biographical article, especially when that does not seem to be the norm in other such Wikipedia articles about similar figures with a connection to aviation, Lindbergh, or both. (See for instance Wiley Post, Charles August Lindbergh, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Clarence Duncan Chamberlin, Richard Evelyn Byrd, Charles Nungesser, Hugo Eckener, Ernst A. Lehmann, all of which are bracket coded using "American" date formatting.) Please advise. Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

One of the prime considerations in looking at the readership of the Wikipedia articles is to recognize that the vast majority of users are actually not editors nor will they have browser date preferences set. The easiest means of addressing a format issue to to provide a consistent and easily-usable format. This article and Amelia Earhart have been the constant target of vandals in the past. A means of addressing the vandal question is to have the article under the auspices of a project group so that the members of the group would be vigilant to the constant protection of a significant article. Since no other project group had "adopted" the article, the WP:Aviation Project Group undertook its "care" and tagged it as a significant aviation article. There has been a long-standing deliberation about the use of dates that affect aviation articles. The consideration was made to look at three different dating systems, the ISO date format, popular style (m-d-y) and the formal style (d-m-y). There is no "American" style although many people believe that the popular style is used primarily in the US, but it is actually a style used throughout the world, and is merely the "popular" style. The "formal" style is more often ascribed to the UK and Europe but it also is not linked to a particular nationality. It has some inherent advantages in editing as it eliminates the double comma in phrases and it is a clean and recognizable convention. After deliberations, the ISO style was considered difficult to read for foreign and new Wiki users. A toss-up occurred between the popular and formal styles resulting in a decision to adopt the formal style that is most often used in academic works and provides an unambiguous format that is acceptable worldwide. Simple as that, it isn't a question of US-bias, it is a question of accommodating the most users. FWiW, if you want more information about the reasoning, I would ask you to consider looking at the Aviation Project Group as a valuable resource aid. Bzuk (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I understand the issue of vandalism and the necessity for vigilance, and appreciate the "adoption" of this biographical article by the aviation group to that end even though it is not strictly an "aviation" article. My issue is opting to use such a stilted style for dates which seems to me to be inimical to Wiki's general stated format, ie: "Formal tone does not mean the article should be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." Usage of the so-called "International" style (as the Wiki Manual of Style calls it) in a non-technical biographical narrative seems pedantic and wooden in comparison to employing the so-called "American" style (as it is styled in the manual) which is how people actually would use in speech and also how it appears in virtually all publications and documents -- even legal ones -- with the exception of military writing and documents. Imposing an ultaformal style on an article just because it is being watched by the aviation group seems to me to be inappropriate. My view is that this date format should really be used very sparingly, and only when there is some compelling reason to do so. It's usage in written prose tends to be generally offputting for anything other than a formal, bureaucratic, or administrative purpose because it is not the way people talk in real life...not even in academic circles. (See the other examples of aviation & Lindbergh related Wikipedia articles that I directed you to above non of which employs this dating format.) I have been writing professionally for more than forty years and have never used the date-month-year format in anything other than formal military or bureaucratic writing -- nor really have I ever seen it used anywhere in narrative or encyclopedic writing. I would urge the Aviation group to rethink this in the light of the above. Thanks (Centpacrr (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Charles Lindbergh

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

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

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

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

[edit] Covers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CAL CAM2 DH4 Nov 4 1926.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] Airmail

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

[edit] Image source problem with Image:1976 77 Firebirds.jpg

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

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

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

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