User talk:Centpacrr/Archive5

User talk:64.252.0.159

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:64.252.0.159, you may be blocked from editing. 64.252.0.159 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP 64.252.0.159 resolves to a Dynamic IP registered to SBC Internet Services in New Britain, CT, not a static IP registered to an organization. You have now three times placed a false tag on this page identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true. The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by an otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user. Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN. Centpacrr (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Ex. 20:16) 64.252.0.159 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for again confirming and proving exactly who you are. Centpacrr (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: IP 64.252.0.159 has been blocked from editing and the sockpuppet user has been banned by the community from editing on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Just and FYI: you and I are mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse this thread. I posted my .02, up to you if you feel like commenting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented with links to the sorry history of this disruptive editor. As I figured when he/she was banned from editing by the WP community last month that we had not heard the last from him/her. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been where you are

And you may want to consider letting this go. Long term vandal/troll fighting can get very personal. I have engaged in "battles" with such users that lasted months, others have gone years locking horns with the same user, day after day. In the long run you may find you are giving them exactly what they want: drama. It may be best to back away from them, unwatchlist the pages they frequent, and find something more enjoyable to do with your time here. These things can turn into an obsession for both parties involved. Any user with an WP:LTA entry is bound to have someone else keeping an eye out for them anyway. Just some free advice for you to take or leave as you see fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with what you say, and this user has a history of stalking many other editors as well who I assume will chime in now that they have been advised. The problem with him/her doing so under many different IPs is that he/she can continue to stalk, libel, and slander me (and other editors) in AN/I and elsewhere and by pretending to be an "inexperienced innocent" to "sucker" other editors who don't know who he/she really is as proxies. He/she started this latest thread without ever advising me (another violation of WP policy) and I would have never known about it if I had not been advised by the admin (whom he was also trashing in it) that he/she was back. I surely do wish that I would never have to deal with this wikistalker again (and I have advised the admins who have blocked and banned him/her in the past), but I will not let myself be accused and libeled without "outing" him/her. I have my own reputation to protect. Now that there is an LTA page on him/her, however, I think referring to it in the threads he/she starts is about all I need to do. At least he/she is no longer vandalizing my contributions to articles -- at least for now. Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see you go through all this, but if you follow Beeblebrox's advice of ignoring the user and not taking the attacks personally, you should be fine. So... the purpose of my visit. I've updated the long-term abuse report with some templates and deferred it to abuse response for contact with the user's Internet service provider so they can take action as deemed necessary. Due to the level of abuse, we'll call the ISP and report the abuse that way. However, I've noticed that most of the abuse comes from IP addresses and not accounts. Are there anymore accounts used by this user that are not reported on the long-term abuse page? If you want, you can check the status of the abuse response case by visiting Wikipedia:Abuse response/Techwriter2B. I'm at both long-term abuse and abuse response, so feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions regarding the cases. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am not familiar with how the "Abuse response" system works, and (to be perfectly truthful) am really fed up with dealing with this troublesome individual so I will be happy to leave that to you and others who are expert in this. I think you will find the current AN/I thread that the IP sock foolishly started today provides a pretty good microcosm of the situation. I have only been a wikistalking victim of this user since May, but it is clear that he/she has been at this for at least three years and has many other victims. As long as he/she continued to only stalk me (and others) from anonymous IPs, there didn't seem (to me at least) that much that could be done. His/her big "mistake", however, was to create two named user accounts (User:Techwriter2B and User:Filmcracker) to stalk me in two particular articles (Stephen Ambrose and The High and the Mighty (film)) which finally provided a "hook" to which all the anonymous IPs could then be related to. The only other named account that I am aware of was User:Sift&Winnow which he/she apparently "abandoned" last year when it became the subject of another investigation and got "too hot" for him/her to keep using.

His/her usual MO appears to be to "crawl in a hole" when outed, but this also usually doesn't last for more than a couple of weeks before he/she resurfaces. I will gladly "lay low" while you proceed with the Abuse investigation (Techwriter2B has wasted way too much of my time already), but will be happy to answer any questions you may have. You may also find it useful to contact some of his/her other victims as well as User:Eurytemora who has done a great deal of leg work into finding his/her many IP accounts as well as analysis of his/her abusive techniques and practices. Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

misc.

Was there a previous SPI for that guy? It's not listed on the user pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, but it would have been before I became a stalking target of this sock last May and I don't know the details or when it happened. I believe, however, it had something to do with his/her account as User:Sift&Winnow but I'm not sure. Centpacrr (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: Is this what you are looking for? Centpacrr (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put that one on my watch list. What I'm wondering is whether there was a formal case tying the Film guy to the Writer guy, or if it merely passed the "duck" test and were indef'd on that basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No SPI on that, I "outed" and confirmed both myself in a few minutes as they were painfully obvious. Centpacrr (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I think they're related, but I've placed a CU request on both to get the IP information for calling his service provider. Netalarm^talk 06:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Centpacrr, this issue may have has come up again. 'Courtesy' of User:64.252.140.128 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse or this diff. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for you work on the railroad articles. I like taking the Amtrak to different sections of the country. Our paths have cross because of the anon editor. I hope things will be quieter. I hope you are doing well-RFD (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my contributions to WP's railroad articles. I have another railroad book (my third) coming out in November about historic Canadian railways, and a fourth on classic Eastern US railroad routes which is scheduled for next Spring. Our friend the anon IP was finally banned on July 18 from editing on Wikipedia and so now surfaces much less frequently. (As a known Long-term Abuser (LTA), he/she can now also be blocked quickly when he/she shows up using a new sock account.) WP will probably never be completely rid of this disruptive editor, but his/her disruptive behavior has been largely neutralized. Again thanks for your kind words, and hope you enjoy your railroading! Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg

Two weeks after the fact, I discover there was a deletion review for this image. FYI it's extremely bad form not to let the original participants of the discussion know about the review. Besides common courtesy, you got two bites at the apple and I had no idea there was any further action. I'm not saying that my participation would have changed the outcome, but the fact that I didn't even get an opportunity reflects rather poorly on you. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather from the above that you have not actually looked at the deletion review itself. If you had, you would be aware that I was not the editor who opened it as the September 10 review request was instead initiated by Mackensen, a veteran admin who had also opposed deletion of the image in the original discussion. (See [1]) The review that this admin opened was also not of your original deletion nomination (which only one of the six editors other than yourself who commented in the original discussion supported), but instead challenged the validity of the basis on which that discussion was closed by User:SchuminWeb with the image's deletion. His interpretation of WP:NFCC is what was found to be faulty during the review and thus resulted in the deletion being overturned. (Mackensen simultaneously posted a notice on the original closing admin's talk page of his opening of a deletion review (See [2]) although SchuminWeb failed to participate in the review's subsequent discussion in which the reversal of his decision was supported by a wide margin.) Therefore if you have a problem with how the deletion review process was handled in this case, and whether or not you should have been notified of its opening by its initiator, I would suggest that you discuss this matter with the admin who actually opened it. He would have presumably been the party (if any) who you should have expected to notify you, not me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)]]

So your response is, "It's not my job"? A responsible editor would have asked, "Hey, did you inform everyone who was previously involved?" I'm putting this on you because you are the one who stood to gain the most from the DR. howcheng {chat} 06:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, sir, I am puzzled by your contention that I (or any other third party editor) had some obligation to advise you about the action of another editor (who is also an admin) in opening a DR because you believed that somehow I "had the most to gain" from his opening of that process. If you had first taken the time to look at the history of the image file, you would have known that I was not the editor who originally uploaded it in May, 2007, nor did I post anything on its page until September 18, 2010, which was after the DR had been closed. (I also did not add the image to either of the articles in which is was then included as an illustration at the time you nominated it for deletion.) Not only did I not have "the most to gain" in this process (which I did not start), I had nothing at all to "gain" (or "lose"), one way or the other. I was merely one of a group of editors who commented in the discussions offering their personal views about its appropriateness to be retained. This is also the first time that I have ever commented in a DR, a process of which I was not even aware until after the image file had been already deleted. (As an aside, the image had also been in place for more than three years without any complaints.) As were these other third party editors, I was commenting in discussions started by others including yourself. As the originator of the process, it seems to me that the "responsibility" for your following up on it (if that was your desire) was yours alone, not that of any other editor who later participated in it with third party comments.

• Also please understand and respect that participation in WP at any level is a voluntary activity, not anyone's "job" that requires (as you imply) any editor to hector other volunteers (especially a very experienced admin with over seven years experience) to "inform everyone who was previously involved" in any discussion in which such a third party editor may have also later participated. Your "complaint" (if there really is one), therefore, is not with me or any other third party poster, but with the individual who opened the DR. You have already been urged to contact him with your concerns if you somehow feel wronged in this matter, but I note that as of this posting you have failed to leave any messages on his talk page. (As you have not yet done so, I have now advised him of of your concerns.) The bottom line, however, is that it would appear that the real "responsibility" for you to follow up on a process that you initiated is yours, not mine or that of any other third party editor who later commented in the discussion. Centpacrr (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, if you did not initiate the DR, how did you know about its existence? howcheng {chat} 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I found out about the existence of the DR the same way I find out about virtually anything else on WP on or to which I have made a previous contribution in one way or another: a reference to it appeared in my Watchlist. (A template notice reading "This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review on 2010 September 10" was also added to the original discussion page shortly after the DR was opened for exactly that purpose and which you would have seen in your own Watchlist as well unless you had already unwatched the page. See [3]) I suspect that this is the same way that other editors who had previously commented on the issue found out about it as well. I would therefore urge you to avoid jumping to the conclusion that you are the victim of some personal slight in this matter and instead to assume good faith on the part of all the other editors (including the admin who initiated the DR) who contributed to these discussions. Proper notice to all interested parties was properly and timely placed on the the original discussion page (see link above) in the form of a template with a link to the DR in conformity with WP guidelines on this process. No further notice was required. With respect, sir, your postings here really seem to have been a rather gross overreaction on your part, and as a admin I really think you should have known better. In the future I would hope that you will refrain from making similar unhelpful and unsupported charges against other editors in situations such as this one, and an apology for the unwarranted allegations of misconduct you made against me (and others by implication) would be appreciated. Centpacrr (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Crickets. Centpacrr (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I notified the closing administrator that I was seeking review, after asking him to reverse himself (he declined). That's the appropriate process and I know of no other. I'm sorry that you feel ill-served. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your note, Mackensen. That sounds about right to me as well. Centpacrr (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The High and the Mighty (film)

Bruce, you have waged a mighty battle against the deletionists but the article now, IMHO, is much the worse as all the images are gone. I sympathize as I actually was a Film Project Coordinator but dropped out after many similar clashes with the same ilk. The latest nonsense is the renaming of a section traditionally known as "awards" to "accolades". Sheesh, life is too short to deal with these aggravations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for contacting me. Reviewing the United States Copyright Office copyrights for material relating to the film, the film itself is covered (as well as the poster and music from the film) but no details are provided regarding the trailers. To ensure there is no miscommunication with what the disclaimer is referring to, I have already contacted the Copyright Office earlier today, and will let you know what details they provide regarding the trailer images. I do agree above with Bzuk and would prefer not to constantly deal with the many aggravations of Wikipedia, but changes in content and style do prepare articles for the better, even if I don't always agree with all parts. I highly doubt we can find an editor who likes how all changes are set up for all guidelines across Wikipedia, but to ensure articles get improved, there has to be give and take. Anyway, sorry for the rambling, but I'll keep you posted (their site claims up to a 5-day waiting period). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you come up with an answer to my question? Centpacrr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've e-mailed them and they initially only provided a generic answer about copyrighted films. We'vee-mailed back-and-forth three times now and I am currently waiting on what I hope is the final confirmation if the trailer is copyrighted or not. The last e-mail indicated that the trailer was up for renewal in 1982, and if there is no record in their database saying it was renewed then it is public domain. I'm asking now for them to confirm if it has been renewed or not, since searching through each individual item is a bit confusing and vague. Hopefully a definite answer will come in the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office stated that the film was renewed but the trailer was not. As a result screenshots from the trailer are okay. Screenshots from the film are not though (great system we have, huh?). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The best U.S. Code that money can "buy" it would seem, but that's nothing new. ;=) Thanks for the follow up. Centpacrr (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Just a tip for dealing with this kind of harassment/stalking; always remind yourself of WP:DENY. Alert someone (like me or whoever else may be familiar with the history), give us all the pertinent info, then don't worry about it unless someone drags you back into it. When I block a user like this (who has a high probability of complaining or filing an unblock) I will watch their talk page and give info as needed to reviewers or unfamiliar parties dragged in. Otherwise, once they are blocked, ignore and forget until the next one comes along. Keep up the good work, and cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, thanks. The only reason I posted the two additional comments on the talk page this time was that the LTA continued to falsely represent him/herself as being me even after being blocked, a claim which I felt I needed to affirmatively debunk. Your efforts in dealing with this ongoing matter has been extraordinarily helpful and very much appreciated. Centpacrr (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent change to Overland Route

Re [4] I'm not sure which version is better; however, this edit is at least partially correct. While most of the former Union Pacific Portion is double tracked, the majority of the former Southern Pacific portion is still single track. The statement in the current version that the line was eventually completely double tracked is not correct. For example here is where the line first narrows to single track west of Ogden, Utah and most of the line west of this point is single track. Dave (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the line to read "The route was largely double tracked in stages from 1901 to 1925 which improved both its efficiency of operation and the speed of passage." and added ref. Centpacrr (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More on the Overland Route

Take a look at a couple of samples from the article as it now stands:

"The efficiency of operation and speed of passage over the line was further enhanced by major realignments (such as the Lucin Cutoff) made primarily in stages between 1901 and 1925."

Suggested replacement: "Between 1901 and 1925 UP and SP realigned hundreds of miles of the route, notably on the Lucin Cutoff." Why waste the reader's time telling him realignments improve speed and efficiency? And improvements over a 24-year period are made in stages? Primarily, that is.

Another sample: "Aside from those modifications, however, the rest of the “Sierra Grade” remains virtually unchanged and thus still looks much the same way to train passengers as it did when this part of the line first opened in 1868."

Suggested replacement: "Aside from these modifications, the "Sierra Grade" remains virtually unchanged and looks much the same to train passengers as it did when it opened in 1968." In this case the meaning isn't changed at all-- the removed words were all entirely superfluous. The author asks for explanation of the edits, as if an expalanation were necessary-- who could prefer the longer version of this sentence?

On the other hand, it's true a few facts are in dispute. As everyone knows, the Overland Ltd went extra fare in 1913 when the schedule dropped to 65 hours SF-Chicago; it was slowed in 1918, then speeded up and re-extra-fared in 1926, then de-extra-fared for good in 1931. The 1905, 1907 and 1910 Guides don't seem to mention extra fare, and the schedules don't suggest that one would be called for-- so if the train was extra-fare in 1906, sounds like a temporary aberration. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• The use of the expression of the realignments and double tracking having been made primarily "in stages" (as opposed to either continuously or simultaneously over the entire route) is how these projects are described in the UPRR source cited as the reference. Improvement in the "efficiency of operation and speed of passage" were the reasons that the upgrades were made.

• "Extra fare" was an inadvertently left in remnant of the previous language when the dates of the Overland Limited in the passage were different. I have replaced it with "electric lighted" which is how Trains #1 & #2 are distinguished in both the Official Guide and UP/SP advertising in 1906 from other trains that ran over the route such as the "China & Japan Fast Mail". Centpacrr (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ObviousSock

Guess I should have warned you about my sense of humor, huh? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I registered User:RougeAdmin, too. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me. I have removed the reference to "ObviousSock" from the note box on the LTA's false AN/I as well. I just assumed that this was another one of the LTA's new socks going along with the other five he/she has registered in the last three days for which it fit the pattern. As you can tell from the LTA page, he/she has been in a frenzy of disruptive activity over the last week. Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I like "ObviousSock". My compliments to Sarek - a perfect response to "GoodFaithEditor"! Eurytemora (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevan551

Thank You 85.3.209.248 (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

palace hotel

your use of tw is inappropriate for valid edits. please also reference WP:NOTLINK for inordinate number of images used in the article. cheers. --emerson7 02:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Palace Hotel, San Francisco

please do not continue to delete the images from the article as they are in the public domain, and per wp:own you do not have exclusive rights the to article. --emerson7 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled why an anonymous editor feels free to delete and orphan an entire gallery of relevant historic images not available elsewhere from an article which he/she had never before contributed to as being in his/her exclusive view "excessive" and yet complains when another editor who has worked on and been a major contributor to the same article over a long period of time decides to withdraw a much smaller number of images (four) which that editor created and originally contributed to the article from his own collections. Centpacrr (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! Bzuk (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of the CPRR's Chinese workers on May 10, 1869 et seq

Your opinion of what the original documents say doesn't matter. The quote comes from Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People, which was a finalist for the prestigious Kiriyama Pacific Rim Book Prize. VirtualInitiative (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of the modern source of this quote, primary sources do matter if they do not support the Zia claims which are not a primary source. Her claims do not appear to comport with the historic record on this matter, and no primary sources are cited that support her conclusions. The deleted quotation, which appears on page 27 of the book, is neither footnoted nor otherwise sourced (in fact the book appears to have no footnotes or chapter notes at all), and instead only appears to represent the very strong personal POV of the author. Reviews of the book also describe the work as "polemical" (New York Times Review of Books, March 5, 2000, P. 20) as well as a "novelization of history". I have written two books on the subject of the Pacific Railroad myself and have been researching this topic for more than a dozen years. While there was certainly anti-Chinese sentiment in the West in the 19th and early 20th centuries, her claims that "Chinese workers were barred from celebrations", that "speeches congratulated European immigrant workers for their labor but never mentioned the Chinese" and that the Chinese workers were "summarily fired and forced to walk the long distance back to San Francisco" and "forbidden to ride on the railroad they built" are clearly disproved by contemporary documents and accounts of the events. For instance the May 15, 1869, edition of San Francisco Newsletter & California Advertiser described the final moments of the "Last Spike" celebration at Promontory Summit, UT, on May 10, 1869, thusly: "... The Chinese really laid the last tie and drove the last spike. ... (CPRR Construction Chief) J.H. Strobridge, when the work was all over, invited the Chinese who had been brought over from Victory for that purpose, to dine at his boarding car. When they entered, all the guests and officers present cheered them as the chosen representatives of the race which have greatly helped to build the road....a tribute they well deserved and which evidently gave them much pleasure." In his testimony before the Joint Special Committee of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives appointed to investigate the "character, extent, and effect of Chinese immigration" in 1876, the CPRR's Charles Crocker stated: "Wherever we put them (Chinese workers) we found them good, and they worked themselves into our favor to such an extent that if we found we were in a hurry for a job of work, it was better to put Chinese on at once. Previous to that we had always put on white men; and to-day if I had a big job of work that I wanted to get through quick with, and had a limited time to do it in, I should take Chinese labor to do it with, because of its greater reliability and steadiness, and their aptitude and capacity for hard work." Centpacrr (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Lindberg article

I added a description of the problems as I see them for B class (there are others as well suchh as citations in the lede) but that wouldn't hurt it for B Class. I also added some citation needed tags (in addition to a couple that were already there to help demonstrate my issue. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cal asrf.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cal asrf.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Source and second applicable PD tag added. Centpacrr (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The High and the Mighty (film)

Hi, on a closed email forum on 8 March 2011 was the following message: (quote)Thanks to Jeane Kennedy and the TALOA Alumni we now know that all filming of "The High & the Mighty" was done with N4665V. The flying took place between 16 and 30Nov53, and was flown by Capt. Bill Keating. With the exception of one flight to Burbank. all other flying was carried out at San Francisco or Oakland. Apparently there are a few shots of another aircraft, which had a different deicing boot arrangement. Thus, Wikipedia is wrong. Someone can correct it now!(unquote) The sender is a long-standing aircraft historian and author working at considerable depth on a very comprehensive history of the C-54/DC-4 family. I'm not really into airlines or films, just passing on the info, but you are probably the best person to help sort out the truth in the article, since you first put in N4726V on 5 Dec 2006, then added in N4665V on 5 Oct 2010. Email me if you wish. PeterWD (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Information corrected. Centpacrr (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your action; pardon my lack of knowledge on the subject, but surely N4665V was the only aircraft used for flying sequences, not N4726V, per http://www.taloa.org/mighty.html where the flights are detailed? PeterWD (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrections made. I misread your earlier comment and now see my error. The aircraft had been believed to be N4726V because that is the registration number that appears on the wing of the plane in the film's original advertising and posters. Thanks for the link to the pilot's logbook information identifying the correct aircraft as N4665V. Centpacrr (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again - the text makes more sense now. Final suggestion - perhaps add registration N30048 to the 1000aircraftphotos citation, because it's not very clear on the image, and Googling N4665V brings up that image.PeterWD (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bank Illustration

It looks like you uploaded the engraving that appears in the info box on the page Bank of California Building (San Francisco). You'd probably want to know that the engraving doesn't depict either of the buildings the article is about (see my post on the article's talk page for details.) I did manage to find an architect's rendering of the actual 1908 Bliss & Faville-designed building at Google Books. Here's the link (you'll have to scroll up a few inches.) It was published in 1906, so I'm sure it's public domain. Sorry I can't find a public domain picture of the 1967 tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.40.190 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded the engraving of the original building to illustrate the page on the history of the Bank of California. I did not, however, mean for it to be used on the page about the current Bank of California Building (San Francisco) to which I did not add it, on which it does not belong, and from which I have just removed it. Thanks for pointing out this error. Centpacrr (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BRD

The cycle is typically Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold in adding the certificate; it has now been reverted, twice. It is now incumbent upon you to discuss this change, because clearly people disagree with it. --Golbez (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection I have decided to drop making any contributions to this entry and have thus returned it to how it was originally. That being the case, no further discussion of the matter would seem to be needed and the 1795 John Jay certificate of election (or a link thereto) will no longer available for inclusion therein. Centpacrr (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of template?

The term is included in the Template:Ethnic slurs, should it not be included on that template? --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why "Celestials" appears in the template, but I could not find it included in the listing of terms on the page Ethnic slurs and as far as I know the term was not used as or intended to be a "slur" on the Chinese, but is in fact a translation of a term they used to describe themselves. Centpacrr (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx for bringing it to my attention. I removed the term from the Ethnic slurs template also. Who knows why it was there in the first place?! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hershey Bears

Do you know where on the Hershey Bears website says Hershey Bears Hockey Club. I don't see it. I am a Hershey Bears fan and I hope you are one too. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is at the very bottom of every page on the site where its address and contact information is also located. It says: "Hershey Bears Hockey Club • 550 West Hersheypark Drive • Hershey, PA 17033 Phone: (717) 534-3380 • Fax: (717) 534-3383 HersheyBears@HersheyPA.com" Centpacrr (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I see it perfectly, but just because it says it under contact information does not mean that the team is really called Hershey Bears Hockey Club. That name is probably used for when you want to contact the team like writing a check or a letter to the team itself. Peoria Rivermen, Norfolk Admirals, Rochester Americans, Springfield Falcons, Oklahoma City Barons, and Texas Stars have the same problem too. Here is a list on what it says on these 6 AHL teams’ websites.

1. Peoria Rivermen- Under contact information says Peoria Rivermen Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Peoria Rivermen Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Peoria Rivermen.

Here’s a link: Peoria Rivermen Contact Page

2. Norfolk Admirals- Under contact information says Norfolk Admirals Hockey or Norfolk Admirals Hockey, Inc. The article for this team does not say Norfolk Admirals Hockey or Norfolk Admirals Hockey, Inc. in the first line. It just says Norfolk Admirals.

Here’s a link: Norfolk Admirals Contact Page

3. Rochester Americans- Under contact information says Rochester Americans Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Rochester Americans Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Rochester Americans.

Here’s a link: Rochester Americans Contact Page

4. Springfield Falcons- At the bottom of the team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Springfield Falcons Hockey Club. The article for the team does not say Springfield Falcons Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Springfield Falcons.

Here’s a link: Springfield Falcons Site

5. Texas Stars- At the bottom of the team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Texas Stars Hockey Team. The article for this team does not say Texas Stars Hockey Team in the first line. It just says Texas Stars.

Here’s a link: Texas Stars Homepage

6. Oklahoma City Barons- At the bottom of the team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Oklahoma City Barons Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Oklahoma City Barons Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Oklahoma City Barons.

Here’s a link: Oklahoma City Barons Site

7. Hershey Bears (Old Hershey Bears Archive Copy Website from Web.Archive.ORG)- At the bottom of this page, just like the current Hershey Bears website says HERSHEY BEARS Hockey Club. If this version of the Hershey Bears website was still up, what would the first line of the article say? Would it be HERSHEY BEARS Hockey Club is a professional ice hockey member club of the American Hockey League, and is currently the top affiliate of the NHL Washington Capitals then?

Here’s a link: Old Hershey Bears Website- The site will appear with The Internet Archive Wayback Machine Information. After it appears, you then click on "Impatient?"

This is perfect evidence that the team is not called Hershey Bears Hockey Club. It’s just called Hershey Bears. When I played for my high school baseball team which I hate high school sports now was called Hamilton Hornets Baseball, the name that was used as contact information for writing checks was Hamilton Baseball. The name Hershey Bears Hockey Club is probably used if you want to contact the team.

This is not like states names for example Pennsylvania is really called Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ,but I do here people say both Pennsylvania and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For the Bears, my favorite team, I only here Hershey Bears, Bears, or the Chocolate and White. I don't here Hershey Bears Hockey Club. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you are a hockey reporter and a former head coach I think which is cool. I love that Stanley Cup picture tough. I wish in the future someday that I would also be drinking out of the Cup. I never been to the Spectrum tough which is really sad. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have been closely involved with the Hershey hockey Club in one way or another for over forty years (I am even the answer to one of the questions in the Bears' "Trivial Pursuit" board game that the Hershey Bears Fan Club put out some years back) and over the years have been asked by the organization to write numerous historical features on Hershey hockey for their publication including, among others, a 60th Anniversary History of AHL Hockey in Hershey in 1998, a 6,000-word history of Bears Hockey at Hersheypark Arena (and create the cover for) the special program magazine the Club published for the last regular season game at HPA on April 7, 2002, as well as to write the eulogy for the special memorial program the Club published on February 27, 2005, honoring Frank Mathers, so with respect I am not coming to this without a background or understanding of what the correct name of the Club is. The whole, encyclopedically correct name of the club is (and always has been) "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club". This is not only what it says on every page of the club's own website, but is also the name that appears on the June 28, 1938, franchise certificate as a Member Club of the AHL, the Club's stationary, business cards, publication © information, and also the way it is listed in the phone book. The issue of the correct name of the Club has also been raised earlier in the history of this article and was resolved as using "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" as the correct and proper name. What other member clubs of the AHL choose to call themselves is also irrelevant to what the club in Hershey calls itself. The name "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" is not a "problem" -- it is just the correct and proper name that it has had for over seventy years. Centpacrr (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, your right. Lets just hope that no other minor league hockey team has Hockey Club added to its name. The Hershey Bears deserve to be the only team to have the Hockey Club name. I forgot about the Toronto Maple Leafs article. I was wondering if you like the set up on how it says Toronto Maple Leafs and then Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club. I know it says Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club instead of it saying Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Club. This is a suggestion and I'm not forcing you go with it. The Bears History will always be in your hands and nobody will not take that away from you. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested that in all the hundreds of times I called the late Frank Mathers during the years he was President/GM of the Bears, he always answered the phone exactly the same way: "Hockey club, Mathers." I also invite you to visit my informal hockey history site HockeyScoop.net if you would like to read some more about the history of Hershey hockey and the AHL in Pennsylvania. (I would be interested in your comments.)

As for the Leafs' article, I really leave that to folks who are more expert in that team and concentrate my hockey team contributions on WP to the pro teams that have been located in Philadelphia (eleven) since 1927 and Hershey (three) since 1932 about which I have been writing and broadcasting since the early 1970s. Centpacrr (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember that site. That's a good website. So, which team are you broadcasting now? Hersheybearsfan (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have worked on the Flyers' telecasts (talent stats in the booth, etc) for more than twenty years and also do the same on national network telecasts for NBC, VS, NHL International (Stanley Cup Finals), and others. I have worked more than 3,000 professional hockey games over the past four plus decades and have also written three books on hockey. (See my WP User Page for details.) Centpacrr (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I read it more. It is very interesting. The Flyers are actually my NHL team. Too bad the Bears are not with them anymore. Though, I'm glad the Flyers are affiliated with the Trenton Titans of the ECHL again. I hope the tickets are not sold out by now. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dating

It's simply inconsistent to have multiple date formats. This is to assist a reader. If the article is about an international subject, that dating convention prevails for the entire article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

The date of the article is essentially a "direct quotation" from the cited source, just like the title of the article is, and should be consistent with source from which it is quoted. (If you have some specific guideline that supports your position please direct me to it.)

M/D/Y vs D/M/Y in this article:

When this article was created in March, 2004, the format correctly selected was M/D/Y and that was retained (as per WP:MOS guidelines 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) for almost FOUR years until you arbitrarily changed that formatting on January 28, 2008 without either noting so in your edit summary or opening a section in the article's Talk page. I eventually restored the original formatting last October and it remained that way for ten months without complaint until three days ago when it was again arbitrarily reverted to D/M/Y.

With respect to retaining original and/or existing date formatting (§2.4.1.3) WP:MOS says:

Retaining the existing format

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.

• The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.

• Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

... and with respect to "strong national ties" (§2.4.1.2) it says:

Strong national ties to a topic

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country [NOT country of origin of the topic] should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

• Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.

Clearly the "English-speaking" with which this article has the closest "national ties" is the United States as the Graf Zeppelin never visited any other English-speaking country.

That being the case, the arbitrary change made by Ohconfucius to change the dates to d/y/m (and your subsequent reversion of my attempt to correct that error was contrary to the guidelines of the WP:MOS.

• In summary: The WP:MOS guidelines state that the date formatting is based on a) the format used as the article was created and evolved, and; b) if applying the "strong national ties" to change that, the ties are to an "English-speaking" country for articles in English, not the country of origin of the subject of the article. The d/m/y format for an article on the Graf Zeppelin in German would be fine, but based on both of the WP:MOS guidelines on dates as they relate to this article in English, the correct formatting is clearly m/d/y. Centpacrr (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, this is an international article which you have simply put your "stamp" on (in more ways than one, as philatelic information seems to be an interest) and have made it evident you wish to be the sole editor. If the date format which only you believe was correct, was continued, it does not match any other international subject. My edits have been strictly line edits as I hoped to help you see some of the common errors that were being propagated. I expect you will simply revert to your preferred format anyway. FWiW (sigh...) Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, please just READ the two guidelines about date formatting above. They say nothing at all about an "international subject" as having anything whatsoever to do with the date formatting. Instead the guidelines say that is to be determined by a) how the article was created and "evolved" (in this case over a period of four years from 2004 to 2008), and that b) that formatting is to be retained unless there is some competing "strong national interest" relating to an "English-speaking" country to the contrary.

On both counts, the guidelines clearly and objectively support M/D/Y over D/Y/M.

If you can direct me to some other specific guideline (such as one about "international subjects" controlling text formatting) that either contradicts WP:MOS 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3 or that supports your contention that "If the date format which only you believe was correct, was continued, it does not match any other international subject" then please do so. I am always willing to learn, Bill, but you need to provide me with something specific.

I don't want to be the "sole" editor of this (or any other WP) article and never have. However as do you and most other serious WP editors, there are certain subjects about which each of us have a great deal of knowledge which we are willing to share with the community. You are clearly an expert on Canadian and many other aircraft, for instance, and I have enjoyed reading (and learned a good deal) from reading your contributions. I am well versed in professional ice hockey (forty+ years professional experience, three books, attended, covered, and/ broadcast 3,000+ games), railroad history (including operating a 10,000+ page website and written four books), postal history (a large personal collection of covers, library of books, and years of study), and a few other fields. Please accord me the same level of respect and good faith for my contributions regarding subjects about which I have considerable background, interest, and knowledge, as I gladly do to you.

As for the importance of the "philatelic" information you should understand that if it were not for the revenues generated by the Graf's (and for that matter, the Hindenburg's) philatelic activities (many of their flights were made either partially or exclusively for that purpose), neither airship could have possibly survived financially. It was, in fact, the millions of pieces of cacheted mails that the two airships (as well as the Graf Zeppelin II) carried between 1928 and 1939 that literally "paid the bills" for all three. The Zeppelins are also far better known today for their philatelic history than for carrying passengers.

We are both clearly strong personalities and "stick to our guns" when we feel the facts support our positions. I admire that in you as I do in many others both in WP and in life. I have given you my reasons for my position in this matter (as I have before in others) and cited the specific WP guidelines and the history of the page that support it. I am always willing to be "proved wrong" (I certainly have been many times in my life), but FWIW you will need to give me a stronger argument then "utter nonsense" to convince me of your position. I'm sure you would not accept such an argument from me or anyone else, nor should you. Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• PS: How, by the way, do you define an "intertional article" or an "international subject"? "International" with respect to what? Centpacrr (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

B, I'm away from my "desk" for two-three days, shooting at the Fargo AirSho, (yes, they actually spell it that way) and will get back to you in more detail, but basically, if an article is about a non-US subject and is of German origin, there is very little likelihood that it could be considered one with predominant or "strong ties to any particular" country other than Germany. The LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin had a rich and storied history and unlike the ill-fated "sister" ship, did not become associated solely with its US visits. (You may recall, I had some reservations when a campaign was started to identify the LZ 129 Hindenburg as a US-centric subject, but at least there was some slight agreement that Hindenburg was mainly known in the public perception for its fiery demise in the United States.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't see how that conforms in any way to the wording of WP:MOS guidelines on date formatting noted above. Those guidelines clearly say that an article should retain the formatting under which it was originally created (March 31, 2004) and/or later evolved (2004-2008) which in both cases for the LZ 127 article was M/D/Y. The only exception to that is based on "strong national ties", but the guidelines also clearly say that for English language articles this is exclusively limited to national ties to only "English-speaking" countries, not the country of origin of the topic of the article itself if that is other than English-speaking. The only English-speaking country to which the Graf had any ties at all is the US which uses M/D/Y as well. Therefore under both guidelines, M/D/Y is the only date formatting that conforms to the WP:MOS. Centpacrr (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Br, please email me ("off the reservation"), as I completely forgot your connection to the NHL may be very useful in my next writing project, an article about the new Winnipeg Jets logo and its origins, focusing on the aviation motif employed. You can find my email by going to my home page... FWiW, I would be interested in your insights as the logo is becoming the subject of a minor "tempest in a teacup" article now twice featured in our local tabloid... See: article Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

Bill I'm afraid I don't see your email address on your WP user page. You can provide it to me "off the reservation" through the email link to me on my hockey history website, HockeyScoop.net. Centpacrr (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just go to my talk page and find "E-mail this user" on the left column toolbox. On an ancillary note, didn't I predict you would simply (find a way to...) change the article back to YOUR choice?? Huh, huh?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• The "toolbox" on your talk page (see screen capture here) does not include an "E-mail this user" in the left column (at least as it is displayed by my browser) so I'll just answer your question here. The article you directed me to above seems right on point and I could not see anything in it that I would disagree with. The Canadian military does not set foreign policy for Canada (same in the US as well), they just carry out the policy set by the civilian government. The original Jets' logo also included an iconic representation of what was clearly meant to be a military jet aircraft, and many other team logos in hockey (such as the NHL Ottawa Senators, AHL Houston Aeros, and OHL Brampton Battalion) include military themes as well. (Anybody who watches a Leafs' home game on HNIC on almost any Saturday night during the season will also see an elaborate ceremony before the game honoring the Canadian military in one way or another.) So bottom line from the perspective of both hockey history and hockey tradition, I don't see any problem at all with the military aspects of the new Jets' logo.

• With regard to the date formatting I have restored it to the way it was up until eight days ago (August 8, 2011) which is also the format used when the article was created on March 31, 2004, how it evolved for years thereafter, and what WP:MOS (§2.4.1.2 and 2.4.1.3) calls for (see above and LZ-127 Talk). Centpacrr (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The "E-mail" link is then probably on my page, however, thanks for the reaction. As to the "change", in 2004, no guidelines for dating were established, trying to go back that far is not likely to produce a stable model for comparison. The recent change was initiated by a bot not by myself but I agreed with the bot's work, and took a longer look at the oddity of dating an article on a German-designed and constructed Zeppelin, that had a long-lived international impact, to that of an article in an American dating style, typically known as the popular or "familiar" style of m/d/y. As to your edits, you have changed them to your preferred style, did some clever wikilawyering with an admin, but did not seek or establish consensus for the move to a unique dating convention. I found your arguments singularly unconvincing as basically, that's the way it was and should stay and that the article warrants a US-style of dating because of a few visits by the Graf. Those arguments and rationale would not gain consensus if brought to the Aviation group, but, regardless, I am moving on, as you have even changed legitimate grammatical and syntax changes, so... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

I hope my input on the Jets' logo issue will be useful to you in writing your piece on that subject. (I would be interested in reading whatever you write on this.) As for whether or not the particular WP:MOS guidelines relating to the formatting of dates were in effect in 2004 (or for that matter in 2008) seems to me to be irrelevant. They are the guidelines in effect now, and M/D/Y is also the historic format for the article. I have also not been able to find any published WP guidelines that mention or support the position that date formatting is determined by whether or not an article is about an "international subject" and would be most appreciative that if such a guideline exists you would direct me to it. Otherwise I guess that we will have to just "agree to disagree" on this and let it go at that. Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try once again, when the "historic" format is not the generally accepted format for an international subject, then simply change to the appropriate form. See: dating. These are the pertinent points:

• All the dates in a given article should have the same format (day-month or month-day). However, for citations, see Citing sources (style variation). These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles.
• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-day for the US, except in military usage; day-month for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently).
• Otherwise, do not change an article from one form to another without good reason. More details can be found at WP:MOSNUM#Dates. The reason is that the Graf Zeppelin, Graf Zeppelin II, Hindenburg and any Zeppelin articles are NOT particularly tied to the US, as they were German-designed, built and flown. The US was just one of many countries visited.

If this subject is opened on the Project" Aviation group forum, there will be editors that can quote you the exact requirements for a MOS style guide to an aviation article. Just check with User:MilborneOne for one, but User:BilCat and User:Fnlayson will also be helpful in this regard as they were the leading proponents for establishing a style guide for international subjects. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just carefully reviewed the WikiProject Aviation/Style guide and find that it appears to be completely silent on the formatting of WP aviation articles based on whether or not they are about "international subjects" except for the following: "Articles on topics that have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the appropriate variety of English for that nation. In the handful of universal articles such as Aviation the consensus is to continue using the variety of English currently in use." The Graf Zeppelin article clearly does not fall within this very limited group of articles which apply to aviation subjects that relate to all (and not just one or a few) countries. (Even if it did, however, the "variety of English" that had been in use in the article was US, not Commenwealth, English. It also says nothing at all about adopting any aspect of German usage.) The only specific reference made in the Aviation Style Guide to "dates and numbers" that I found is a link to WP:DATE which is the page that contains the exact guidelines (§2.4.1.2 and §2.4.1.3) that I have quoted here and relied on. Centpacrr (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You continue to make the case for the Zeppelin airships as having a US-connection, what "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" are you stressing? The Zeppelins were designed for commercial aviation traffic throughout the world. Just because the style was once written in a US-centric way, doesn't make that the style that predominates in an article that is obviously about a German airship, built in Germany, flown by Germans to other countries. If the R100 made a trip to Canada, should the article now have a US or North American style of spelling, dating and other conventions? You also continue to make the case that if an article is written one way, it should stay that way, despite inherent errors that others will try to revise or correct? If you want to convince me, let's put your viewpoint to a consensus review and I will certainly live with the decision of the group. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Bill this position would make absolute sense if the article under discussion were written in German but that is obviously not the case. I have no problem at all with the fact that the German language version of this article uses the German formatting for dates (D/M/Y), but I just don't see how that has anything whatever to do with English language formatting. (What style of English and date formatting protocol, for instance, would you propose should apply to an English language article about a Korean, Egyptian, Thai, or Israeli built aircraft?)

The formatting used in this article when it was created (as well as while it evolved for at least four years) was M/D/Y. The English-speaking country (if any) with which it has the closest "national connection" was also not one that uses D/M/Y formatting which, according to the MOS, it would have had to be to justify changing the article's formatting from M/D/Y. The WP:MOS guidelines, in fact, never actually supported its having been converted to D/M/Y in the first place. By restoring M/D/Y I am simply following the existing WP:MOS guidelines on date formatting the way they are written. Centpacrr (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Udder nonse*se (with all due deference to Bossie and Carnation), take a look at the article, is it a US- subject, no, it isn't and the specious argument that it is connected to the US is the underlying reason for a change in the date formatting as well as the use of numerical (read metric) equivalents, spelling conventions and the like, that mirror that of the "Country of origin". It doesn't matter that the article was written incorrectly one way, a gazillion years ago, following an inaccurate and misleading format is not the sensible action. Now, as to Korean, Egyptian, Thai, or Israeli-built aircraft, they ALL use the style of dates, spelling and use of numbers that conforms to literary use in that country. Except for the United States (and Canada, were there it is an editorial choice), and only in the case of US commercial aircraft or individuals connected to the US commercial aviation industry, is the more (?) common popular form of dating (M/D/Y) used. In most parts of the world and in the US military, an ISO dating (D/M/Y most often represented solely as numerals) prevails. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

I understand your position. My issue with it is that a) it is inconsistent with WP:MOS §2.4.1.2 and §2.4.1.3, and b) I have still not been provided with any reference to a specific section or language in the MOS that supports your position. (Instead everything I can find on the topic is either silent on your position or actually appears to contradict it.) If, however, you feel that there is some section or language that supports your position then please direct me to it by specific webpage link and/or section number(s). Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hershey Bears Membership?

Since you worked with the Bears organization for many years, I was wondering if there is such thing that in order for the Hershey Bears or any other team in the AHL to play in the league, a team has to have a membership or a membership application in order for them to participate. If there is such thing as an AHL membership or AHL membership application, can the Hershey Bears or any other team in the AHL can renew their membership. If the Bears played in the ECHL instead of the AHL, the ECHL will sometimes call the Hershey Bears Hockey Club the Hershey Bears Membership or simply Hershey Membership. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:IAHL consolidated.jpg

The Philadelphia Record. June 30, 1938

The Bears (as do every other professional sports team) became a "member club" of their league by acquiring a franchise which permits it to operate a club in that league. The Bears' franchise was granted to the business entity called "The Hershey Bears Hockey Club" by the AHL (then operating as the I-AHL) at a meeting of the Board of Governors held in New York City on June 28, 1938. The franchise is perpetual unless suspended, revoked for cause, or sold/transferred to another owner/franchisee. They do not need to be "renewed" by the franchisee and are administered under the AHL's Charter, League Rules, and By-Laws. Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, back then they didn't use the word membership, they used the words member club or club instead. Do you think it's possible if a hockey market turned in their membership and the league issued that market a new membership, will that hockey market still be considered the same hockey franchise? There is a similar situation with the Trenton Titans returning. The Titans re-entered the ECHL with a new membership after the suspension of operations of the Trenton Devils which operated under a pervious membership that is unrelated to the new membership which they turned in that old membership to the league. The people who are writing the Trenton Titans article are confused if this hockey team is still the same franchise that played as the Trenton Devils or if it's a completely new franchise. The reason for this confusion is that the ECHL itself uses the word membership alot when they have an article on their website about one of their teams. The ECHL is the only pro hockey league that uses this word. The other pro hockey leagues including the AHL doesn't use this word. The team records from the Trenton Devils were transfered to the Titans. That's basically what I know and the other people who are writing the Titans article know so far. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear as to what exactly your confusion is, or what you have been reading that has caused it. Sports "Leagues" and their "member clubs" are related but different entities. Professional sports "leagues" are generally organized as not-for-profit "associations" which are jointly owned by, exist to support, and which operate/administer the playing schedules and other joint business activities, of their self perpetuating membership of franchisees which own and operate the league's for-profit "member clubs". A franchise gives its owner the right (or "license") to operate in a defined geographical area to the exclusion of all other member clubs in that league and thus protects that club from market encroachment and competition from within the league. Centpacrr (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The league uses the word membership instead of member club in alot of their press releases. The league sometimes had called the Trenton Devils the Trenton Membership. Currently, the league sometimes calls the new Titans by that same name also instead of calling them the New Trenton Membership. Here is the article on the Titans returning and another article (comment) that a fan took off the ECHL website about the Trenton Devils suspends operations and that the league is in the process of reviewing potential options for the Trenton Membership for the 2011-12 season.

Article: The Trenton Titans Returned

Comment: Trenton Devils Suspends Operations/ECHL in process of reviewing potential options for the Trenton Membership for the 2011-12 season

Posted by Hersheybearsfan (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would seem that the ECHL uses the term "membership" to mean the same thing as "member club". I do not know, however, whether or not the current Trenton franchise is a completely "new" one, or if it is the same one under which the Devils' team also operated, the earlier "Titans" (but not the Devils) operated, or both operated. You will have to check with the ECHL to determine that. Centpacrr (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, it's just the ECHL always confuses people with the word membership. I think it is time for the league to use the term member club instead of membership. Thank you. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Oakland Bay Bridge from Yerba Buena Island.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oakland Bay Bridge from Yerba Buena Island.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay8g (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally created this image, am the copyright owner, and have not published it elsewhere. I have added a wikilink to my user page where this is explained. Centpacrr (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Still the ^&*()_+ date issue

I have been trying to have the Aviation Project group come to grips with the issue of what formats, and I mean all the formats: spelling and word conventions, numbers and weights related to the metric system as well as dates, and how they apply to articles about a non-American subject. Despite your continued contention that the Zeppelin airships are more related to the United States than Germany, and should follow that unique set of linguistic, imperial measures and other US-centric conventions, I find that there is little more that can be done. If the Aviation Group eventually states a clear policy which still may happen, as you can see by some of the comments in the "string", then this issue can be resolved once and for all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Whether or not the Graf Zeppelin has a "strong national connection" to the United States is a straw man as: a) its WP article was already created (and evolved for years) as M/D/Y, and; b) nobody has shown such a connection to any other Engligh-speaking country using D/M/Y. (I only point out the lack of any such other connections to indicate that there are no grounds to change the formatting to D/M/Y based on §2.4.1,3 either.) That being the case, WP:DATERET (§2.4.1.4) clearly says that the original formatting should be retained. By its terms, WP:DATE also affirmatively excludes any role for changing the formatting of dates based the usage in the language spoken in any non English-speaking country, or, for that matter, English usage that may be found elsewhere in the article.

To be clear, then, my position is not (and never has been), that the Graf Zeppelin is "more related to the United States than Germany". It is (and always has been) that it is more "related" to the United States than any other English-speaking country, the criteria as stated in the guidelines.

The position you seem to be advocating is that individual WP project groups should be free to arbitrarily adopt styles that contradict the MOS used by WP as a whole. The result of this approach, I fear, would be to plummet WP down a very slippery slope indeed and leave the project in a state of stylistic chaos. Again I have only followed and applied the guidelines as they are written in WP:DATE. To change those would really need the broad consensus of WP as a whole, not just that of a few editors in just one of its hundreds of projects. Centpacrr (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the contention I have had from the original discussion of the style of the article is that the context of the article should decide how the article is written. Every editor involved including the very first editors of the article treated the topic as that of a German airship. The style of spelling, word usage as well as metric measurement was consistent and even now remains essentially consistent in identifying this article as an "international" subject where only the dates are written in a US "popular" style of M/D/Y. When this article and every other article about a subject/topic has a national origin that is not American, editors should adopt a style that conforms with the accepted style for spelling/measures/dates for that specific article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Regardless, I also sense that no matter what arguments are put forth, you will still insist on the M/D/Y format because it is YOUR preferred format and the lengthy debate will never be resolved, so I am reaching back into the discussion string in the Aviation Group, to suggest a way out of the impasse. A number of contributors offered the advice that as long as full months are written out, and no use of ISO or numerical dates are used, that the date structure could remain in place with an "invisible" note to the reader/editor that explains and gives the rationale (despite my reservations that the use of the convoluted more "related" to the United States than any other English-speaking country argument is still specious and smacks of sophistry] for the date convention in place. However, my caveat would be that the remainder of the article follow the original conventions established from the very first draft, and that is the spelling/measures and other international standards remain consistent for a German-related article. You do realize that there are presently two different date styles in use; for consistency, the dates should all read the same. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Again I understand your position, but there is also no WP:MOS guideline that I have ever been directed to (or could find on my own) that supports it and says that the date formatting in an English language article should ever be based on the date formatting used in any other language (in this case German). The "strong national ties" exception to the article's original/development date formatting comes into play only if and when it can be clearly shown that that style is different than the original one which in this case it is not. Those are the guidelines that apply here and which I have therefore followed as they are written. The reason that some reference dates were incorrectly formatted as D/M/Y is that they had just been added by another editor. I have now conformed them to the rest. I hope this now joins the issue. Centpacrr (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The format of the article (which includes dating) should relate to the context of the article. See its origins and you will note that from the very beginning, contributors maintained the use of a metric system, spelling variations and foreign word identification completely consistent with that of an article about a German airship. When creating an article about a German subject, the editors should heed that the article is written for an international audience, alternately, the use of only US dating in Wikipedia was common in 2004. Dates were finally being addressed as an issue in 2007 when all the inconsistencies of wikilinking dates, use of date and application of dates, was being discussed, although the MOS is still fairly ambiguous on this topic. The first significant revision of the article took place in January 2008 by yours truly, trying to follow consistent style and formatting for the article, and in May 2008, your edits changed the dates to a US-style, at first some of the dates, later all of them, without any edit commentary or talk page note. Other edits at that point, introduced ISO dating from a German editor, as well. That pattern seemed to continue, with most editors editing in one style and your edits in regards to dates being consistently a US-centric style. Recently, a "bot" converting dates back to a D/M/Y format, led to the back-and-forth with various editors that has ensued, not all the issues being directed around formatting. FWiW, while we are on the subject of looking for guidelines, see the following:

1. Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic. Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

*CMT: What exactly are you claiming (if anything) that I may have contributed to the text of this article that advocates a "particular viewpoint" on "politics, religion, or anything else"? What specific facts do you contend are not "neutral". Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made this a "stamp" article, for one...

2. Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work. I would think that presenting the viewpoint that an article about a German airship should use US-dating because of visits to the United States, was a singular and unique viewpoint, not shared by any other editor.

*CMT: I have never expressed "the viewpoint that an article about a German airship should use US-dating because of visits to the United States", only that "WP:DATERET (§2.4.1.4) says that the original formatting (M/D/Y) should be retained unless the article has a "strong national connection" to an English-speaking country that uses a different format. By its terms, WP:DATE also affirmatively excludes any role for changing the formatting of dates based the usage in the language spoken in any non English-speaking country. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a peripheral point, the article is about a German airship not one that is German but...

3. When no established usage is specified in the MOS, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (German for German politicians)... An article on a German airship should follow the conventions of Germany, not the United States. There are already specific convention guides for Canada, France, Hawaii (??), Ireland, Japan, Singapore, Poland as well as Trindad and Tobego. There isn't one presently for Germany, but if the conventions for other nations and areas apply, then specific German usage of language applies, including dating.

*CMT: That's not actually what the "no established usage" guideline says. What is does say is that this guideline only applies to an article about a topic that "...has not yet received much attention in the English-speaking world, so that there are too few English sources to constitute an established usage." That's not the case here as the LZ 127 (and all the other Zeppelins) have received wide and long standing attention in the English-speaking world with many, many news reports, articles, books, films, photographs, etc published about the topic over more than 90 years. The LZ 127 article is thus clearly not one that fits the criteria of "no established usage" in English. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is that if no establihsed guideline is available, use the conventions of the country to which the article belongs...

4. Date formatting in an article is governed by the following three guidelines: Dates in article body text should all have the same format; publication dates in article references should all have the same format; and access and archive dates in references should be in either the publication date format, or YYYY-MM-DD.

*CMT: All the article, reference, and access dates currently have the same format. (The few nonconforming reference dates had only recently been added by another editor and have now been corrected). Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they have all dates in your preferred style...

5. Notwithstanding the above, articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US, this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. This is where I diverge from your viewpoint again, as making the case for the Zeppelin airship articles having a strong tie or even the more dubious more "related" to the United States than any other English-speaking country argument as the Graf Zeppelin flew 590 flights, many of them to South America, the Orient, the Polar regions, to England and within Europe. The South American route was just as important to its German owners as was transatlantic traffic, while the round-the-world flights were also more significant than the plying the Atlantic route.

*CMT: The English-speaking country with which the LZ 127 clearly had the closest national connection was the United States. Except its very brief fly overs and one landing in the UK, none of the other countries that the airship visited were English-speaking. As I have noted a number of time earlier, however, this is really a straw man as the article had been created and developed over a period of years using the same date format as used in the US so not change was needed. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the over-riding emphasis is that this is a German airship, and anything else is incidental, it was not owned or operated by American interests...

6. ...and finally, All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, and regardless of their standing in the community, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

*CMT: I have never claimed to "own" this or any other article on Wikipedia. Some editors contribute to WP by making just a few minor edits on a great many articles and move on. My interest, on the other hand, is to contribute by doing extensive editing over a long period of time (often years) to a relatively few number of articles on subjects in which I have particular interest and believe that I have something significant to add. That does not mean, however, that I have ever intended to claim "ownership" of any of the articles that I work on. Centpacrr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Every action of yours belies the contention above...

Given all the verbiage that has transpired, and your willingness to discuss the issue, if a consensus is established for the usage of styles in any and all articles that have no established usage in aviation or other topics, prevails, then it would be contingent on all parties to adhere to that concord. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Neither Germany nor Brazil are English-speaking countries. (Please see above for my other specific comments which I have inserted after each of your six numbered points) Centpacrr (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now if a consensus if reached that identifies the style that is needed for the article, al linterested parties should abide by that decision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

OK, Bill, you win. I've deleted all my philatelic material as well as other apparently unrelated or non-neutral contributions, and have restored your preferred date formatting. Perhaps I'll create a separate article on Zeppelin postal history one of these days with what I took out, or maybe not. Anyway it's all yours now to do with as you wish. I'll move on to something else and not interfere further. Thanks for the interesting discussion but life's too short to keep this up. We'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zeppelin

Hi

I am disappointed that you feel so upset. There was never any intent from myself, and I am sure the other editor in that image discussion, to cause you any upset. Though you are obviously upset right now, is it possible that in the weeks to come you might reconsider your deletions?

I understand you are frustrated at a perceived attack on an article you have spent so much time on, and one which you have greatly improved, but I urge you to reconsider. My personal view was that two or three images should be removed, not all of them (and once again I am sure that the other editor would agree).

I leave the ball in your court for now, and ask you to replace some of them as they were essential for the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I have only just become aware of the ongoing issue with the other editor, Bzuk. As I did not know of that matter I feel you may have felt like we were ganging up on you - that is most certainly not the case. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your two notes, but I think that under the circumstances it is really just not worth the continued aggravation to me to deal with this issue any more. Fortunately my work on this article over the last few years has not been a total waste for me as I have personally learned many interesting historical details about the Graf and the many items of postal history in my collections while researching the reference sources. I do regret, however, no longer being in a position to share that information with those who might consult this article in the future, but that's just the way it worked out.

As I said, perhaps I will choose to use that information along with the many postal history images I created to do a new article on the combined philatelic histories of the Graf Zeppelin, Hindenburg, Graf Zeppelin II, USS Los Angeles, USS Akron, and USS Macon at some time in the future, but I am just not in any mood to do that now. Anyway I need to spend the next couple of days now preparing for the hurricane expected to hit here on Sunday so WP will have to be the least of my worries for a little while. When I return to editing I will go back to working on articles on ice hockey and railroad history (two topics about which I have written seven books) and stay away from aviation and films in general, and all non-US areas of those two topics in particular. Centpacrr (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I have always enjoyed our "skirmishes" because, despite your irascible proclivity to be an exasperating and downright frustrating editor, you are nonetheless, one of the most interesting editors I have ever encountered in the wickwackywonderland. As an accomplished author who has a resume dotted with successful books based on a number of specialized interests including railroad and sports topics, there are times when the collaborative and collegial spirit of the project is not as evident, however, you are always willing to enter a discourse with others. Your immediate concerns about an impending visit by Mother nature, now takes precedence. Take care of yourself; in my recent travels, I have already, in short order, encountered a volcano eruption on Hawaii's Big Island, a 500-year flood that devastated a city in North Dakota, an earthquake in Los Angeles, a tornado in Southern Ontario and a hurricane (yes, a hurricane!!) in of all places, Salem, Massachusetts. (I'm just missing a Tsunami!) All of these phenomena took place in the short span of three years (less the earthquake which was quite awhile ago) but they did scare the beejeezus out of me and my wife. On an ancillary note, I am creating a program for the Canadian Aviation Historical Society on the iconic nature of aviation as it relates to popular culture, a topic that your (yes, you) interest in stamps, was the impetus for the creation of the program. In enlisting the help of a vendor who specialized in aviation memorabilia, I mentioned that philatelic interest seemed to be a major aspect of his store, something that he confirmed was the main part of his business, as he traded in stamps and first flight covers going all the way back to the 1920s. In the event that he may have something of interest for you, what are you currently after? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC).

Best wishes and good luck, I have a friend near Biloxi, about 200 yards from the beach who often has the same problem - indeed it looks as if it might reach him as well.

I really think that the postage article is a good idea, though please do bear in mind that I was only talking about removing one or two images to a commons page, not all of them.

Once again, good luck and keep safe Chaosdruid (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Here it is:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. The reason, and only reason to consider is that it is a German design, its national origin.
• The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.See above and below...
• Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor". That would be me, and I followed the style/convention that was the practice in 2008, for articles of a US national origin and other aviation-related articles on a non-US national origin. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

With respect, Bill, the "first person" to add a date ("September 18, 1928") and thus be established by the MOS guideline as the "first major contributor" was not you, but was actually the originator of the article (User:Lestatdelc from Portland, Oregon) who did so the day he created the entry on March 31, 2004 and that date format remained in the article until you changed it for the first time four years later on January 23, 2008. (The page history also indicates that more the 40 other editors contributed to the article during the 45 months between April, 2004 and January, 2008 when you made your first edit so any claim you could be considered the "first major contributor" is just not realistic.) The guidelines you quote above are also exactly the same ones which I have been quoting all along in support of the position that, based on the page's recorded history, the article was both created and evolved through its first four years using the Month/DD/YYYY date format exclusively.

Also please note the the "strong national ties" guideline (§2.4.1.3) is limited to a topic's ties to "English-speaking" countries only for articles written in English. It says nothing at all about applying the date formats used in non-English-speaking countries in articles on WP written in English no matter what the topic is or the English (US, UK, Canadian, etc) spelling used in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are guides for article styles for individual countries and where no guides exist, the rationale is to use the country's origin to decide the convention. See above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 we've covered that already]. Again, the date conventions for wickywackywonderland were not even being discussed in 2004, by 2007, some changes were being made in the use of dates and by the time it was being examined, "an article that has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor", and that was me as it was clear from the article style that ALL other conventions of word usage, measures and use of "foreign" words were consistent with that of an article about a German subject. At the same time, myself and many, many other editors who tried to accommodate a new date convention, were slowly making changes in many articles, a process that still continues unabated to this day. This is only one of 6,000 articles I "patrol" but it certainly is one that seems to occupy my time unduly. BTW, what happened to the "I'm changing the article to the D/M/Y" declaration made a few days back?? FWiW, with your seemingly acceptance of an accord, this is the reason why I added notes to talk pages about the Zeppelin airships which singularly have inconsistencies in editing styles, and whose examples had been discussed in the WP:Aviation forum with most editors advocating a consistent format. Are you willing to accept consensus or not? Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

As I understand it then, irrespective of the provisions of WP:MOS your position is that the way that this article existed for its first four years (and the contributions made by the 40+ editors during that time) are actually irrelevant thus making it acceptable for any editor to arbitrarily self designate him or herself as a "first major contributor" to the article based on some unwritten "wickywackywonderland" policy or guideline simply by being the first person to change its long standing formatting from how it was was created and developed. Again with respect, Bill, I must say that I really do find that to be an unconvincing argument, but I guess I will have to take your word for it as I have not been shown that to be actually documented anywhere.

Also if you had looked at the article's page history you would have seen that I did change the article to D/M/Y on August 25 and have not touched it since then. Any changes after that were made by others without my involvement. And with that I guess I will be moving on to other things. Centpacrr (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than reiterating old points, my contention all along is to follow guidelines, practice and established rules. To be perfectly frank, when I began to edit in Wikipedia, I also used M/D/Y as the format until others reverted or changed the form, and gradually, came to accept the style for US-related civil and other aviation subjects as being different. Not to be obtuse, but neither have I made revisions to the article in question, however, I did want to enter into a dialogue about proposed changes. In the course of the resultant discussion, there were some salient and sage comments regarding the role of aviation and stamp collecting. There appears to be a need to establish that topic/subject with submissions from an expert as yourself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your comment. One thing I should point out, however, is that my philatelic interest is not in "stamp collecting" but is instead in "postal history" which is a very different area of collecting and study. (See also my comment on you talk page directed to Mr. Lincoln.) Centpacrr (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand, or coincidently, sit, corrected; however, Postal history or more precisely the aspects of transportation related to Philately is the area I was fumbling about. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Assumption of Good Faith

A Postal History article would be a very good idea. Easy communications, i.e. postal service, has been a hallmark of successful civilizations for thousands of years. Article One of the US Constitution shows just how important the concept was to our founding fathers. I do not intend to slight your hobby by referring to it as 'stamp collection.' Please note that I repeatedly referred to 'covers.' Aside from the intermittent service by in the 1930s airships actually played little role in the development of either national or international postal services. The sale of such memorabilia and collectables did play an important, if brief, role in financing the early flights of the Graf Zeppelin. This is why I think that there is a need in the article for a section addressing that subject.

I have not questioned the 'good faith' of anyone contributing and deliberately tried to get the other contributors to interact with me rather than just act imperiously. For example though I have no trouble using the date/month/year format I tried to define how far we should take adherence to German usage in the article (for example, 105,000 m3 and 105.000 m3 makes for a significant difference in size unless one knows that the US use of commas translates to the Germany use of periods).

I did not disparage your contribution or those of others. Rather I observed certain weaknesses in the article which may have not been obvious to someone who had not had formal training in history or aeronautical engineering. I use the 'web' for research and realize how hard it can be to come by books on airships. My preference for such stolid sources is more than convenient given my personal collection. We are working on an encyclopedia article. Thus 'source' and 'contemporary' material may be of use for color, and to point the way for readers to pursue the subject if they will. Still works of professional history are the preferred source. An encyclopedia is an aggregation of knowledge, not a work of history.

As for stubborn, I can be quite tenacious. I am also little impressed by authority figures (a major reason I chose business rather than engineering or scholastic history for a career). I also understand collaboration. I did not care for telling employees what to do. I much rather tried to persuade them what had to be done and give them the freedom to do it the best way.

I notice that Wikipedia has no article dedicated to the history of Aviation Postal History. As one who remembers how special 'air mail' still was in the 1950s, and someone who has known old air mail pilots, I am aware of both the social effects of air mail and the role it played in the development of aviation. The telegraph may have been Queen Victoria's internet, but the need for hard copy was beyond it's capabilities. The rail road was a quantum leap over the pony express. The airplane was a quantum leap over the railroad. Mr. Lindberg certainly had an understanding of the air mail. Nothing like stepping out of a plane at night, or carrying a gun to protect the mails.

If you do your article on Lindberghiana I may have some books which will allow documentation, citation, and color. I am not a collector, but for example Keyhoe's "Flying With Lindberg" is good source material for his victory tour of America.

Let us all keep our eye on the ball so to speak. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an aggregation of articles concerning a wide variety of subjects. Each article based upon accepted facts and not original research. Each as concise as possible and including what is necessary. You seem to have two good articles in mind, and certainly can contribute unique information and sources to the Graf Zeppelin article.

Yours SincerlyMark Lincoln (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Digital Imaging

Hi. The Service Bureau I operated for a decade was one of the first in Houston to offer high-resolution digital imaging. I used a Howtek D-4000 drum scanner (photo-multiplier tube) largely for slides but also negatives and positive photos. I am still using my old LaCie electron blue III monitor, though it is getting beyond correction range. (So are my eyes).

That restoration of the Sutro mansion on the Digital Imaging Services page is quite impressive. Folks might think all that need be done is 'make it darker' but we know it isn't so.

I spent thousands of hours in PhotoShop 2 and 3 dodging, burning, fixing Newton's Rings and correcting color. This is in the day of 5000° Kelvin lighting and 1.8 gamma. I had to maintain perfect color control from scanning and correcting through output of the ads and brochures my customers composed on a Linotype L-300, and later L-330, as 4-color separations and then proofing on a Dupont Chromalin system. As the advertising industry changed I segued into setting up computers and networks for the same clients and others. I had already managed the translation from advertising typography to service bureau. Times change and as the tune changes so does the dance.

I notice that we share several interests. I am a steam railroad buff, and have a long time interest in early radio and TV (more from a technology standpoint than content).

While I have no knowledge of postal covers, I have a good library on airships and early aviation. I might be able to supply sources and references for airships, airmail, early pilots, etc. Ask and I will provide you what I can.

My railroad library is modest but I might be able to help especially on the steam locomotive technology and rocky mountain railroading.

i also have a 1945 and 1961 ARRL radio amateurs handbooks. If you need a reference from either looked up I would be glad to get them down.

I too have no interest in being an 'Administrator." I leave that kind of crap to Bzuk. He and I went, around and around over my creating specifications for blimps that included balloonet volume as well as total envelope volume. No amount of explaining that airplanes didn't have balloonet, but they were ESSENTIAL to blimps mattered. I eventually gave up as I realized that what I REALLY needed to get on the page were the references and sources to allow anyone who wanted more than a capsule of blimp history to be able to track down the information. One field of history I always found very useful, but totally was totally uninterested in doing, was bibliography. Thankfully there are such drudges out there that get off on it.Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words re my digital restorations. You may find this restoration I did of an 1895 image of the Golden Gate in San Francisco of particular interest. I have been doing free lance digital image restoration professionally for more than a decade now. My most recent project, completed just last week, was to restore 134 family images scanned from color slides taken during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s for Gordie Howe.

Re books: I have been collecting reference and history books (both period and modern) for more than forty years and have a very large library on many topics including airships, railroads, postal history, politics, aviation, radio, etc.

Re radio: My maternal grandfather, Lewis Mason Clement, was one of the pioneers of radio and built his first "spark gap" station in Oakland, CA, in 1905. While an electrical engineering student at UC Berkeley (1910-1914) he was responsible for putting on the air the first ever broadcast of a sporting event (the "Big Game" between Berkeley and Stanford in 1912). His first job after college was with Guglielmo Marconi (as chief operator at the Marconi Company "ship-to-shore" radio station at Kahuku, Hawaii), and in 1917, as an engineer with the Western Electric Company, he designed the first radiotelephone for use in aircraft for the US Army. (In August, 1917, he became the first person to speak by voice from an airplane to the ground while testing his equipment at Langley Field in Virginia.) In 1920 he also designed and installed the first commercial radiotelephone toll circuit which was set up between Catalina Island and San Pedro, CA. In the 1930s he was first Chief Engineer in Europe for IT&T and then later VP of R&D for RCA in Camden, NJ, guiding that company's development of both radio and television equipment. As VP of R&D and Engineering at Crosley Radio Corporation during WWII he was one of the key individuals involved in the development and manufacture of the Proximity (VT) Fuze, one of the most secret and important technological projects of the war. (See here) He remained active in the field of radio/TV engineering as well as being a civilian consultant to the Department of Defense (primarily regarding reliability issues of electronic equipment) until he retired in the early 1960s.

Re railroads: My maternal great great grandfather, Lewis Metzler Clement, was the First Assistant Chief Engineer and Superintendent of Track the Central Pacific Railroad from 1862 to 1881 (see my online biography of him here). In addition to CPRR.org I am also the author and/or consultant editor of four books on the history of North American railroads.

You can contact me at BCC@CPRR.org to discuss any of these topics at greater length. Centpacrr (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:The_Spectrum_and_Stadiums.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The_Spectrum_and_Stadiums.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you posted a "source" for the image, but it's merely a domain and not a URL to the exact location of the source. I searched on the domain you posted and could not find it listed anywhere. If the image is on that site, there needs to be some evidence of permission, otherwise an OTRS ticket may be required. Please take care of this so I do not have to re-tag the image. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The image is not "on" the site, the image is a digital illustration that I created through the site (which I own and operate) and which, among other things, creates such digital ilustrations. Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well if the image isn't on the site, I don't understand why you listed it as your source. You need to clarify on the page where the image came from because even I'm confused right now. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no copy of this digitally created original illustration that is currently "hosted" on DigitalImageServices.com (a service which I own and operate), but instead it was through it that I developed the illustration as a composite of various diverse elements to create a new, unique digital image file to which I own the rights. Centpacrr (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Curtiss JN-4

While your extensive knowledge about postal history is appreciated, remember that WP:Weight does apply in encyclopedic articles, and that the focus should remain on the aircraft type. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the JN-4 was selected to be used as the first US mailplane is hardly an "unencyclopedic" fact. (It also only represents two sentences in the entire article.) You should also be aware, however, that without the impetus supplied by the USPOD's support of civil and commercial aviation in the United States through the development of the Air Mail Service (especially through the Kelly Act of 1925), that a great many of the airplane types, technologies, and aviation infrastructure developed in the first half of the 20th century -- and especially in the two decades between the Wars -- would have never happened when they did. The lighted transcontinental night flying airway system opened in 1924 (see image below) is a prime example. The many connections between US postal history and US aviation history are inextricably interlocked and inseparable one from another. It is not only encyclopedically appropriate to include such connections in both aviation and philatelic articles when they exist, ignoring them would also be encyclopedically irresponsible. Centpacrr (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Post Office Department map of the First Transcontinental Air Mail Route involving both day and night flying over the entire route opened July 1, 1924.

The contention of the importance of the US mails to aviation advances and coincidentally, a similar story existed in Canada and other countries, is clear, but the emphasis with a quarter of the references in an aviation article dealing with the design/development and history of the type, (and its connection with postal history) is not ignoring that impact, it is over-emphasizing it. It wasn't the amount of text in the body of the article that seemed unbalanced, it was the numerous references that stick out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Actually I think the issue is quite the opposite here. I do not find that are anywhere near too many citations to sources relating to the five JN-4HMs' landmark connection to the first scheduled US Air Mail (5), and about the USPOD's most famous printing error, the C-3a "Inverted Jenny" (3). The problem is instead more that the article appears to be lacking in citations to reliable sources that support all the other material, an issue you seem to be addressing. I expect that when you are finished the "unbalance" you now perceive will disappear. (Even if it doesn't, I think you will agree that it is better to err in favor of some degree of oversourcing rather than undersourcing.) Centpacrr (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There were six JN-4HMs, although you may be correct that only five participated. A total of ten citations for one-two paragraphs is inordinate. The usual standard is one reference source for a passage; this article is already top-heavy on postal history connections through the multiple citations given. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Each reference I provided supports a separate and distinct fact stated in the two passages which thus would meet any "one for one" standard. If you think, however, that there is some other "usual" standard that sets a limit of "one reference source for a passage" then please direct me to a specific WP guideline that actually says that.

The JN-4 article itself is approximately 4,200 words of which just about 175 words in four sentences in two sections of the entry relate in any way to this bipane's place in postal history (about 4% of the article). No matter how you slice it, this is just not "top-heavy" in any sense of the word. Centpacrr (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have trimmed the two paragraphs to 150 words, one note, and five references but that's it. I really don't want to hear anything more about this so no response is necessary. Centpacrr (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hennessey Monoplane" as JN-4 modification

Thanks, this is just the kind of thing that goes on in collaborative editing all the time; nothing really new here. For particulars, see format. FWiW, what is the number of JN-4HMs in use according to your sources? I have six that were converted but it was also evident that the first one pulled off line was the blueprint or prototype for the series; was it ever used in operations? BTW, the Hennessey does exist, the San Diego Air and Space Museum archives has a photo of it identified by the manufacturer, but it is of poor quality, however, I have substituted it to ensure that indeed the photo is of a Hennessey. Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood the problem with the Henneessey image and description. The issue is that you have provided no source whatsoever that this aircraft is a "modification of Curtiss JN-4". (Both references you provided are completely silent on this point.) I spent an hour this afternoon searching the web to try to find one for you and came up empty. So unless and until you can provide a reliable source for your claim that this is a modified JN-4, the image and text entry have to come out. Centpacrr (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Look again, I have replaced the original image with one from a series of three at the San Diego Air and Space Museum archives that is labeled "Hennessey Monoplane" but is the poorest quality of the bunch. Even a cursory examination of the photo shows the use of the JN-4 airframe, the upper wing is parasol style and larger in span and area, while the turtle deck is modified and a three-place cockpit is featured. One photo shows a Curtiss-style fuel tank that is attached to the rear fuselage which gave the aircraft an extended range of 275 miles. FWiW, the second photo in the series is clearly labeled "modified Jenny". Bzuk (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

That's just speculative original research which is unacceptable in WP. Neither of the "sources" you cite say anything at all about this being a modified JN-4, only that is uses a "Curtiss OX5 engine". This needs at least one reliable, independent source to support your theory or it has to go. Centpacrr (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo is labeled "Hennessey Monoplane"; the other photos indicate that they are "possible Hennessey aircraft, modified Jenny". I have already sent a note to the curator of the San Diego Air and Space Museum photo archives for a clarification. FWiW, this is not a theory, there was a Hennessey Monoplane (I can't send you the photos, but they are readily available from the source). Bzuk (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Where did you get the idea that I based the information on the photo? It was based on the caption "modified Jenny" of the images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Please read what I said above again. I have never made an issue as to whether or not this an image of the "Hennessey Monoplane" so please refrain from repeating that straw man. My only issue is that you have still not provided any reliable source to support your theory that the "Hennessey" home brew monoplane is a "modified JN-4" other than personal speculative conclusions based on a "cursory examination of a photo" of the "Hennessey". (The two sources that you do cite are completely silent as to any relationship between the "Hennessey" and the JN-4 type.) It has always been my understanding that personal speculation is never an acceptable encyclopedic standard. Centpacrr (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it, the search I used for a "modified" Curtiss JN aircraft brought up an image with the note "modified Jenny" which links to a "Hennessey Monoplane." Are you being obtuse for a reason? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

The caption reads "Front view of an airplane, possibly Hennessey modified Jenny." However no basis whatsoever is provided to evaluate the reliability of this supposition. Neither you or I have any idea who wrote this or on what it is actually based. It is just an anonymous, unsupported, and unverified supposition on Flickr. With respect, this is just not nearly good enough to be considered anything like a reliable, independent, and verifiable source. Centpacrr (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Still shaking my head, nonetheless, you do realize that there were other "monoplane" conversions of the JN-4 series, such as the "Sperry Monoplane", the Hennessey was merely the most radical of the modified aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

That may or may not be true, but you still have to provide a reliable source to include it in the article and that you have not yet done. That's all I am asking for. Centpacrr (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is your contention that the issue is that the photograph does not depict a Hennessey? that can be cleared up as I already contacted the lead on the photo archive project, and will find an additional source at the museum, but the problem will be to revise the caption as it was part of thousands of images that were recently released to the public under creative commons licensing. In the haste to establish which images were of greater import, a number of researchers including myself were asked to identify priorities. The Hennessey was obviously a unique "one-off" that still may show up in other sources. Check back tomorrow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the image is of the "Hennessey Monoplane" is, as I have said before, a straw man and not material to the issue. The article is about the JN-4 and you have stated that this monoplane is a "modified JN-4" but have not supplied any reliable source to support that claim. An anonymous speculative caption on a Flickr page simply does not meet the standards of being "reliable, verifiable, or independent". The "Hennessey" may be a legitimate "modified JN-4", but you have yet to provide an acceptable source to support that claim. Please confine your comments to that issue. Centpacrr (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would wait for input from the SDASM curator for assistance in verifying the aircraft type. With the vast resources available to the museum, they will also likely be able to help with the sourcing concerns as well as for sourcing other areas of the article. In the future, I'd recommend discussing these article improvements on the talk page of the article. That will clarify any confusion over the reverting as well as allow interested editors who watchlist the article to have the opportunity to possibly assist with issues that affect the article. Please let me know if you don't get a response from the Flickr talk page, I'll then ask the Balboa Park team to see if they can help out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion ended up being in here because this is where the other editor chose to bring it. I'm not planning to contact Flickr or anybody else because I am not the one making the unsupported claim. All I have asked for is that if an editor wants to add this image to the Curtiss JN-4 article because it is of a modified JN-4 then that requires citing a reference to reliable source that verifies that the "Hennessey" is in fact a "modified JN-4." None of the two sources he had cited so far does that.

All that needs to be done to resolve the issue is for the posting editor to either supply a reliable source to support his claim, or to delete the image and associated text as unsupported. The ball is in his court. Centpacrr (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the editor above is the individual that assisted the San Diego Air and Space Museum in opening their vast photo archives to the public, it just so happens that he is also on Wikipedia as an admin. I called on his assistance in order to clarify the authenticity of the two suspect images. The reason for the conversation to be directed here is merely to have one place to go and since this appeared to be an arcane argument only affecting us, it was not germane to use the talk page of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

It doesn't matter to me where the discussion takes place, I just told him why it was here because he brought it up. Again my issue is not whether or not the three images are of the "Hennessey Monoplane" which the evidence seems to confirm that they are. Instead the issue I have is that none of the sources you have cited documents say in any way that this "home brew" monoplane is a "modified JN-4" as you have claimed in the caption and text entry. The only thing I am asking for you or somebody else is to supply an independent, reliable and verifiable source that supports this. An anonymous, vague, and unverified supposition on a Flickr page clearly doesn't meet encyclopedic standards as such. Centpacrr (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: Sorry but I had a close friend of almost thirty years, former NHL defenseman and coach Brad McCrimmon, killed in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Yak-42 plane crash in Russia earlier today and will be preoccupied with dealing with that for the next day or two. Centpacrr (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Images on the Curtiss JN-4 article

This article now has a dozen images nine of which have been added in the last two days. That seems to me to be more than plenty for a article this size. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's now thirteen with ten added in the last two days as well as image stacking (see WP:STACKING). Centpacrr (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are now fourteen images in this article. That's going the wrong direction. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an option, I will remove the Hennesey Monoplane image and the Inverted Jenny, as unnecessary since the related text covers the topic sufficiently. FWiW, the Lindbergh image should go as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Inverted Jenny" is a longest standing image in the article which has been there for well over seven years (since March 31, 2004) and is probably the best known and most recognizable "icon" of the public's perception of the Jenny. As such this would be almost the last image to remove, not the first. (It is also by far the smallest image in the article.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The image should definitely go with the article on the stamp, not here, it's too esoteric a connection. FWiW, same with the Lindbergh image, it belongs to the article on the pilot. Bzuk (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

I have no particular problem with dropping the CAL Jenny although I would not make it the first choice. The "Inverted Jenny", however, is a very different story. It is hardly "esoteric" but is, in fact, by far the best known iconic image of this aircraft of all time and is probably better known by the general public today than the aircraft itself. The image is also the first one ever added to this article and has been in it for over seven years without ever being objected to by anyone as inappropriate or irrelevant. It stays. Centpacrr (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the whole section should actually be completely revised with such a minor connection to an aircraft as a stamp. Any reference sources on the type that I have seen have not even mentioned the "Inverted Jenny" stamp. The nearly book-length article in Air Classics magazine that goes through every nook and cranny of the aircraft's history, and guess what, no Lindbergh or Inverted Jenny. FWiW, that's why there are individual articles on the iconic aspects of postal history. That it happens to be a Jenny on the stamp is so incidental, with a meaningful connection only to Philatelists. If you ask an aircraft historian about the Jenny, the "Inverted Jenny" would merely be an afterthought or footnote to this iconic aircraft's history. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Whether or not the "Inverted Jenny" (C-3a) is discussed in "Air Classics" magazine is completely irrelevant to the JN-4 WP article and your raising this is instead little more than another one of the straw man arguments of which you are so fond. The image is located in the "popular culture" section of the article, not the any of the sections about either the physical aircraft or its operations. The illustration was also added to the article in 2004 (which, by the way, was two years before I began editing on WP so it wasn't added by me), and in the seven years since it has never been objected to by anybody nor has its appropriateness ever been questioned for any reason until you decided to load up the article with ten new pictures in the last couple of days and I pointed out that the article was starting to be become overwhelmed with images. It was only then that this image suddenly became so objectionable to you (and apparently only you.)

With respect, Bill, it is now pretty clear to me that you are just being "petty" on this point and thus trying to invent spurious reasons to justify your "objection" to a perfectly relevant and appropriate longstanding element of this article. If you really believe in "collaborative editing" as you constantly profess, then you are just going to have to be willing to accept that your views are not the only legitimate ones and are not always going to prevail. Collaboration means that from time to time you'll just have to accept those of other editors. For that and the reasons stated above the "Inverted Jenny" stays. The appropriate solution is instead for you to trim some of the new images you have just uploaded and added in the past few days.

I must admit I am also a little puzzled about your sudden unhappiness about the Lindbergh image as being inappropriate as the person who uploaded the file to WP and added it to this article was not me but was you. I think this is another case of res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

B, notice any of the parts of your argument also apply to you? especially regarding collaboration. I could have easily removed those images and the loading on of details about postal history in an article about an aircraft type. Other editors would have summarily done so as the arguments for their inclusion are extremely flimsy. This was an exercise in showing that the pen cuts both ways. The article is not for the exclusive use of any one editor and in order to get anything done, there is an acknowledgment that collaboration or at least bipartisan acceptance (since we seem to be the only ones here) is necessary. If there was no cooperation between editors, imagine what the article would have looked like? FWiW, the images that were recently selected are just as essential to the article as any others that are present and I can certainly also make the case for each of them to remain. BTW, the usual case for moving articles to the left side of the screen is that the image is moving from that direction, as well, a left side image is more difficult to place due to the breaking up of sections and titles. When articles are heavily illustrated, a case can be made for left-right positioning, but the images have to be somewhat compatible to that placement. I moved the "mailplane" picture for those reasons, and you simply moved it back to your preferred location; the same applies to the "Inverted Jenny," but here it works in that location, facing the way the image faces into the page. Give-and-take, that's the only way, things get done, `a la your Congress and Senate (maybe that's not such a good example). As to being petty, I was, but only to show you that's how your arguments and decisions seem to me. If we need to go on with this type of back-and-forth, it really belongs on a user page, not the talk page of an article where the discussion should solely center on the development and improvement of the article. Bzuk (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

My point, Bill, is that it seems that your view of "collaboration" and "consensus" is that it only goes one way and that is whatever direction that pleases you no matter what, and that "give-and-take" is always "all take" and "no give". You even admit as much above by saying "As to being petty, I was, but only to show you that's how your arguments and decisions seem to me." You also state "The article is not for the exclusive use of any one editor and in order to get anything done, there is an acknowledgment that collaboration or at least bipartisan acceptance (since we seem to be the only ones here) is necessary" and then violate that at every turn by never accepting any argument I (or anyone else) makes. Well that's just not the way it works.

I have contributed a grand total of three short paragraphs and one image to this article, all of which are relevant to the history of the JN-4 and are well documented and sourced. (Ironically one of your more puzzling earlier "complaints" is that they were actually too well sourced.) Based on your arguments, it seems to me that your real "problem" with them is not their relevance or accuracy, but "NIH" factor ("Not Invented Here") for which you then come up with one straw man after another as to why they do not belong. What kind of "collaboration" is that?

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bill, but again with respect I really don't need to be eldered again on how I contribute to WP. As opposed to being "petty" (which you admit to above) my intention instead has always been to provide those who visit this article with a little additional perspective and context about the JN-4's place in aviation history. Based on your comment above I stand by every word of mine more so now then ever and am thus now done trying to play a metaphorical "Executive Mansion" to your "Tea Party". Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

B, do you not get it? the issues you seem to have with me is exactly what I think is the problem, changing the article to one editor's preference is not suitable, making pronouncements of this stays, that goes, has become too prevalent in the back-and-forth of this article's development. The areas that you have added to the article are fine but no more important than other aspects of what was an iconic aircraft. I do not have any particular interest in the article other than it seemed to be developing further into a more substantial profile. The contributions to the article were not the exclusive preserve of any one editor nor should they be, and declarations of it has to be one way or another, do not work in the project. Your comparisons to my having the dogma of the Tea Party gave me a laugh, if only he knew what my political philosophy encompasses? Throughout any exchanges regarding changes in the article, the level of discourse has to be dispassionate and deal with only the technical aspects of the content and the writing. Voluminous rebuttals notwithstanding, the story of an aircraft type has some relevance to postal history but should be seen within the context of the entire profile. You may note that if an editor decides to stick "in his/her heels", it is quite apparent that nothing will get done. My main interest is in expanding the article in all directions and has entailed a great deal of travel from museum to home and contact with many experts since this particular subject was not, necessarily, a field of study. From the curators at the Curtiss Museum at Hammondsport, New York and the San Diego Air and Space Museum along with our humble Western Canada Aviation Museum in Winnipeg, I have harnessed all of their knowledge to provide a more thorough examination of the early development, operational use and impact on aviation of the Curtiss JN-4. With nearly a quarter of all JN-4s being built in Canada, there was a treasure trove of information about Curtiss's scrappy trainer, with at least three significant examples in Canadian museum collections as well as a lovingly recreated Curtiss Special flown originally by Katherine Stinson, a pioneering American whose exploits in Western Canada are legendary. That alone is a story in itself, but I digress. "Stick to your knitting," B, but remember that others have interest in the handiwork that results. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Yes I actually do "get it". As I said above, I have only added three short paragraphs and one image to this article. Everything else has been having to provide you ad nauseum my reasons (with detailed support and precedent) as to why my contributions are relevant and appropriate all of which, unfortunately, you continually dismiss out of hand as being "esoteric", "flimsy", or not "collaborative." (When you continued to complain that I provided "too many sources" I removed some of them and have made many other small changes in an attempt to be collaborative but that too was apparently not enough for you.)

As for your considerable fine contributions to the article I have not challenged any of them except for one claim you made about the "Hennessey Monoplane" that the two sources you cite do not support, and I also raised the issue about image glut when you added ten new ones to this relatively short article (about 4,200 words) in a period of a couple of days, a practice discouraged by the MOS.

I repeat I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives and intentions, but again with respect I find them in this instance to be "petty" as you have admitted above. My intentions here have always been to provide those who visit this article with a little additional perspective and context about the JN-4's place in aviation history beyond just a physical description of the airplane. That is absolutely encyclopedically appropriate and consistent with the purposes and goals of the Wikipedia Project.

You are, of course, free to disagree but again I really don't need to be continually eldered by you on how I contribute to WP.

That being said, I'll "stick to my knitting" (as I think I always have) and hope that you will do the same by refraining from being disruptive by continually challenging the well sourced, relevant and good faith contributions to WP of other editors out of admitted "pettiness." Upon reflection, I'm sure you will agree that's not really what the Wikipedia project is about. And with that I will move on to other things and hope we do not have this conversation again. Centpacrr (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, B, you still see everything in personal terms. Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC) .

I stand by my statement and your's clearly speaks for itself. Centpacrr (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked previously that this discourse be moved here as it was not dealing essentially with the issues at hand. Please remove the duplicate commentary on the article talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

As requested, I have deleted your comments from the other page. Centpacrr (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's usually better to keep things in one spot, and this seemed to be more of a discussion between us rather than the article, mais c'est la vie, in retrospect, all the comments of a personal nature should come out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Images on the Curtiss JN-4 article (Edited)

This article now has a dozen images nine of which have been added in the last two days. That seems to me to be more than plenty for a article this size. Centpacrr (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's now thirteen with ten added in the last two days as well as image stacking (see WP:STACKING). Centpacrr (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are now fourteen images in this article. That's going the wrong direction. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

The "Inverted Jenny" is a longest standing image in the article which has been there for well over seven years (since March 31, 2004) and is probably the best known and most recognizable "icon" of the public's perception of the Jenny. As such this would be almost the last image to remove, not the first. (It is also by far the smallest image in the article.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

I have no particular problem with dropping the CAL Jenny although I would not make it the first choice. The "Inverted Jenny", however, is a very different story. It is hardly "esoteric" but is, in fact, by far the best known iconic image of this aircraft of all time and is probably better known by the general public today than the aircraft itself. The image is also the first one ever added to this article and has been in it for over seven years without ever being objected to by anyone as inappropriate or irrelevant. It stays. Centpacrr (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

Whether or not the "Inverted Jenny" (C-3a) is discussed in "Air Classics" magazine is completely irrelevant to the JN-4 WP article and your raising this is instead little more than another one of the straw man arguments of which you are so fond. The image is located in the "popular culture" section of the article, not the any of the sections about either the physical aircraft or its operations. The illustration was also added to the article in 2004 (which, by the way, was two years before I began editing on WP so it wasn't added by me), and in the seven years since it has never been objected to by anybody nor has its appropriateness ever been questioned for any reason until you decided to load up the article with ten new pictures in the last couple of days and I pointed out that the article was starting to be become overwhelmed with images. It was only then that this image suddenly became so objectionable to you (and apparently only you.)

With respect, Bill, it is now pretty clear to me that you are just being "petty" on this point and thus trying to invent spurious reasons to justify your "objection" to a perfectly relevant and appropriate longstanding element of this article. If you really believe in "collaborative editing" as you constantly profess, then you are just going to have to be willing to accept that your views are not the only legitimate ones and are not always going to prevail. Collaboration means that from time to time you'll just have to accept those of other editors. For that and the reasons stated above the "Inverted Jenny" stays. The appropriate solution is instead for you to trim some of the new images you have just uploaded and added in the past few days.

I must admit I am also a little puzzled about your sudden unhappiness about the Lindbergh image as being inappropriate as the person who uploaded the file to WP and added it to this article was not me but was you. I think this is another case of res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

My point, Bill, is that it seems that your view of "collaboration" and "consensus" is that it only goes one way and that is whatever direction that pleases you no matter what, and that "give-and-take" is always "all take" and "no give". You even admit as much above by saying "As to being petty, I was, but only to show you that's how your arguments and decisions seem to me." You also state "The article is not for the exclusive use of any one editor and in order to get anything done, there is an acknowledgment that collaboration or at least bipartisan acceptance (since we seem to be the only ones here) is necessary" and then violate that at every turn by never accepting any argument I (or anyone else) makes. Well that's just not the way it works.

I have contributed a grand total of three short paragraphs and one image to this article, all of which are relevant to the history of the JN-4 and are well documented and sourced. (Ironically one of your more puzzling earlier "complaints" is that they were actually too well sourced.) Based on your arguments, it seems to me that your real "problem" with them is not their relevance or accuracy, but "NIH" factor ("Not Invented Here") for which you then come up with one straw man after another as to why they do not belong. What kind of "collaboration" is that?

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bill, but again with respect I really don't need to be eldered again on how I contribute to WP. As opposed to being "petty" (which you admit to above) my intention instead has always been to provide those who visit this article with a little additional perspective and context about the JN-4's place in aviation history. Based on your comment above I stand by every word of mine more so now then ever and am thus now done trying to play a metaphorical "Executive Mansion" to your "Tea Party". Res ipsa loquitur. Centpacrr (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

Yes I actually do "get it". As I said above, I have only added three short paragraphs and one image to this article. Everything else has been having to provide you ad nauseum my reasons (with detailed support and precedent) as to why my contributions are relevant and appropriate all of which, unfortunately, you continually dismiss out of hand as being "esoteric", "flimsy", or not "collaborative." (When you continued to complain that I provided "too many sources" I removed some of them and have made many other small changes in an attempt to be collaborative but that too was apparently not enough for you.)

As for your considerable fine contributions to the article I have not challenged any of them except for one claim you made about the "Hennessey Monoplane" that the two sources you cite do not support, and I also raised the issue about image glut when you added ten new ones to this relatively short article (about 4,200 words) in a period of a couple of days, a practice discouraged by the MOS.

I repeat I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives and intentions, but again with respect I find them in this instance to be "petty" as you have admitted above. My intentions here have always been to provide those who visit this article with a little additional perspective and context about the JN-4's place in aviation history beyond just a physical description of the airplane. That is absolutely encyclopedically appropriate and consistent with the purposes and goals of the Wikipedia Project.

You are, of course, free to disagree but again I really don't need to be continually eldered by you on how I contribute to WP.

That being said, I'll "stick to my knitting" (as I think I always have) and hope that you will do the same by refraining from being disruptive by continually challenging the well sourced, relevant and good faith contributions to WP of other editors out of admitted "pettiness." Upon reflection, I'm sure you will agree that's not really what the Wikipedia project is about. And with that I will move on to other things and hope we do not have this conversation again. Centpacrr (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

I stand by my statement and your's clearly speaks for itself. Centpacrr (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request

As requested, I have deleted your comments from the other page. Centpacrr (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment deleted at author's request