User talk:Lommer/Archive1

Talk Archives: current, April 28, 2005, August 5, 2005, February 5, 2006, June 12, 2007, April 6, 2009

War template

I was just thinking, do people think it would be appropriate to create a template for wars? It could be similar to the one for countries, and include nations involved, leaders, dates, etc. Just a thought.
- lommer 21:45 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles for some background before starting on a war template (which is linked by the battles project, but not yet created). By the way, if you have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or you can check out the help files as most questions are answered there. -- Notheruser 21:54 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

DYK Update

-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Curious

I'm just curious as to where you got that from? Dysprosia 03:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arg. Extremely sorry - I've been tagging a lot of images lately and I guess I incorrectly tagged that one. Thanks for noticing and fixing it. -Lommer | ^talk 19:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or this??? Actually, I`m a bit angry now. -Antwelm 15:04, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Snorre

Hi, I'm just responding to the note you left on my talk page regarding Image:Nobbys head.jpg and the fact that I tagged it as GFDL. In this case, it was not a mistake. All contributions to wikipedia are licenced under the GFDL (See: Wikipedia:Copyrights). In the case of images we have to make exceptions because most images are not owned by the people who contribute them; those images which are owned by the contributor are assumed to be GFDL unless this is explicitly stated otherwise (See: Wikipedia:Untagged images). As an extension, the fact that your image was marked (C) does not indicate the licence status of the image, merely that you own the rights to it (which is why I thought I could assume GFDL). For example, I can own an image and mark it (C) Lommer and publish it under the GFDL. So all in all, I'm sorry that your image got caught up in this and I hope that this explanation can smooth whatever feathers I've ruffled. -Lommer | ^talk 20:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Id much prefer to have fur than feathers.. --Antwelm 10:46, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

F-16

Hi Lommer, in your Image:F-16 wingtip vortices.jpg i see a F-15, and not a F-16... hi SγωΩηΣ ^tαlk 13:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bah! thanks for pointing it out. -Lommer | ^talk 01:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:CP and WP:IfD

If you know of a URL from which an article/image is a copyvio, you've to follow the instructions in & list the offending article/image in Wikipedia:Copyright Problems, and not Wikipedia:Images and Media for Deletion. Please read the blurb in the beginning of the two pages; the deletion policy specifies different treatment to the two cases (verifiable copyvio & otherwise). Thanks! -- Paddu 18:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW I moved Image:1720804 hat300.jpg from IfD to CP. -- Paddu 18:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx. -Lommer | ^talk 00:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JRM Mars Image

copied from User talk:Consequencefree.

Just wanted to say an enourmous thanks for uploading that image of the mars - I've been looking for a copyright compatible image of the planes for a while now. You wouldn't happen to have a higher-res version would you? Once again thanks! -Lommer | ^talk 00:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I might have one a bit higher resolution, the currently there is from my summer cabin dock on Sproat Lake. The other one is from right next to the bomber but isn't quite as flattering an angle.. so let me know what you think. For comparison the current version and the higher res version. Now that I actually look at it, they both look pretty low. But I had my digicam set to low res soo what can ya do. As for any other pictures of the current Mars', I know the mechanics =D so I've been inside and have all kinds of pictures (switchboards, cockpit, water tanks etc), all you have to do is ask, and anything that I don't have I can get when I go this summer. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 04:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The second picture is great - I've substituted it into the Mars article. While it might not be as flattering a photo, i think the extra resolution and the close-up detail helps. Lucky you for knowing the mechanics - I've always wanted to go up there and see some aspect of the Mars operations (I've seen them in flight and listened to them battling interior fires on the radio, but never been to sproat lake). Thanks again. -Lommer | ^talk 23:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pilot Licenses and Certificates

Prompted by Jguk changing the spellings to UK English, I've proposed a restructuring of these articles. You've contributed recently in this area. Can you comment at Talk:Pilot licences? Thanks. David Brooks 04:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the direct link from Talk:Pilot licensing and certification to the discussion. And I hope you weren't too offended by my comments on the spelling: that was originally a message to jguk that he copied, but still I shouldn't have been quite so blunt! The new article Pilot licensing in Canada is almost entirely your authorship, I think. I hope I preserved it correctly. David Brooks 01:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problems here - I was never offended by any of your comments and I think you've done the pilot licensing articles a great service by reorganizing them. Wikipedia would do well to have more users as polite and communicative as you. -Lommer | ^talk 00:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'preciate it, thanks. I was thinking of adding Aviation Medical Examiner next, so I will also change AME from being a redirect to being a disambig with 3 targets. Does Canada have designated medical examiners, and if so what are they called? David Brooks 00:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Canada I think they're called Aviation Medical Doctors, so as not to be confused the AME's (which for us means Aerospace Mechanical Engineer). I've also take a look at Airspace and noticed that some of the Canadian definitions are different - what do you think of doing the same thing there as we did with pilot licensing? -Lommer | ^talk 01:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Airspace is pretty generic and old, but I thought it was generic enough to still be applicable. I added the expanded Airspace classes and tried to make it encompass the three countries (i.e. not the same as licensing; it's shorter, which helps). What needs changing? David Brooks 23:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Airspace classes not Airspace. I figure I'll just go to it and start changing it up so that the Canadian definitions are accurate - if you notice any problems with the American ones give 'er a shot too. The only thing I don't know as well is the ICAO standards or how Canadian regs derive from them. -Lommer | ^talk 19:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Return of the Untagged Image project

You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm willing to tag my own images, but the I'm having trouble determining proper tagging. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Karakuwa-Miyagi.png is the source for the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Karakuwa-Miyagi.png (which I edited highly to update it to the new boundries, but it's still from that original image, really.) Is it public domain? Something else? To be deleted? I'm not terribly sure (which means I shouldn't have uploaded it, I suppose...) William McDuff (talk)

I can't really say since I can't read the copyright info for the source image (it's in japanese). If the original is PD then you could release your image to the PD or try to GFDL it (though that may fall apart in a court of law). If the original was GFDL or some licence that allows derivative works then your new image should be licenced under that. -Lommer | ^talk 06:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say I greatly appreciate your collaboration at Geography of Canada. It's really helpful to have someone who can copyedit my work (especially since English isn't my native language, despite my claims to bilingualism). Circeus 14:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Twin Otter

Thanks for listing DWTwinOtter for deletion. My bad - I don't know my own aircraft. I have reuploaded it under its proper name, and have written an article to accompany it. Denni☯ 00:39, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Stornoway

Why do you think that there was an RAF Stornoway Airport on Iceland as well as the one at Stornoway Airport on the Outer Hebrides?--JBellis 20:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I vaguely remembered editing that in a long time ago. I've done some digging and I think I got it from the line "They went via Stornoway, Iceland and Labrador to Montreal on the first leg..." which is found in the articles 1948 in aviation and De Havilland Vampire. I guess I mistook the comma for meaning that Stornoway was in iceland, not a separate place (I'm not thoroughly familiar with the geography there). Thanks for finding that interesting mistake! I'll clean it up. -Lommer | ^talk 04:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Lommer!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)