User talk:Trashbag/Archive1

License tagging for Image:Ph-10191.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ph-10191.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Trashbag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Katr67 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

Redlinks should be used very sparingly, and only when either there's a good chance that an article with that name will be written soon (meaning, you plan on doing it!), or when the subject is so important, that the redlink is used as a way to prompt an article to be written. The problem with how you added them, is that you added an "Inc" in the name, and that's almost never used in article titles. So, if and when an article on CH is written, these redlinks won't even connect to it. It's usually better to wait and make the links after the article is written, so that there aren't orphaned redlinks out there that everyone's forgotten about (and, on a personal note, this is a wierd collision of real- and wiki-worlds, as I'm writing about CH here, and just installed a cyclic actator that they overhauled onto my helo!) Akradecki 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image policy

This image was deleted because it was not licensed in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. If the image can legitimately be used freely then we may be able to use it. We cannot accept images that specify non-profit use only, or Wikipedia use only. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html for details. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've "zapped" it again, I am afraid. The solution would be to get the permission of the copyright holder to upload it as a free image. Otherwise it is doubtful if we can use it. Sorry. --Guinnog 14:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) "If you are the the creator of an image, you can choose any acceptable free license. You can multi-license your image under different licenses, if you prefer. The license must not prevent commercial reuse or derivative works.

GNU Free Documentation License - {{GFDL-self}} or {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} - Written by the Free Software Foundation. People are required to attribute the work to you, and if they make changes or incorporate your work in their work, they are required to share their changes or work under the same license.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike - {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Attribution details}} - This is one of several CC licenses. This version permits free use, including commercial use; requires that you be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of your work use the same license. The desired attribution text should be included as a parameter in the template.
Public domain - {{pd-self}} - The creator permanently relinquishes all rights to the work.
Free Art license - {{FAL}} - A copyleft license for artwork; modification and commercial use are allowed, provided derivative works carry the same license."

I really hope that this helps. --Guinnog 14:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Mt sac finest.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Airports

Just to let you know I responded on my talk page. Katr67 19:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City/County Categories

Greetings. Great job with adding all the airports, it's been a neglected area. One thing to keep in mind with categories is that usually we do not put an article in both a parent category and a child category, see Wikipedia:Categorization. And with city categories they are (or should be) childs of the county they are in. For instance with McMinnville, the airmuseum and airport would go into the McM cat, but not the Yamhill County cat. Otherwise we would just have an Oregon cat with 2000 articles in it. Let me know if you have any questions. Again, great job de-redlinking all those airports. Aboutmovies 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McNary Field on Oregon airport list

I changed McNary Field back to "GA" (general aviation) on the List of airports in Oregon because the Role column is based on the airport categories defined in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) Report for 2007-2011 [1]. According to the FAA, "commercial service airports are defined as public airports receiving scheduled passenger service and having 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year". [2] This is then further broken down into "Primary" (10,000+ enplanements per year) and "Non-Primary" (2,500 to 10,000 enplanements per year). There are a number of airports in the U.S. which have scheduled commercial airline service but do not meet this requirement. One example is Ogdensburg International Airport in New York which has scheduled service via Delta Connection, but is classified as "GA" because it only had 2,078 enplanements in 2005. Hope that answers your question. -- Zyxw 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erickson Email

See my page for response. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALso, I've been thinking we might add some info on Erickson's helicopters in films to the S-64 page in a "Popular culture" section, with sources of cource. In addition, the info on the the CN tower and Freedom statue could be put on the Elvis helicopter page for the time being. - BillCJ 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines

No comments yet on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Care to take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Pop Culture

The Helicopters in Popular Culture was a magnet for trivia to keep it out of the articles as it was a loosing battle by some members of the aircraft project to keep it out of the aircraft article. I believe that nearly all of the entries are not notable and not really relevant to the aircraft article. Just my opinion happy to take it to the talk page. MilborneOne 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your trivia was removed by the Vandel BillCJ. It was good info, please put it back in and/or report the vandels that are pulling the trivia out.

Fair use rationale for Image:N6676D.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:N6676D.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 13:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WPOR member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis. Aboutmovies 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR Collaboration of the Week

Hello again WikiProject Oregon team members, its time for the next Collaboration of the Week. First a shout out to Sprkee for putting together some templates for this project. Now, in honor of Labor Day weekend and the outdoor nature of the activities that often accompany the three-day weekend, this week’s item is to de-redlink as many parks from the List of Oregon State Parks. Some may even by going to one of these places, a great opportunity to take a picture or two for an article. As always, participation is not required, though it is appreciated. And if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of your existence. Since we don’t want to waste any effort through duplication, please make a note on the talk page of which park article you are going to start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard's Airport

Here's a new article on a former airport I thought you might want to check out. Happy editing! Katr67 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the heads up. Yeah I ate out at the McMenamins Cedar Hills a while back and they had quite a few aviation related items up on the wall. I was amazed at how much info they had on their website about the old field. I think it was recently featured in Air & Space magazine. I need to go find that article... --Trashbag 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR COTW

First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award {{WPOR COTW award}}, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles.

On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR Collaboration: 09172007

All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall WPOR COTW

Welcome to autmun and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough

Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOregon COTW

Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week

Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boeing Model 360.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boeing Model 360.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]