User talk:N328KF

This user may have left Wikipedia. N328KF has not edited Wikipedia since 27 July 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archive: 1 — 2

Every other nav template for aircraft (other than, apparently, the Russian ones) doesn't list nicknames. Imagine if, for example, Template:X-planes had every nickname and manufacturer, like it once did; the thing would be longer than most of the articles it's included in. They take up a ton of space - for small templates like the Ilyushin one that might not be a problem, but the Tupolev one is 10 lines long (three lines wrap at 900px wide). For nav templates to be useful they need to be concise, and I don't think including NATO reporting names - which, I must point out, are not their actual nicknames - does the job properly. ericg ✈ 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category's last CfD just closed yesterday. Why the rush to delete it? This seems very inappropriate but perhaps I'm missing something. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you are not a vandal I just didn't notice that you had reverted some of that bizarre vandalism to the page. The page had also been vandalised further since your edit, so no harm done, and no hard feelings hopefully! Regards,Mumby 22:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the < references > tag is being changed to {reflist}. Can you explain, and give me a link to how it works? Thanks. - BillCJ 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a reason for the deletion- are you a vandal? There are "popular culture" references in many aircraft articles- these are well-researched and valid indications of the extent of popular interest in the P-38. To be considered "fancraft"= the submissions have to be "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral." Read the following: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Bzuk 06:09 7 January (UTC).

In all fairness, the additions by Bzuk were not the usual cruft and he appears to have actually taken the time to research some of this material. I'm on the fence about the encyclopedic significance of contemporary war movies -- perhaps some input from WP:Air or MilHist might be helpful? I am a bit concerned that once the section appears, it will act as a magnet for crap but I would be willing to wait and see at this point. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it upon yourself to deletion the section versus posting a topic on the talk page (via; P-38 or Bzuk's page) is pretty low. I think this reference contributes to the article, showing that it is an icon and has been featured in movies. To say that you are afraid that the section will become a "magnet for crap" is an asinine excuse for deletion. --Signaleer 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you may think or lack of, don't think you're above anyone else on here. Store that in your memory banks, thanks. --Signaleer 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cite in another article or at another website does no good to the article at hand. I tagged the statement and a reference was added, which is the whole purpose of the cite tags. No need to be so irritable about it (being irritable is my job). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you go around Wikipedia policies and delete the text of my article on the CJ610? Though it is a derivative of the J85, there are enough differences, and wide enough usage to justify its own article. Please at least seek some consensus first. Akradecki 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW...when merging the two articles, you didn't even bother bringing over the ref in the CJ610 which provided the info on the flight hours, and instead just put a cite needed tag...please read the material before doing that. Akradecki 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I nommed this article for AfD, you might want to put your 2 cents in if you agree/disagree. Akradecki 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the fact tags on B-52. I hate complainers who remove them because they make the article look bad. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible, please respond to my comments on the B-52 talk page. I am not trying to be a 'complainer', but a helpful editor. Donovan Ravenhull 18:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're doing a lot of work with ref lists, maybe you can help me figure something out. Check out footnote 9 in the Mojave Spaceport article. I can't seem to figure out the error that's causing the brackets to show in the footnote text. Thanks! Akradecki 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fridtjof Nansen (F310) 650x446.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Oden 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Image:Air_India_737-777-787_Fleet.jpg has been listed as violating fair use criteria by User:Angr. I don't think it does, but you should talk to Angr about it. Fresheneesz 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, there's a guy who keeps tagging Learjet 35/36 as "reads like an ad". I disagree, I believe it's a straight-forward listing of facts. Would you mind reading the discussion on the article's talk page and weighing in? I don't really care what side you come down on, I just want an outside opinion. Thanks! Akradecki 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offered suggestions on the talk page already. It does read like an advertisement, because, instead of discussing the jet in the article in a way that is usable for a reader unfamiliar with the jet, it gives specs. A list of spess is appropriate if someone is considering buying the plane, but that is not an appropriate thing to put on Wikipedia. If it's simply a list of specs, make the article a list of facts about the plane, lists are part of Wikipedia. But, please, don't call what you yourself admit is simply a listing of facts an article--it's not. If I wrote a botany article simply by listing facts about a plant, my text would be slapped with a need for clean-up tag and all sorts of tags, or other editors with expertise in the area would appropriately edit the article to make it readable. I can't write the article, although I did give suggestions, as I have no familiarity or expertise with the plane outside of flying in them as a passenger. Since I'm saying it reads like an advertising brochure thats a lists the specs, and you admit it IS a "straight-forward listing of facts" we're not actually disagreeing about that. However, you are saying that this is appropriate for an article. I am saying it is not.

Here are some general guidelines that apply:

• WP:Explain jargon:
• Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.
• The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area, such as the terminology of a science, art, philosophy, etc. or the jargon of a particular trade or profession, introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article. Beware inaccuracies accompanying short explanations of technical terms with precise meanings.
• "Powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 turbofan engines," "The turbofans are pod-mounted on the sides of the rear fuselage." "The aircraft has a retractable tricycle landing gear, single steerable nose gear and multiple-disc hydraulic brakes." Jargon, jargon, jargon, jargon, jargon.
• Wikipedia:Article development:
• [edit] Writing
• Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading the lead, which should be between one and four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
• Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article's subject early on. For instance, if you are writing an article about a sports event you should mention the sport and, if relevant, any national details: rather than
• The Red Cup was a domestic league competition that ran between 1994 and 1996
• it would be more helpful to write
• The Red Cup was a domestic rugby league competition in New Caledonia that ran between 1994 and 1996
• "The Learjet Model 35 and Model 36 are a series of multi-role business jets and military transport (designated by the U.S. Air Force as C-21)."
• This opening sentence is contextually an example of what not to write, it assumes that only readers familiar with Learjets, commuter aircraft, military aircraft and jets will be reading the article. That's not true, this is a general encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:
• Think of the reader
• Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.
• Again, lead paragraph sentences like this "Powered by two Garrett TFE731-2 turbofan engines, ..." don't consider the reader at all, at least not the Wikipedia reader, a person using a general encyclopedia.
• State the obvious
• State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:
• The Ford Thunderbird was conceived as a response to the Chevrolet Corvette and entered production for the 1955 model year.
• Here no mention is made of the Ford Thunderbird's fundamental nature: it is an automobile. It assumes that the reader already knows this—an assumption that may not be correct, especially if the reader is not familiar with Ford or Chevrolet. Perhaps instead:
• The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company.
• As I suggested, "The Learjet Model 35 and Model 36 are small jet aircrafts manufactured by Learjet of Wichita, Kansas in the 1980s."
• If other aircraft articles read like this, they should also be changed to conform to being usable by Wikipedia's general audience.
• Comments also posted on Learjet35/36 talk page.

KP Botany 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this guy has passed the 3RR, don't you? - BillCJ 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but which violation will get him blocked the fastest? Idon't think he's even reading the edit summaries. - BillCJ 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, issued 3RR and my version of a soapbox warning (couldn't find a template). - BillCJ 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are User:Nmramemphis and User:66.130.128.89 the same person, or did the Karl Marx Home for Advanced Thought have 2 breakouts today? - BillCJ 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the light tap on the shoulder. I get so sick of people who want to protect "Muslims" from us, but worry not a wit about protecting the rest of us from terrorists who happen to be muslim. For the record, my gripe is not with Muslims in general, but with those who do not speak out on behalf of what they claim is a peaceful religion being perverted by terrorists. Makes we wonder how peaceful their religion really is when they don't complain openly about its so-called perversion. - BillCJ 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:EMBRAER190 120304 13.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be very low:

Edit summary usage for N328KF: 27% for major edits and 23% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I see a conflict in the quantity of aircraft listed in the article vs in the specs section. I've no idea which version is right, but the one in the article came from the footnoted source. It would well be wrong, but I thought I'd just point this out. I've no idea where the info in the specs section came from. And, BTW, sorry for the stomp fest! Akradecki 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found out why some sources say 73, some say 74: this crash. Akradecki 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, after seeing the recent edit to Beechcraft Starship - there's already a field for manufacturer. Most aircraft have model numbers, and that's the general/preferred convention for the infobox. In many cases, the manufacturer bumps the title up to two or more lines and looks rather unprofessional. Keep that in mind please! ;) ericg ✈ 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found myself doing another unappreciated pop-culture clean-up on the Autogyro‎ page. Any assitance would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding where the figures came from, it was from a Hoovers corporate report about the company. I think the discrepancy is the fact that the GE figures include the whole Smiths Aerospace group figures, while the Hoovers numbers are about Smiths Aerospace Limited, the UK business excluding the American business. Anyway, I think your figures are the more accurate ones for the article - as it clearly refers to the entire division UK/US/ROW. Mark83 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course he's right, it is uncited nonsense, even if it does concern the topic. - BillCJ 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran across a couple of Gulfstream aircraft articles today, the Grumman Gulfstream II and Gulfstream III) (which redircts to C-20 Gulfstream) in particular. Boy, what an absolute mess! It'll take a while to even make sense of what's there, and the fact that Gulfstream redesignated its new models won't make it any easier.

I'm going to post some ideas on the Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace page. I'm really not sure which direction to go on some things. Feel free to participate if you can. - BillCJ 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It wasn't my intention to start an edit war. I just wanted to improve the information about Pluna on Wikipedia and include the pics in the articles. I thought a Pluna plane might look good as the main image for either Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 (not ATR, that was my mistake), but anyway I don't mind if it's not as long as it is in the article.

Later! --Wesborland 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you used the abbreviation rvv in your edit summary here. It was likely just a typo as this was certainly not vandalism. Best wishes, --Guinnog 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so! --Guinnog 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"butchering?" I invite you to go through the additions including pertinent images and removal of a movie patch AND read the wiki etiquette guidelines:

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Treat others as you would have them treat you - even if they are new. We were all new once... Be polite, please! Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose - what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.

HJ 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough....I'll admit I'm still a novice concerning the subtle nuances of formatting. Just didn't think you needed to characterize other's attempts to improve content as "butchering"

For about a year! Never worked on Requested Moves before, but that one caught my eye. There seemed to be no objections so happy to help. Mark83 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for making those edits. I mean well, but I'm not the most dedicated follower of WP:MOS. Thank you for cleaning up after me! --Mdwyer 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. It is not necessary to change redirects to winglet to point to wingtip device. In fact, it is actually counterproductive, because if winglet were ever split off, all of these redirects would need to be changed back, and it would be more difficult to find them. Dhaluza 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sprint Nextel Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use images are *not* allowed on Wikipedia, when my bot tagged this image it was orphaned. The bot did what it was designed to do and did not make a mistake. BJ^Talk 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant, the image was not being used and it was fair use this is grounds for deletion. Human patrolers only spend a few seconds looking at an image, my bot spends a lot less and doesn't have a brain. Do you really expect anybody bot or human to find out the life story of an image before we tag it when we are working on a backlog in the tens of thousands? The bot properly tagged an image, you saw that and used the image in an article. Problem solved, I don't see how this is "Wanton botspam" or how it makes it an "idiot bot". BJ^Talk 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:East-Dawning-logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said see Talk, I meant see discussion. Cronos1 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on your addition to the Church Committee, looking forward to working with you in the future. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph, saw your revert to the renaming, thanks. The guy does make a point in his edit summary, though. Since 720 redirects here, would you object if a added a brief sentence or half a sentence to the lead paragraph mentioning the 720 so readers won't feel lost? I've seen that technique used elsewhere, since the lead is supposed to be a brief overview/summary of the subject. Akradecki 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to tweak it. Akradecki 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use help with an issue with a UAV article. There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back (I get the impression that he's a newbie with attitude), asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Actually, when you look at the cat, most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention (the exceptions being the ones we haven't upgraded yet), and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? If you care to weigh in, pleas reply at Talk:Dominator UAV. Thanks! Akradecki 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your moving Dominator UAV to Aeronautics Defense Dominator. You were originally reported to WP:AIV, which i removed because it was not vandalism. You were then reported to WP:ANI. I looked into it and agree with your moving of the article per WP:AIRCRAFT naming conventions. I have left a note with User:Headphonos regarding this. If there are any more issues with this article, and protection or any other adminstrative action is necessary, please let me know. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, sorry about getting you involved in a stressful situation and then disappearing from the scene. I got called into work because our medivac helo broke, so I was up to my armpits in Bell 412 for a few hours. My abundant thanks to you and Chris for doing the brunt of the hard work with this issue. Akradecki 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, given your usersname, I thought you'd like to see the view that greeted me as I walked out onto the ramp to go to work this morning (the two are rarely parked next to each other)...Image:Scaled-proteus-wk-070205-05cr-12.jpg Akradecki 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing, I will check manually the mentioned categories for the wrong tags. STTW (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what do you mean by "resequencing". And gr and other minor errors are not generally triggers of a rollback. I'm inclined to hit "rollback" myself unless you have some good complaints. (reply here, i'll see it). Maury 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the only information I removed was information pertaining to the YC-15, which was mis-placed and misleading. Specifically, the article talks about under-wing blowing, which the YC-14 didn't use. This is the portion that you re-added! As to the Coalier, simply type "Antonov An-72 YC-14" into google. Nothing of high quality, but for a "speculated" it's good enough IMHO. Maury 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wondered if you could give a second (well third) opinion on this. I rated it as "Top" importance, Trevor MacInnis has said "I'm more inclined to sugest mid at most. The aviation related part of the company is BAE Systems Regional Aircraft, and this page is more of a corporate company article, only tangentially related to aviation."

I disagree about the only avitation related part of the company being BAE Regional Aircraft, this totally ignores the BAe/BAE participation in the Tornado. It totally ignores the fact that without BAe's design and Marconi Electronic Systems' avionics (both now BAE) the Typhoon would not be the aircraft it is today. Also F-35 paricipation and UAV research are important topics.

What do you think? I've left a request for an assesment which has so far yielded no response. Many thanks. Mark83 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I butt in here? Trevor seems to have forgotten BAE Flight Systems, which has nothing to do with regional aircraft, but which builds the QF-4, and just finished the Lockheed CATBird. Akradecki 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered if you were willing to give a second opinion. I can respect if you don't value the assesment. It's not something I'm that interested in, I'm just pursuing this because, as you know, I have taken an interest in improving that particular article. Best regards, Mark83 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor MacInnis raised it at Talk:BAE Systems/Comments. My request was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Assessment (no. 13). Thanks. Mark83 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my fat-fingeredness! GE90s on the seven oh...now that's something to ponder! Akradecki 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EMB R-99B.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Top Gun (film), is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please watch the POV push involving original thought. Ronbo76 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:B777-Front-AirlinersNetPhotoID380542.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cfm565.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited AT&T Corporate Center. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GE-36 UDF Domke.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. —Angr 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :) Thanks for the note - it's nice to see some familiar usernames still here. Where have I been? Basically, WikiStress got the better of me and I needed to take a break. Anyway, it's very good to be back and I'm glad to be contributing again. --Rlandmann 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — A. B. ^(talk) 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BoP Patch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:East Dawning logo.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aeroflot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arianespace Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ILFC Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MTU Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Arianespace Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UTC 02L.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UTC SA 02L.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Boeing NLA.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:McDonnell Douglas MD-12.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Aérospatiale logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GE Aviation logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

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

If 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 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

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

If 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 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

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

If 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 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have tagged Image:747-400_Dreamlifter.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rettetast 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:AirNZ_789.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:ANA-7E7.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 12:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Aerion_SBJ_1.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Airbus_A330-200F.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have tagged Image:Alvaro_de_Bazán_(F101).jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Qantas787-8.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:B787_Section_41.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:BBoP-1.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:BBoP-2.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:BCA_787_Flight_deck.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:BCA_787-8_3-View.svg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BCA 787 Flight deck.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a