Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.
Welcome to the Commons! Here is a link that I sometimes find helpful: Commons:Copyright tags. Yours, Smee 08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for the link, that's gonna save some time.
I have a couple of diagrams you may or may not want to add in any article regarding L Ron Hubbard's naval career. I was bored and created this with the intention of including it with USS PC-815 but now think it belongs somewhere else if at all. Anynobody 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
float
P.S. The 48 star flags are not a mistake, that's how many there were on the flag during WW2. Anynobody 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah, feel free to add them yourself, I'm not as familiar with this stuff. P.S. To add an image from the WikiCommons to a Wikipedia article, you just use the name of the image, just like you would on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will automatically know that something with that name exists on the Commons. Smee 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
I was asking if you think it's worthy of mention in his article L Ron Hubbard, (sorry I could have phrased that better). It's actually against the law to forge a DD form (I think DD stands for Defence Department). Aside from being illegal, he's actually made up awards and ships that didn't exist so it's just absurd. The more I read about what he says about his life, the more of a BS artist he looks like. Anynobody 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it is illegal to forge a DD form, then it would be impossible for the Religious Technology Center to hold copyright over something that is illegal, and thus the image/media/documents should be free to use, as a perversion of something that was originally a document produced by the United States government. That is - to the best of my knowledge... Smee 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I know military historical affairs aren't your cup of tea, but you seem interested in making sure all facts are represented here when it comes to Scientology. While I don't care about Scientology per se, I do care about presenting all available accurate information in general. To that point, almost the whole section about Hubbard's Naval career on L Ron Hubbard needs attention (for example the military doesn't "try" to promote someone as it says the Navy did). I guess my question to you, as an editor who's been working on and knows more about Scientology articles than I do; Would anyone care one way or the other? I have an urge to bring it back to reality, but I don't feel like dealing with issues from Scientologists if none of the other editors is interested. Anynobody 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that there would be both some other users interested in bringing as much of the facts and information to light, as well as those specifically interested in military history. You could announce your ideas about the article and that you will be working on it, on a few related Military or History related WikiProjects... Smee 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
That is a really good idea, the more people interested in accuracy re: military affairs the better. This way it would counter balance any editors trying to suppress it. Anynobody 05:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Or put more simply, be more editors with expertise in Military History, or Military or History, who could lend a hand to help out with the material itself, citations, etc. Smee 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I actually have all the citations and material I need, but my experience editing Barbara Schwarz has taught me that adding facts which could be interpreted as negative to the CoS is very difficult. Of course I would welcome other militarily knowledgeable editors to point out any errors I make, but I was thinking the more separate voices saying "these are the verifiable facts" the harder it would be for the opposition to make it seem like an "attack". I could be wrong of course, Anynobody 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. The more individuals of interesting and varying intellectual backgrounds to look at a potentially contentious issue, the better... Smee 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Good deal, thanks for the input. I appreciate it :) Anynobody 09:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries, good luck. Smee 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
See new gallery page, Elli Perkins. Added a link to it from the wiki article, with code {{commons}}, and from there to the wiki article, with code {{wikipedia}}. This can be a repository for public domain images related to the article. Smee 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Wow, great job Smee. I came from the commons link you put on Elli Perkins, which I had an idea about. I noticed that the Scientology group has a yellow trim, and so did the old infobox for celebrities used originally for Barbara Schwarz and Elli Perkins. The new infobox doesn't, but has more appropriate data. How difficult would it be to create an infobox for Scientology people with the same data, but a yellow background for the title?
The L. Ron Hubbard gallery was a welcome surprise too and looks outstanding. Did the cropped, color coded fake DD-214 look too "busy" at a glance? Anynobody 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, looks fine. Smee 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks again :) Anynobody 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me know if you know how to add to the gallery page for L. Ron Hubbard, also, new category created, Category:L. Ron Hubbard, for ease of organization. Yours, Smee 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
I actually do know how (theoretically), but was waiting to see if you thought they were worth keeping before doing so. I see now I should have added them anyway as it did clutter up the main gallery. D'oh! Anynobody 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgot, I want to upload some of coroner and police reports about Hubbard's death. I had planned to add these straight to the Hubbard gallery, but perhaps they should go on the main Scientology gallery given the circumstances they describe. Anynobody 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, probably the gallery page is fine for that stuff. Smee 07:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Lol I'm glad we agree, but which one? The Gallery gallery(Scientology) or the Hubbard gallery? Anynobody 08:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, coroner's postmortem, sheriffs report, religious declaration, and last but certainly not least the toxicology report. Anynobody 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you are in a "neutral" mood. At least that's better than me, hehe...
I was wondering, could you do me another favor with your amazing graphics skills? Yours, Smee 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
I make it a point never to agree on anything until I know what it is, let me put it this way though: I'm happy to help if I can :) Anynobody 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Please take a moment and check out the newly-uploaded diagrams at Werner Erhard gallery. All three are PUBLIC DOMAIN, as documents produced by the United States Federal Government, and filed in case in the United States Tax Court. However, they are not that pretty or readable. I mean, you and I can probably make out the text and such, but not too easily. As they are all public domain, what would be nice is if you could use your awesome graphical skills, and re-create these three each as closely as possible, but with a bit higher resolution, and perhaps re-draw the text and sections that are unclear. Then, we can reference back to the original public domain images if anyone ever has a question. (In other words, you would upload your new modified three images under new names.) Whadddya think? And also, what do you think of the images themselves, pretty convoluted, no? Hehe, having some fun whilst ruminating off-Wiki, in the public domain sphere... Yours, Smee 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
Sounds do-able, keeping the file name separate is a good idea so the originals can be referenced by anyone who wants to see them. I'll see what I can do to make them more readable. Anynobody 02:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't be sure I got all the info right, so I've uploaded a rough draft (once I'm sure the words are correct I'll align them and make it look more refined, but if I align it first and then have to change words it's a real pain in the arse). Could you make sure everything is correct. (Some of the letters were a toss up for me "Is that an a or a s?"). est doc 1Anynobody 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am not 100% certain on the reading of the text myself. It would probably be best to check it back against the original images, and the descriptions of those images, at [1] Let me know if that helps. Smee 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
Okay. Let's do this one-by-one. I figured it out for Image 1 :
It's not "Torin, S.V." but Terla B.V.
It's not "Helbehagen, S.V." but Welbehagen, B.V.
It's not "FMSA", but PMSA.
I think those are the only things wrong with Image number 1... Thank you so much for your help. Smee 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
It looks like the other two are much easier to understand... Smee 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
I agree, although if I have difficulty I know where to go :) Anynobody 05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Other than those typos the image itself looks awesome. Smee 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
That's one then, I'll try to tackle the other two this weekend. Anynobody 06:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks so much for all of your help. Smee 02:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
Are you sure the left side "System" on the second doc is supposed to not be connected? I didn't see traces of line being lost but the flow chart sort of doesn't make sense without it connected. Anynobody 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but probably best to stick exactly to the original images instead. Smee 05:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
I agree it shouldn't be added unless we have a source, but the originals look like someone took an image with a grayscale color depth then converted it to monochrome. When making such conversions the software can convert shades of gray we'd (humans) think of as a line into whitespace. Is there a better picture anywhere? Anynobody 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. We can inspect the text of the case itself further, to clarify... Smee 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
Ha!, I just draw the pictures... you can look through the text. Seriously though if it does turn out to be connected just let me know. Anynobody 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny laugh! Hehe. But yes, if I notice something there I will let you know. Smee 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Funny free-use image found on Flickr, with the actual description uploaded by the photographer. Image:Cryptic clothing label.jpg. Smee 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
How's your Lron count? Anynobody 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Certain individuals removed the nice picture from all the articles it was placed on. Most interesting. I suppose public domain diagrams from a case that was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, unsuccessfully, is not "notable" for picture placement anywhere on Wikipedia? Hrm, oh well, at least the images are here and "public domain"... Smee 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC).
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.
--Siebrand 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Probopen.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --Filnik 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Anynobody3.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Thanks for uploading Image:Redstone_in_Grand_Central2.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It was a US Army picture modified by me, but you can go ahead and delete it. Anynobody 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:NH69721 Bismarck.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
The picture you uploaded is cool, but would you mind a change? The angle it's flying at while launching is basically not possible, the Falcon needed a direct radar reflection from the target, so basically the front of the aircraft has to be pointed directly at the target. Not nearly as cool looking, admittedly, but hey... 76.68.72.212 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, actually wondered if I was the only one worrying about technical aspects. In this case I imagined the target at a higher altitude, the F-108 just having been scrambled from Elmendorf Air Force Base. The AIM-47 was a SARH missile which used an IR seeker for terminal guidance. (The target just needed to be inside the radar's cone of coverage, not necessarily dead ahead, until the missile's heat seeker could take over as it gets closer). The flight profile of the AIM-47 was, I thought, very similar to the AIM-54, the missile flies ahead for a couple of seconds then climbs (to explain why it isn't pointing up just that moment).
I had thought about motion blurring the background to emphasize that a lot was happening, fast, during the image. (I tend to upgrade pictures anyway, so I'm sure this one'll be retouched too.) Anynobody 06:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for seating chart images for two Taiwan accidents[edit]
Hello! If you do not mind, I would like for you to create the seating chart images for two accidents in Taiwan:
Sure thing, happy to help :) I can probably have one done later tonight or tomorrow, hopefully both since they're 747s it makes things somewhat easier to do two similar types. The downside is that doing a 727 turned out to be a bigger pain in the arse than I had expected because double checking each seat got a tad tedious. That said, assuming things go slowly, a week would be the absolute longest it'll take. (I don't mean to sound reluctant, it's just better to let you know any possible delays upfront.) Anynobody 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) - Let me know when SQ006's image is loaded! WhisperToMe 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Here you go. Anynobody 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You bet :) The China Airlines image might end up being an animation, this way several images won't be necessary in several locations throughout the article if integrating them into one image proves itself too "busy" looking. Anynobody 06:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to redo the Singapore Airlines image to be vertical too?
Some of the data in the China Airlines report is kinda messed up so it's taking longer than I thought. Here's the recovery distribution. Anynobody 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Anynobody, thank you! Anyway, SQ006 does not need to be vertical, but thank you for the offer. :) WhisperToMe 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: With the SQ006 map I added one other lap child indicated by the Taiwanese report - there were three lap children. WhisperToMe 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
P.S. if I ever find out which livery one of the plans involved in the en:2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, I would request that too. Until I get that ironed, though... WhisperToMe 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought SU-GAP and F-OGQS had complicated livery patterns, but looking at these 9V-SPK, B-1866 I was wrong. I had actually been pondering about doing these anyway, since I think the articles look better with an illustration of the aircraft.
Wow, I'm gonna probably do this one anyway just for my enjoyment, JA8904, whether the livery turns out to be it or the more conservative traditional version. But to answer your question, sure I can :) Anynobody 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Chances are the 747 wore old livery at the time of the near miss, sources mention it sustaining minor cabin damage, so repainting it with a fancy new livery while it was getting repaired would seem to make sense. Anynobody 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the image of the China Airlines B747. I see that you will make a good image of the SQ006 plane :) WhisperToMe 06:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I actually want to do the JAL near miss first because drawing two big planes in flight so close to each other, criss crossing at high altitude is gonna look cool :)
I have a couple of questions though, first: Does your copy of the PDF for Flight 611 have double or triple entries for some of the maps?
Gotcha, I removed the phone number and posed the models in several views. I personally prefer the aspect highlighted in the green box but figured I'd see what you thought. Anynobody 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the one in green too :) WhisperToMe 09:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the JAL 2001 image :) WhisperToMe 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) I've started on the Singapore flight, since it was raining so much I was thinking of doing something similar to what I did for the Tenerife image (A person standing on the runway before the crash would probably not have been able to see either plane through the fog, so I made some of it transparent.) I think the plane will be here: Anynobody 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the diagram :) - In its own right the airport runway diagram is a good visual aid as it shows the route the plane took. :) WhisperToMe 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I was actually just using that as a diagram of where I was gonna put the plane, but I've fixed it up for the article. is done, I know it probably looks a bit dark but I wanted to illustrate conditions at the time of takeoff. (for example the taxi lights are visible if you look really close, I assume the pilots didn't notice them so they were probably hard to see. Anynobody 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Those are nice CGs! I also posted them on Wikipedia articles of other languages - if I don't know a clue about the language I just repeat the name of the article for the image caption.
I'm happy you like them, and to help out :) In order to make things easier I've created a queue at the top of this page. Anynobody 05:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good deal, (on the confirmation not the actual crash) :) The 757s may take a bit longer as I have to "build" a model first. (Whereas I already had a 747 which was easy to turn into the 747-400 and a DC-10 done so it was just a matter of creating new textures. Anynobody 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the image of ET961! It seems a bit rougher than the 747s and 737, but it is good that you have started the new model type (and will start the 757 soon!) WhisperToMe 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I forgot that you did Egyptair 767 too, but, still, thank you for the ET961 image :) WhisperToMe 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! that was the rough version. Sorry about that, I don't usually render backgrounds for the rough drafts since it's a waste of time. For some reason I did that time, but the unsmoothed edges and hand drawn shadow must've been covered up by the background. (Now I have another reason not to render backgrounds on sketches.)
In deciding whether I should fix it, instead a right/rear/above view seemed better in my imagination, so I re-did the image from a new perspective. I like it better than the actual image I had intended to upload and I think you probably will too (from a composition standpoint.) Anynobody 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course if you don't like it please do not be afraid to say that too :) Anynobody 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the new image better than the old one :) WhisperToMe 01:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Good deal :) I created the 757 model today and started on livery for Birgenair, luckily both planes were 200s. Anynobody 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Those 757s are nice! Thanks! If you want more to be added to your queue, you can add en:TAM Airlines Flight 3054 (The TAM A320 about to hit the building) and en:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (Show the Gol 737 and the Embraer legacy about to have their wings collide - afterwards the Gol plummets, breaks apart, and then hits the ground, while the Legacy safely lands) WhisperToMe 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Airliners.net pictures - TAM (Orgulho seems to be on both sides) and GolWhisperToMe 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the 757s, and will definitely help out with the Gol/Embraer collision. I'll have to create am Embraer model, so as before it may take a bit longer. (PS Good job on adding the extra lap-belted child :) I just noticed today.) Anynobody 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also have to make a A320 model, I thought I had one but must've confused it with my A310. Anynobody 04:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding a picture of the whole plane. Have you seen any? Anynobody 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a CG image in a Discovery Channel documentary about Gol 1907, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Let me see if I can find a better shot. WhisperToMe 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is perfect, great job :) I've added winglets and adjusted the fuselage of my 737 for the 800 and am starting on the Legacy model. Anynobody 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
To keep you informed, the model of N600XL is proving more challenging than I had expected. The buildings, streets, city, etc. near where the TAM Airbus crashed are also going to take more time than usual. (Urban areas are hard to model well.)
I had a couple of ideas though. 1. for the Gol/N600XL collision what about an image from inside N600XL? I know there were no real passengers(just some Embraer people and a journalist), so I'd label it as something like hypothetical passenger's view of Gol 1907 from N600XL... 2. Since images can be upgraded how about a temporary image of the TAM A320 still on the runway, past the halfway point, looking at the terminal. To emphasize how fast it was still going, the terminal would be quite motion blurred but the plane would be in focus. Or if you prefer, the buildings could be in focus and the plane blurred. Anynobody 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see what an inside view would look like for the Gol. If possible please also make one showing both Gol and the Embraer. As for the TAM, perhaps try the terminal being blurred. :) WhisperToMe 06:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Can do on the two images of Gol, that's the great thing about using 3d models, I only have to draw the plane once :) This'll probably be the first incident complete between it and TAM. (Not to be critical of the pilots, but it's amazing they missed an oncoming 737. Or that the 737 pilots missed the Embraer, since both planes were level at the time of collision nobody was taking evasive action.)
TAM is going to be a challenge but the final form. over the street, will be worth the wait. Anynobody 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Once you are finished with TAM and Gol (please take as long as you need with them :) ) - There's another one which would be interesting if illustrated (it would be good for the article). The 2002 Germany mid-air collision could portray the planes just about to strike each other (at night):
The images are nice - I like the image explaining how it collided. :) WhisperToMe 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Good deal :) The internal shot proved too much for my computer to handle, maybe someday. The midair collision is doable too, but despite appearances the Tu-154 is different enough than a 727 such that merely altering my model would probably result in a plane that looks kinda like a 727/Tu-154 combo and therefore not quite right. So I'll build one from scratch. (Russian planes are frustrating that way sometimes, see also Su-24/F-111 and B-1B/Tu-160) Anynobody 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Someday you will have a computer model of everything :) WhisperToMe 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah, don't have the disk space :) Anynobody 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again! Regarding the SQ006 runway map SA006 Runway.png, is the "B6" a path taken by the jet, or is it supposed to refer to the gate that the jet left? (The Gate is Bay B5, as indicated in the Channel News Asia report) [2]WhisperToMe 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It was supposed to be the gate, d'oh! I'll fix the image ASAP. Anynobody 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! If you want, you can add the location of the construction equipment and the resting places of the SQ006 wreckage (that is seen if you load the Popup program. Click the button that leads to 23:16:36 and click the eye icon. You will see an animation of the plane "running over" the barriers and break into pieces. WhisperToMe 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I should probably say that the upgrades were something I had done after the prior version but before the error was pointed out. So when the gate number was found to be wrong I went with what I had, over time I planned on doing exactly what you suggested, but at a lower priority. (Errors are almost always the highest priority for me.) Anynobody 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I still do plan to upgrade the image, the use of past tense in my last sentence might have implied otherwise. Anynobody 08:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Made a mistake?
Anynobody 07:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anynobody 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
