User:Ww2censor/Sandbox


 * I've been involved in 1 FA, 3 FACS 1, 2 3, 1 GA, 17 DYKs.



DPMGS
Robert Oliphant 1718-1795 (sources) http://www.thepeerage.com/p58010.htm#i580098 https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X1JJ-8Z5

Master of the King's Postes

 * Brian Tuke 1509–1545
 * John Mason 1545–1566 and William Paget
 * Thomas Randolph 1566– (d 1590)
 * John Stanhope 1590–1621
 * Charles Stanhope 1621–1637
 * Thomas Witherings (d 1651) and William Frizell 1632– (Postmaster for Foreign Parts)
 * Philip Burlamachi 1640–1642 - Thomas Witherings' position in sequestration
 * Earl of Warwick Inland PMG - Thomas Witherings (d 1651) - Foreign PMG
 * Edmund Prideaux 1649– (d 1659)
 * John Manley 1653–1655
 * John Thurloe 1655–1660
 * Benjamin Worsley 1660
 * Thomas Scott 1660

(*Philip Froude 1678–1688)


 * GPO - PMG's & Secretaries
 * Postmasters General BPMA

Ineligible for copyright protection
From WP:non-free content review:

"At Commons we encounter frequently cases like this logo and we have set up a gallery of logos that are below the threshold of originality according to the United States Copyright Office or some US court decision. Please allow me to extract some interesting cases from this gallery:

It is worthwile to read through the lengthy reasonings of the Copyright Office and to consider how this could apply to the case with the Kodak logo. The Kodak logo consists of Kodak typescript which is not copyrightable (this should be well known). The selection of the two colors is also below the threshold. What remains is the stylized letter "K". It is made out of a box with round corners from which the two arms of the "K" have been cut. Now lets turn to the rationales of the Copyright Office refered to above. In the Nikken logo case (left logo), it was concluded that

"the "Y" shaped figures in a square with rounded corners lacked sufficient creativity to support a copyright registration. She noted that color and the use of geometric shapes are not copyrightable. Bases on these findings, she concluded that the logo consisted of a simple combination and arrangement of three elements which together created a simple arrangement that was aesthetically pleasing but not copyrightable."

And in the other decision (of the Jeff Ho logo) it is noted that

"the determination of whether a work is copyrightable has to do, not with aesthetic or commercial value, but with whether there is sufficient original and creative authorship. Simple variations of standard designs and their simple arrangement do not furnish a basis on which to support a copyright claim, [..]"

And somewhat later a court decision is quoted:

"The court, however, found that in order to achieve a "distinguishable variation" from a public domain work, the variation must be substantial."

Now lets return to the Kodak logo. The stylized letter is based on the shape of the "K" and a box of rounded corners, all of them are in the public domain. Minor variations and simple arrangements as in this case give it a pleasing design but this does not appear to lift it above the minimal threshold of originality. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)"

Another comment: "I believe you have a point. When this logo is compared to the two given above (or more notoriously, File:Best Western logo.svg), it seems that there are similar levels of (un-)originality, so I agree that the Kodak logo falls below the threshold. -- King of &hearts;  &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)"

Forgery reference

 * Philatelic fakes and forgeries
 * 1932 Australia 2d Sydney Harbour Bridge
 * 13c US Liberty Bell
 * GB 1/- Stock Exchange

Some Limerick stuff
A post office was first opened in 1653 as a head office and postal services are now provided by An Post

Mail addressed to Limerick was recovered from raids by the IRA is known, and where possible, returned to the addressee to which a gummed label was affixed stating: Stolen by Raiders and tampered with.

Rare stamps infobox
Infobox postage stamp 

Coloured and framed text boxes


Useful links:


 * Stamps/Public domain

 I like to keep my discussion together, so please use my talk page. Thanks!

2 column table w/90% size text

 * Left column starts here


 * Right column starts here

May 2009 deletion request

 * In most instance where stamps are not being used correctly in biographic article, removal of the stamp from the article and then marking as an orphan has been efficient but I have no problem in discussion this in depth and even bring it to WP:IfD where more expert editors can weigh in. If no reliable third parties have written about the stamp in relation to John Steinbeck himself then it should not be included and we may even be supporting original research by assigning the stamp some importance in the biography.


 * The improper use of non-free stamp images has been discussed at various places before and deletion sweeps have been made to remove such uses, including those in some rather high profile people's biographies. These administrator noticeboard discussions prove this is an ongoing problem that needs addressing regularly: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive165. This January 2008 IfD page clearly demonstrated that even though some editors disagreed with the deletion nominations, many being used in raher well known peoples' biographies; most were deleted because they failed the WP:NFCC criteria.


 * More recently individual stamp deletion nominations, such as Houdini and Marie Marvingt in addition to recent general discussions Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 where the consensus goes against keeping non-free images in biographic articles without critical discussion.


 * In this Steinbeck instance, one editor has suggested that because the USPS has never prosecuted anyone that we should not be deleting these types of images. This goes completely against Wikipedia respect for copyright and must be ignored as a complete red herring and the view of the post office in fair use of not, by another editor, is not our concern. We try to respect fair use, hence WP:NFCC and WP:NFC.


 * Firstly, this stamp is clearly copyright because all post-1977 stamps are still copyright of USPS as noted in the appropriate template and per Commons:Stamps of the United States.
 * The only way this can possibly be used here would be under a fair-use claim but it must pass all WP:NFCC policy.
 * Issue 1). The main reason the fair use rational fails is that if fails WP:NFCC which states; Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. All reader's can easily understand that the USPS issued a stamp to honour John Steinbeck by the inclusion of prose that says so. There is nothing detrimental in not having an image of the stamp and inclusion the image does not add anything except decoration.
 * Issue 2). Non-free criteria WP:NFC #3 states that: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. This is for use within articles about the stamp itself and not in biographies to show the topic or subject on the stamp.
 * Issue 3). There is no critical commentary about the stamp that might allow its use. This is a basic criteria of WP:NFC but needs to be backed by verifiable reliable sources. Simply stating who issued and produced the stamp, and who it honours is not critical commentary.


 * Remember the burden of proof to provide a suitable rationale is on the editors who want to retain the image in an article and not on the editor nominating any image for deletion. If there were some reasonable critical commentary AND an appropriate rationale this image might not be a candidate for deletion per the enforcement of WP:NFCC.