User talk:Alethe

Hebden Gallery
Editing Wikimedia Commons: Goto the Wikimedia commons image, and select the Edit tag. Insert before the == [Commons:Copyright tags|Licensing]: == line, the categories you wish the image to appear in, one per line: e.g.: [Category:Hebden North Yorkshire Images]. Note that the square brackets should be double - i.e. "[[".

They will then appear in the Wikimedia Commons gallery for Hebden. They won't appear in the photo gallery in the Hebden encyclopedia entry, but then the powers that be don't like encyclopedia entries being photo albums. --Langcliffe (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note, double curly brackets should be used above. --Langcliffe (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestions re organizing comscat album: Another alternative is to also place all the pictures in new categories such as 'Hebden North Yorkshire Buildings', and have different wikimedia links from the Hebden page. There's room for four or five such links adjacent to the gallery. --Langcliffe (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

sliders
Ive only seen the slider used once or twice, but it does allow more panoramas to be included without overpowering the article. Keep it up.... oh and I see there is a "dethick" in this article I'm writing Victuallers (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

oh and you can include large photo albums using....

re: Jan Kwapinski
I am not sure how to make pronunciation links, but if you ask on WP:PWNB hopefully sb will help you. I wonder why the BL changed their policy on the war time stamps. Check out commons:File:Poczta Polowa AK - niebieski.jpg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1913 east window.jpg
File:1913 east window.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1913 east window.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Craven Fault


The article Craven Fault has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not sourced, but could be merged to some more relevant geological article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rodhull andemu  22:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Polish UK memorial
Interesting, you may want to post it at WP:PWNB. Also, remember that on Wikipedia we use bottomposting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein
I suspect, Alethe, that you think I'm unschooled in Philosophy because I didn't take SV's bait and defend my credentials. In fact, aware as I am that it's not germane to the discussion, I've tried to keep the focus on the article. If we want the opinion of a novice, we'll have to bring in someone else. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wittgenstein editing

Thanks for the comment on my Talk p., & I've read your comment on the Discussion page, tho' not the new copy in the article. You've done a commendable job in the thread not rising to bait. Indeed I think that editors who are quite ignorant of LW need to be brought into judgment here. This article, like any other in a gen'l encycl., must be for those who know little of a topic and consult it for information. For that reason I don't read philosophy articles in Wiki, & only in one previous case intervened, when I chanced on one about a friend & thought I sh'd supply bio. & biblio., & fix some egregious errors, as he is no longer alive. I looked at the LW only to snatch & move some bibliog. for an article I was writing, & when I did was dismayed by the lead. This thread began with my cutting the worst part (I left alone gratuitous inclusion of "Hitler"). This was not philosophical work; during this pd I was the first to fix the grammar in the Galliano article & remove "neo-Nazi" from its header line, & I know nothing of the fashion world. I've still not read the LW article, only looked over the Russell material, so have no opinion on its balance. I can well believe that it's as you say. I'd been about to write you here, suggesting, as you do, that our discussion with SV is probably no longer useful, due to SV's ad hominems & not responding to our suggestions that comparable Wiki articles be consulted. Repeated references to "hagiography" etc show that the article has been worked with a definite agendum in advance, to combat what SV thinks is a mistaken culture, apparently around Cambridge. This seems in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Alethe (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC) §Given your comments, I subsequently scanned the full article, which I should have done earlier. In a word: "disgusting". I doubt it's redeemable by editing. It will stand as evidence for serious people who consider Wikipedia the encyclopedic equivalent of a no-pest strip. Alethe (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving the whole conversation here for simplicity.

I'm not up to the challenge of rewriting everything. For one thing, Slim seems not to be responding any more to her critics. Fact is, the lead is the part most people will read. Still, it's a bit shocking that there's almost more of Weininger's philosophy in the article than W's. It is possible to bring in outside editors and at some point I will do that. I have a few things I want to do to set the stage for that first: a final warning and a straw poll. Then we'll see if anything can be done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

§ Good of you to consider doing that: for Wikipedia. Good of you to offer warning; SV appears to have strong psychological investment in the case. Sad to see this was once a featured article. A no. of my colleagues grimace at mention of Wiki, do what they can to discourage students reading course mat'l on it, incl. not allowing refs in bibliog. of papers. I'd given the reply that students will look anyway, & must learn to pick out bad scholarship on their own, also that some some articles are very good--less so, of course, re anything on ideas, a fortiori philosophy. But I wouldn't want students to read this tabloid-style piece at all. Alethe (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

§ I see that the lead has been cut back again to what I attempted on 25 Feb.:  good. I don't know why Eagleton is quoted there, even. i) What does he know? ii) Why sh'd the literary quality get add'l emphasis? iii) My gen'l impression is that Spinoza has been the most influential philosophers among artists, latterly Kant, with all the Greenberg stuff, also Nietzsche's back in style. Eagleton's in England--it's all conjecture.   More substantively, I note the exchanges in the Edit sections, where you' ve stood ground.  SV's made it clear on several occasions that there's a motive behind the existing article: to counter over-reverential  attitudes toward LW, esp. at Cambridge (maybe UEA, too).  But a) that's not what encycl. articles are for, as is clear from Wiki rules: "not a soapbox", "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." Disappointing for Wiki Administrator. So, b) given that the tabloid version of LW has been aired since most of SV's 450+ edits began on Sept 2010, & will always be retrievable, SV can write an article or book to accomplish the stated aim, while the article is made consistent with the others that we keep pointing out. One might begin that job with August 2010 version, but using valid info. in present version.


 * I'm moving this conversation to your talk page, for simplicity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I monitor this page via the watchlist, so if you post here on your talk page I am notified. It's simpler, I think, if you have no objection. As to the W article, well, I hadn't thought through the implications of Slim's POV like you have; I agree it amounts to soap boxing, although not the most egregious case. I haven't pointed myself in this direction yet, but there were some attempts in the last month to bring in more phil. material that Slim struck down. Some was original research, some was not. Another arrow in the quiver has to do with the designation of the W article as "eponymous" by the phil. bio group. I haven't worked out the implications of that but perhaps it means the article should cover more work, less life. This is going to take some time. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Loo Story"? With apology to Albee. The current Wittgenstein article gives encyclopedia readers the following information:

the firstborn, Hermine, was so nervous of Brahms that, when once invited to sit with him at dinner, she spent most of the evening vomiting in one of the bathrooms.

He told Hermine he loved the isolation of the Grouse Inn, but was less enamored of the toilet facilities.

He was prescribed oestrogen, which gave him diarrhea, hot flashes, impotence, and swelling of the breasts.

Alethe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * RC: too busy with my own philosophy publications to address anyone else's. Also, tho' I do a fair amt of Wiki work, I stay entirely clear of my own field, Philosophy.  (Only exception was providing bibliog. & deleting nonsense on entry for a friend no longer living.)

Re Wittgenstein, I'd say that the Stanford entry you've mentioned seems a good guidline. For Wiki use, of course one'd want something for far more gen'l audience. I think that the existing Wiki article might be teased apart, into philos. material and other. Then one might edit both, independently, into proper shape. This w'd surely nvolve cutting 'other' down a lot (eg taking out the Hitler paragraph). One could then address the harder problem of how to develop 'philos. material'. I might ask some people I know who work on Wittgenstein if they'd contribute to a general introd. article. Combining the two operations would then shift the size balance. How's that seem?Alethe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Wibberley in wetsuit.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wibberley in wetsuit.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

River Waveney
Might be more useful to put this here for now... Keep up the good work! Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work on this. I'm impressed...
 * Might be worthwhile, if you haven't already done so, to look at WP:RIVER, especially the structure of articles section. I wonder if the course section, for example, might use splitting a little with sub-heads? It's quite wordy just now perhaps.
 * I've added some citation needed tags to the page. If you check the edit history and look at the diff you'll see how to do this. You might find WP:CTT and related articles useful to have bookmarked!
 * We could certainly use a few more citations I think?
 * I've unhidden the table - partly because it confused me when I looked at it first off. I think it might confuse less experience users in particular?
 * I think I'd prefer incised meander than oxbow. Sorry - it's partly because I've tried to drum landforms into kids for 20 odd years and I know they get confused with this sort of thing!! I'll leave you with the call though.

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited English National Ballet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivan Nagy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Blackfriars Bridge, north view, winter 2007, heron.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Blackfriars Street Bridge, east approach.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Leonard Wibberley article
Looks fine now. A bit of a blast from the past. Yours, Quis separabit?  13:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...simplest current protocols for inserting illustrations into articles, as I'm a bit rusty here. A por. of the subject for the entry "Leonard Wibberley" was removed: 07:19, 29 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Wibberley in wetsuit.jpg (F11: No evidence of permission.

I have now secured a permission from the person who created it:

I hereby affirm that I, Kevin Wibberley, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image of Leonard Wibberley.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Signed

Kevin Wibberley

Copyright holder

December 9, 2015

Alethe (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please send the above message in an email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org and attach the accompanying email image. The OTRS team will take care of it and confirm the permissions. Mkdw talk 19:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

=e-book biblio.= Re the Leonard Wibberley article, thanks for your prompt and precise response to my query about inserting evidence for permission for an image. I have another question about editing this entry. A number of Wibberley's books have recently been made available in e-book form by Kindle, and I am informed that more are planned. Especially since many are out of paper print, it seems appropriate to list e-books in the bibliography of the article. However I have not been able to find instsructions re protocols for this or to find exemplars in other articles on authors. When I attempted to add such information, it was rejected as registered on the blacklist. Would you be so kind as to let me know if there is a correct form for adding such information? Alethe (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * e-books are just books available digitally. You would cite them like you would any other book. You can use the template cite book. Mkdw talk 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonard Wibberley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Malham Cove pavement sign.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Malham Cove pavement sign.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Blackfriars Bridge from south riverbed, Oct. 07.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Blackfriars Bridge from south riverbed, Oct. 07.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Leonard Wibberley with friend.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Leonard Wibberley with friend.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Goodden, under bridge.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Goodden, under bridge.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)