User talk:Ch Th Jo/Archive 2

/Archive1

New Livery for Monarch
Hello. Just to let you know the new livery for monarch is with a little M and has the monarch.co.uk titles instead of flymonarch.com

Check this page to see the new livery http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:G-OZBT_%28aircraft%29

--MKY661 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

TB
T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 23:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Delta Machinery logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Delta Machinery logo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Panerai OP logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Panerai OP 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Marion Steam Shovel
Is there any reason why you replaced the citation to the New York State page with the nom document with the NPS one? I do understand that the latter is in PDF format and easier for most readers to review, but as a general rule at WP:NRHP we've let most of those remain (largely since the NPS hasn't put most of the NY nominations into Focus yet since they're otherwise available).

Also, as a general rule we've excepted a lot of NRHP articles from that "one source" thing because the nomination documents are often the only reliable source available and NRHP listings are generally considered to have inherent notability (In fact, you'd be better off not using that template anywhere since it's got no real policy justification (Multiple sources are always good, yes, but that doesn't mean that they will always be available. As I said here). Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

''"...nomination documents are often the only reliable source available" Baloney! Certainly when someone wrote the NPS nomination document, they were referencing historical documentation? The nominations are not written by hearsay. Although the documents and records that informed the creation of the nomination document may not be available -online-, they are out there..."

The nomination forms usually cite their sources ... but not always with individual footnotes. We have not yet found a way to deal with such secondary-source issues in our citation requirements. Should I cite the same sources in some sort of bibliography? Someone might question their reliability, or verifiability, given that many sources used for local history are often old, out-of-print books only available in one local library or historical society somewhere. I'd rather have an online source any reader can review.

Or, I could just cite the same set of sources for the same information. I prefer not to do that because it's a common, sneaky technique to disguise plagiarism. Plagiarists know that if they cite the same information to the same sources, and then just paraphrase closely, the chance that the similarity to the intermediate source will be discovered drops to negligible (a reader would have to be struck by the similar citation sequence). I don't plagiarize, never have and never will, but using a citation method that is to me too closely associated with plagiarism laundering is morally questionable.

Yes, I know, the proper way is to say "as cited at" over and over. To some readers and reviewers, that just looks lazy, and they'll complain about overreliance on a single source again and accuse you of trying to hide it. As if we're supposed to go verify the primary sources used by every secondary source we ourselves use? The real world is not Wikipedia, and some people need to spend some time offline to realize that.

In sum, I believe doing that the way I did it is just the fairest and most transparent way of dealing with these issues we can currently offer our readers.

Please note, of course, that I don't consider that article to be totally complete; in its current form it was as it is when I created something better than stub quality, and if you have the time and inclination to go search through Google books (where, of course, you may find the information that would be of interest begins on a page you can read and ends on page that is "not part of this preview") ... believe me, I look for other sources too). If you can find more information on the history of the company (I think I looked in the article on the company, and didn't find any) in Google books, particularly anything relevant to the particular shovel in Le Roy, please add it to the article. It was not for lack of trying on my part that it's sourced the way it was. I will be watching to see what you come up with. If you don't add anything within a reasonable amount of time, I will assume you have reached the same conclusion as I did, and remove the tag. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"What you've labeled as a "secondary source" is actually a primary source, if I understand you correctly (maybe "original" is a better term for this discussion?)" I mean primary and secondary sources in our policy sense (and as defined and discussed in article namespace). The nomination is clearly a secondary source in that it relies on and synthesizes material published elsewhere. The contemporaneous documents it draws on are the primary sources. I can clearly understand using one source when the article relies exclusively or almost exclusively on a primary source; I think there should be a little latitude for that when the same is true of reliance on a secondary source.

Yes, I know sources do not have to be online; I've used a few myself. However, at the same time I don't think an article that uses multiple sources should use only offline ones. I doubt it would fly at FAC.

I have no problem ... go ahead and put that info in. Believe me, I have expanded many NRHP articles that originally were sourced primarily to their nomination forms with the help of other sources (see Central Troy Historic District, for one). It seems you have a better grasp of this field than I do ... I was interested in it primarily because it's on the Register, and it's also one of the rare instances of construction equipment that is. Who knows, we might get something worthy of nominating for GA ...

New York's nominations are actually pretty good ... they usually get professional people to write them, people who seem to know what they're talking about. Some other states, and especially older ones ... that's a different story (For a good laugh in this department, read the nomination form (ca. the late 1970s) for Gilfillan Farm outside Pittsburgh (And yes, Pennsylvania's have improved since then, too). Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jc penney logo feb 2011.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Jc penney logo feb 2011.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LG GT540 Optimus front.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:LG GT540 Optimus front.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Apple iPhone front.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Apple iPhone front.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wisegeek link from Brogue shoe
Take a look at this, which is the resource linked as a reference. It is a made-for-AdSense page, that incorporates text that comes from a source that pays people to generate large quantities of "content", and that neither shows any relevant credentials for its author nor itself cites any references. As far as I can see, this does not count as a WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Caterpillar 797B Haul Truck.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Caterpillar 797B Haul Truck.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion
Hi. I believe we can't use those non-free images of mobiles. I've nominated them all for deletion. If you want, you can make your case at Files for deletion/2011 May 20. Make sure you understand WP:NFCC. Let me know if you need some help. --Damiens .rf 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)