User talk:Coat of Many Colours/Archive 2

Discussions at WP:NFCR
Hey Coat of Many Colours,

I wanted to reach out to you because I've seen where you have been trying to assist at WP:NFCR (thanks for helping out) but I was hoping that you would finish what you start. If you deem there to be an obvious solution to a discussion that has been opened by another editor and then make a change on the image, you should close that discussion in tune with WP:Non-admin closure. Just like Non-admin closures needing to have clear consensus to be closed by a non-admin, discussion should only be acted on when there is a clear consensus or obvious answer. When you make the decision to change the image, you are essentially ending the discussion, so a proper close would be most appropriate. It would also help when you change the license of an image from non-free to a free image (like File:Portrait of George Bodington.jpg and File:KeepTheTinTech.png) to remove the Non-free use rational template and replace it with a information template. This will make the image's move to Commons easier and leaves a tidy situation for the image. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TL. Didn't know about non-admin closure. Thanks for that. I'll take it hand tomorrow. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I transferred those two files to Commons. That WP:Non-admin closure document is fairly opaque. I'll study it over the weekend. Meanwhile the transfers need reviewing and the fair use uploads deleted (I kept the same file names). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, just worked out how to close. Hope it was all right. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another note: In the future, the questions like you have posted today at WP:NFCR would be better to be posted at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content where it might get more attention. WP:NFCR is usually for discussion about particular cases, whereas your questions and discussions are more about policy and general situations. Cheers, --  TLSuda  (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll check it out. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Particularly WP:Non-free content review subsection --consensus for the topical article. I am finding Masem persuasive, but I still am exploring the possibility for a broader use of the USPS fair use license in the topical article. Gwhillickers point that each stamp is in wide public use, and the cultural significance I find in the Congressional Joint Resolution for notability do not seem to be persuasive. Is it we just wait 50 years to pass for each stamp issue? Masem seems to think for fair use in the near term, it all hinges on the USPS selection of image on the stamp, whether it is merely a reproduction of an image in the public domain, hence the possibility of admitting some of the civil war battle commemoratives directly into Wikimedia Commons...jury still out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Actually I shan't be able to contribute for a while. I might test the lay of the land when I return. These NFC groupies are a damn nuisance in Wikipedia. They lord it over new editors, and one or two of them are without question essentially trolls. There's no sense at all in restrictions on US postals stamps given that the USPS has clearly stated its philosophy on fair use. These people are making a cult of "free-content" at the expense of Wikipedia's real mission, which is the dissemination of knowledge. Good luck with your cause. I'll look in and see what progress has been achieved when I return, which will be some months however. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons allowing images previously disallowed because of URAA copyright restoration
Following a major change of Commons policy today, I have suggested a corresponding change for WP at WP:VPPR. Happily, Masem has already indicated his support. This may help on quite a lot of images. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At this very moment I'm writing a remark there saying how pleased I am! Thanks for all your support and help in this. I literally feel rejuvenated! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

tagging
I've commented on the other party's talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I responded as follows there:


 * It was a stub . I went to a lot of trouble doing it. Out of courtesy I emailed Margie Orford. She replied pleasantly, thanking me and saying that she had never considered doing her own BLP as it seemed so strange (pretty refreshing eh?) Of course I don't know her and of course there's no conflict of interest here. She's a household name in SA, and while I don't expect your average Brit necessarily to know her I do expect a reviewer actually to read the text taking the 10 seconds or so to assimilate prize-winning journalist, the five crime novels and so on. And Google has 47,000 hits for "Margie Orford". Nothing in my stub was hard to verify (verify a book title - come on ...). That first book I listed "Blood Rose" reviewed here at The Independent (first Google hit), listed here along with four others in the Clare Hart series all with Kindles at Amazon.uk (second Google hit). And there were several sources that went into preparing that stub. The kid just doesn't know a citation from a source. But this is a kid with admin eyes, no spotty teenage I'm dissing here ...
 * There are other SA journalist covering Pistorius I would like to do BLP start-ups for, notably Sisonke Msimang and Rebecca Davis of The Daily Maverick. Am I encouraged? TFIA. Does Wikipedia benefit? TFID.
 * Thanks to Bearian for reviewing constructively. With respect I'm pretty sure I'm owed an apology from at least one other party here.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussion at NFU review
So, to continue our discussion with Masem after we were so rudely interrupted, I am led to propose #17 WP:NFC:

Propose #17. ''Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 [is not fair use]. However it may be appropriate if the stamp itself is described alongside (#9) in a passage (#8), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), but it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article, which would take precedence for displaying the image (#6), unless the artwork is in the public domain.''

That is based on the following understanding derived from items 4-9.

4. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is controversial. — A map, is not fair use, unless "the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." — okay when the stamp itself is controversial.

5. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is proper subject for commentary. — An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war is not fair use, unless "the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.” — okay when the stamp image is the subject of commentary, when the stamp has received attention.

6. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 image can be fair use if it does not have its own article. — An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, is not fair use, "if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)” — okay when the stamp does not have its own article.

7. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A photo from a press or photo agency is not fair use, "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.” Okay when the stamp itself has sourced commentary in the article.

8. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." Okay when the stamp itself is described in a passage.

9. Use of a a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is discussed alongside the image. A magazine or book cover is not fair use unless "the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.” — okay when the stamp is described alongside the image.

Any critique you may have would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TVH. That might be be an immediate goal for you that would work. However in if were to put a dog in the fight I would be going unrestricted fair use as conceded by USPS i.e. including educational use and catalogues (the last to allow inclusion in "list" type articles). I want to research the background first and that will take a while. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am interested in the larger cast you are giving the question as well. Your view seems to be aligned with that of User:Gwillhickers. He has made several contributions sighting additional policy references. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree in every respect with Gwill. I don't think there's any question that NFCR is an essentially policing forum. Masem's last point essentially conceded that when he said there were some areas of Wikipedia that required more pro-active (but I would describe it as predatory) oversight, citing BLP. But he misses two crucial points 1. that unlike BLP, NFC is not exlusively Wikipedia policy; it involves the Wikimedia mission and their licensing policy, and the debate turns how that is to be construed, and secondly, crucially 2. whereas BLP violations do have the potential to hurt, both at a personal level and also the project itself when it comes to potential litigation, taking USPS fair use guidance at face value simply doesn't have that potential at all; the worse that could possibly happen is that USPS get cold feet when they see profusely illustrated articles about contemporary US stamps in Wikipedia and issue a clarification as to their guidance, but there's no reason to suppose that would happen. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Gwill argues that a simple statement of description from a primary (USPS) source is sufficient commentary. That seems to be backed up at WP:NFC 8. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." That is, use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself alongside.


 * Additionally, unlike demands for third party reliable source critical commentary before displaying a stamp image in a topical philately article, I believe WP:NFCC 8. Contextual significance. Non-free content of visual information found on the entire stamp image "significantly increases reader’s understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Stamps are a visual medium, it is not sufficient to describe them with text alone.


 * Further, WP:NFCI permits images for identification of the stamp alone without critical commentary, (non-free content, images) 3. "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." This guideline was simply dismissed out of hand in the prior discussions as "not policy". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, all very reasonable points. Give me some time to review the precedents and then I'll probably make a WP:BOLD profusely illustrated article-start for some appropriate contemporary issue (there are loads I would like to do - for example the 2010 Abstract Expressionist Issue) and this would be a long term goal. I'm busy with Commons:Category:Charlotte Salomon at the moment, but when I get through that (some weeks at least, likely months) I will be back.


 * Meanwhile let me know of any of your posts you would like support. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your semi-retirement versus full-retirement, I hope all goes well for you.

I checked an editor who did me the courtesy of notifying my Talk of deletion of the Puerto Rico Flag USPS template image...So it seems the take-away is a simple misconstruing the reasonable restriction against multiple use of the same fair use image in multiple articles --- to mean an unreasonable, self-imposed restriction against multiple fair use images used in the same article.

I mean to try again at some point sooner than later to place the USPS 500th anniversary of Columbus landing at Puerto Rico alongside the Spanish colonial 400th anniversary...perhaps with commentary if I can find it from a scholarly source? That seems to me an unfair burden, comparing the two is a self-evident juxtaposition, to meet the requirements of a general readership, but I suppose it would be construed as Original Research were one to object?

Only if editors persist in thinking that Puerto Rico on stamps is not itself a legitimate topic for an online encyclopedic article --- among those articles addressing video games and TV series plots based on trade magazine "third party sources". This note is not for immediate action, only contemplative rumination in semi-retirement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cheers, TVH. I did restore an image at Tintin postage stamps. I really can't see what the problem is with illustrating each and every stamp there. It's really a shame. I doubt anything will happen soon to change the culture at NFCR. It's interesting that business with the File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg got closed with a delete. I don't think there was anything like consensus for that. Just Masem and a few cronies telling us what to do.


 * I'm just going to edit my core content (visual arts) here for a while and there's another possible controversy I might have to spend some time on. Let me know of progress. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC on USPS stamp usage
There is an RfC concerning USPS stamp usage, at WP Media copyright questions. It asks, Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3? Please join in.

I understood that that was the proper venue for a general discussion, versus discussion of a particular image. An editor, Werieth, has suggested he will close the RfC as he objects to it being placed there. If so, I will try another venue, and let you know where it ends up. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi TVH. I'll look in and watchlist it, and certainly contribute eventually. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm reconciled that nothing is going to happen soon, and this second attempt may not be successful, so do not "bust a gut" trying to chime in on this one attempt if it is not the right time for you to do so yet.


 * But I know I am writing a better product since three weeks ago, and I am developing a better understanding of the non-free content policies. Thanks for your encouragement, good health to you.


 * You might enjoy History of Virginia on stamps, just for the visual of it before the colonial Capitol gets the axe, it's been fun putting together, and coming current since 1978 would just be the icing on the cake, about 10-12 for this article eventually, or about 10% of the article scope. The article is organized first in a chronological section, which actually might be a resource for schools teaching a course in Virginia, or US & Va history, or early U.S history --- then topical Big Ideas and landmarks, finally the topical Virginia's presidents.


 * See also Territories of the United States on stamps and Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps --- where Masem helped me secure four USPS commemoratives with out-of-copyright art. Enjoy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I contributed, but in the course of contributing my edit the thread was closed by User:Werieth. I suugest you take him to ANI. This was my response:


 * Support 100% per TheVirginiaHistorian. My worry about the folk at NFCR is that they run a cartel with attitude. Just about everything I wanted to do with contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary visual arts I can't, or at least am no longer prepared to essay given the hassle with the NFCR mission guardians, steam lords of the Wikimedia Foundation yeah right. Ultimately our only recourse is to vote with our feet. I'm not contributing any more, or at any rate as I did substantially at say Little Girl in a Blue Armchair, until these folk have been sorted (good) and it's once more worth the trouble of my time contributing.
 * There are US stamp issues I would like to write article starts for, the Modern Art in America 1913–1931 issue or the Abstract Expressionism issue for example, but that's not going to happen until I can feel confident about uploading fair use images of each of these stamps, as expressly allowed by USPS for educational and cataloguing purposes, without having to go to court about it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep me posted. Incidentally your articles are excellent, TVH. I do hope all this is eventually settled and these folk topic-banned or whatever it takes to get rid of them. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Civility
Hello, I'm PatGallacher. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Peaches Geldof that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered your Talk page per below;
 * Hi Pat. Was that you who made the edit about the cause of death of the party we are discussing? If so indeed I regret my incivility in your case, whose edits I generally admire, though I'm surprised that it was you making the edit. This was not a even so much as a breaking news story. It was an 'exclusive', a leak from a report for a coroner's court with all the legal baggage that might carry. It was also an intrusion on the privacy of the party's family. A Murdoch paper, a group responsible for, amongst other things, hacking the telephone of a murdered teenager, might feel comfortable or hardened enough to run the story, but Wikipedia shouldn't be running this kind of sensationalist stuff. At best, if it's really notable, after the event: "Previously the British newspaper The Times had published a leaked version of the report ...".


 * I did mean to be uncivil to the editor involved here. I do feel comfortable and hardened enough about that and I'm going to carry on regardless because I can't fucking help it (excuse the Brit), sorry. However I'm chastened if it was you that made the edit. You don't strike me as a delicate flower, Pat.

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Including USPS nfc stamp images
This discussion directly bears on your primary interests. And there is another section on the same page on NFC #8 amendment proposed by Masem which relates, with informed debate.

You may be interested in the articulate discussion between two administrators, Jheald (pro) and Masem (con) on the subject of including USPS stamp images in topical philately articles at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63. Survey. Support. Coat of Many Colours. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up TVH. I probably shall contribute, but I want to study the argument carefully between the two admins you mention. Masem is not actually very knowledgeable about copyright issues, his paricular schtick is his claim that he is "tasked" by the Wikimedia Foundation to protect its mission and it's really there that we should be carrying the argument. Otherwise he just repeats himself endlessly and pointlessly, descending into illiteracy that simply can't be construed when finally cornered (over the SVG nonsense for example or the claim that the Wikimedia Foundation would have to rewrite its mission to allow a particular NFC concessions requested) and we know that he's not beneath resorting to the NPA card in time of need. I think he's very problematic and I do think he and his cartel are harming the project. Eventually they will screw up over some issue or other, but I fear it won't be over the USPS and they won't be budged meantime. I also frankly lack the commitment to argue the toss endlessly with a bunch of adolescents, I mean I just can't be arsed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see I can usefully contribute anything more. It's exactly as I say above. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added a note about my position at the top of the page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If this one fails, regardless, I am going to acquire the Encyclopedia of US stamps and stamp collecting, which is used extensively by the National Postal Museum, Arago online. This is one hobby of several, the purchase will delay the purchase of the next flowering crabapple tree on the retirement budget. The point is to improve the narrative on the ten USPS stamps in this article to meet additional (non-policy) artistic and postal expectations.


 * A principal point at issue here is what exactly is "contextual significance" for different articles as it relates to NFCC #8. So, the draft presentation I am working on says, with the help of Donner60 who will not be joining the RfC to avoid challenges about canvassing, is,


 * Contextual significance relates to the article topic, particular kinds of stamps. These stamps show people and events of Virginia history. Events are described to establish notability, otherwise it is a collection of stamps as art, without meaning or context in Virginia history. I am identifying the stamp and the historical context in which it is issued, not the event shown on it.


 * There is an alternative online encyclopedia which you might enjoy contributing to, I can't remember its name but it was founded by a group of editors leaving WP. Contributions are vetted before posting. In any event I think hobbies like this are important for intellectual engagement, slows the aging process and dementia and all kinds of good things, so do not let the bastards get you down. Pretend like the bumper sticker says, "I don't get angry, I take a pill for that." Good health. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Liked the pill :). I do hope you win your struggle. I shall probably hobble along here a while. Possibly I was over-invested. Your very good health. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack at Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius and off-wiki at Wikipediocracy. Thank you. Helen Online  10:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied there as below:


 * I am sorry I have offended Helen. I thought we had a good relation as evidence this interaction.
 * To set the scene here, Helen came to the Oscar Pistorius article on 15 February 2014, the day after Oscar Pistorius shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp and did valuable service correcting POV edits, including numerous edits to the effect either that Pistorius had admitting murdering Steenkamp or that he shouldn't be assumed guilty of shooting her until proved otherwise. In the end she became one of the article's most prolific contributors. As for me I've been editing since November and interesting myself in the Pistorius trial article since its inception. Mostly I contribute to the visual arts.
 * My experience of Wikipedia has been mixed. Contributing to the visual arts means you are likely to run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's copyright overseers. Indeed I did and eventually I complained I felt harassed by one especially punctilious overseer. It happened that an ANI was opened at Commons about this particular editor and I contributed. One of the editor's supporters then referred to me in a post at Wikipedioacracy, a fact I discovered accidentally on a Google search regarding the editor in question. I signed in on mu Wikipedia account name and defended myself. Thus my own introduction to Wikipedioacracy. There are other Wikipedia editors, including administrators and bureaucrats, who contribute at Wikipedioacracy. It maintains the same standards as does Wikipedia regarding personal attacks. I'm not aware that I've been accused of making one there.
 * I recused myself from the Oscar Pistorius trial article after I could not get agreement about the merits of a particular edit and retired my account. I had made it clear on my Talk page for some time I intended to close the account once I had finished editing at the Pisorius trial. Equally I had made it clear there that I wasn't prepared to enter into edit wars and the like.
 * On reflection I returned, noticing that the edit I complain of has still not been balanced. I contacted all the editors involved, including Helen setting out my position and a proposal. Helen said that she wasn't prepared to get involved any further, the other editors (including the originating editor) supported me, basically telling me to go ahead.
 * I don't know what the trigger really is for Helen's ANI here. I propose to continue as I suggested I shall(i.e. edit tomorrow evening along the lines suggested). If that turns out to be unacceptable then I shall retire from editing at the article. I don't have any problem with that.
 * The "personal attack" (in Wikipedia) is an old charge. I didn't see it had any real validity at the time. Of course I've been uiters versigtig since not to give offence. I'm aware that I'm something of a bully when it comes to the written word (total wimp real life syndrome, familiar thing) and I do tread carefully because of it. Wikipediocracy however is a good laugh and I do charge in joyously there on all fives brandishing my mojo thing right left and centre up anything that comes my way.
 * As for "admitting" IP editing (is that a crime?) I do edit IP quite often by mistake. I share my computer and can't maintain an auto login and I sometimes simply forget to log in and don't notice the alert. I do wish we could have a beep as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived to archive 838 at this diff apparently, but I can't see it in the archive. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There now. Odd that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans F. K. Günther, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgian (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) 08:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Bot. Fixed. You're a useful little botty - not like some I know :) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've noticed a whole lot of busy little botties at work out there for me. Thanks for that. Appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Race Riot (Warhol), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Moore and Acrylic (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) 08:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bot. Fixed. Another useful little botty. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

TOR
Is AIUI blocked from editing (where it is identified) but not from reading. The same applies to open proxies (again AIUI). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Cheers, Rich. Didn't notice you here, always welcome. Thanks for this. TOR instant death for me I'm afraid, but I confess to dabbling with VPN now and then :) ... Your very good health. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a previous account?
Your first edit seems rather accomplished for a brand new editor... Spartaz Humbug! 12:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what I'm doing. Go away. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So I can take it from this that you have so the next question is whether your previous account had any restrictions or blocks? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 12:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally that first "edit" was just a copy of an article I placed in my sandbox, so that I could emulate it for a planned article I still haven't completed (and that mainly because of the absolutely amazing hassle new editors receive from types like you). You will find plenty of examples of noobishness there Sherlock as I struggle with the citation model I wanted to emulate. In conclusion go away a lot further. Don't bother coming back. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice you're the nominating editor at an AfD I'm contesting Articles_for_deletion/Incest_in_popular_culture_%282nd_nomination%29. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pixar Production Logo (0.1 MP reduction).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Pixar Production Logo (0.1 MP reduction).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just delete it, Stefan. It was the well known logo everyone knows and sees at the start of one of the Pixar films, and it's certainly the production studio's logo (what in fact Google shows, or rather did show because it's a different version when I check now). However the folk who own the relevant pages think their 'free' text logo is better, and I can't be arsed to argue the toss. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp
As you might notice by the fact that I'm responding now (-: I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia right now but I'll answer your question as best as I remember. The reason why the templates contain this wording is that whether a work is fair use or not depends on four factors.  The first is the purpose and character of the use.  Restricting use of an image of a stamp to discussing a stamp means that the image is likely being used for the purposes of criticism or commentary.  A court would see these uses as transformative (i.e. more likely to be fair use).  On the other hand, using an image of a stamp to illustrate the subject of the stamp may be more likely to be seen as derivative (i.e. not so likely to be fair use).  The second and third are irrelevant to the template wording.  The fourth is the effect of the use on the potential market.  If we allow use of a stamp to illustrate anything, we may be competing with postal services (e.g. I know that Canada Post has issued books about Canadian history, illustrated with pictures of postage stamps; a history article illustrated with stamps could be seen as competition), which would not be good for a claim of fair use. Restricting use of the stamp for discussion about the stamp does not have that drawback and might even be seen as increasing the market for the stamp itself, which would be good for a claim of fair use. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 03:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi JY. Thanks for responding here.
 * I enquired originally because I was interesting myself at the time about the applicability of the Fair Use criteria for stamps. While I can understand the distinction between an image and the event it depicts in the case of photos and the need to avoid competing with the commercial interests of photograph agencies, I couldn't see that Wikipedia can be considered as competing with postal services, whose primary business after all is the delivery of commercial packages (though I agree that postal history itself, as you suggest in your forth case dealing with competition above, would be a grey area). So I think that's an artificial distinction. Thus in the Peace Bridge article, mention is made of a dual American-Canadian commemorative stamp. The Americam stamp is illustrated with a fine Commons image because US stamps are not copyright until 1978. But the Canadian stamp is in copyright and is not illustrated with even a Fair Use image because of this artificial distinction. That's pretty lame frankly.
 * I've found it pointless arguing with the Fair Use concession at Wikipedia. Of its two principal protagonists, Keepers of the Great Seal of the Wikipedia Foundation, one is overly authorative and not disposed (evidently equipped) to argue beyond yes/no assertions, while the other, plainly juvenile, will argue until the end of time over the most self-evident issues. I just can't be arsed. No-one likes being told what to do like this. For me, main area visual arts, it means that most of what I wanted to do with my account I can't in fact do, or at any rate any longer feel enthused about doing it. I did carry a note about that at the top of my page a while ago. At the moment I'm travelling and not always able to safely edit at my Talk page because of local prejudices against social media sites such as Wikipedia. When I return I shall reinstate the notice.
 * Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My god Hafs! have you installed a cam on my Talk page? - I was just drunkenly contemplating a pasta supper when I saw your suggestion. I think I'll go for pesto. Expect no feedback next eight or so hours. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No. it is not a cam, it were little angels who told me where you were and what you were doing... Hafspajen (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as they're not devils ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Naughty, naughty, don't paint them where you don't wan't them... Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How was your dinner? Did you had any bacon with it? Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't really remember, a possibly disturbing feature of my late night suppers I should be doing something. I did offer the butcher a tenner for a decent spot of bacon, but he wasn't having anything of it. The price of food these days. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't remember YOUR SUPPER? Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Breakfast then?

Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite a lot more calorific then I'm allowed these days. Tissot I don't know at all well though I do know the Cobb Arms quite well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks better now. Tissot. Hafspajen (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Try nominating this one then, if you feel partiotic. File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg. I am not going to do it, because I don't really care for this kinds of subjects, but at least it is a good artwork... Hafspajen (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK; forget it, it is nominated already. Hafspajen (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, wait a minute it is only on commons, than you can actually nominate it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course that's a very famous and gorgeous painting I love, whereas frankly I think the Cristy sucks. But I shan't nominate it because it's not really in my expertise (for lack of a better word offhand).Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OH, you monkey. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is Hafs that whether you or I like a particular painting or not is neither here nor there when it comes to considering the merits of an image of it as a Featured Picture. And in this case I'm aware that very many Americans, I would say the greater majority of them, admire this painting for (again for lack of a better word offhand) patriotic reasons. So that needs to be respected as well. But it's true the lack of detail is a cogent issue here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WEll, then I can actually tell you  a thing, that you probably did't thought about...  I LIKE that picture. But it is not god enough, not for a Featured Picture. Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You couldn't tell ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Näääää ... Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But I mean, what shall I do? If I really think it not a great artwork, even if I like ( and I do) it I can't say that it is. This picture is not represented among the art histories great works, nor the artist. It may have its merits as a partiotic picture, but the file qualty is not great. I hope I am not hurting peoples feelings. Hafspajen (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all I think you probably are hurting people's feelings. I don't mean that in any serious way, but the fact of the matter is that most of us who edit at Wikipedia do so as a hobby, so yes it's a blow when obstacles are raised in the way of our projects. It may be that I'm misunderstanding the Feature Pictures criteria WP:FP?, but I don't think I can be. FP just isn't about great artwork. It's about images that have EV, and in the case of artwork that will normally mean it's achieved some degree of recognition as great artwork. But that need not always be the case, the current example being just such a case. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I imagine that it can be this way, and I am sorry. But we still have to keep up a certain quality - otherwise why Featured Picture? It should't be easy and just for please every nominator's picture that was nominated to be declared as Featured Picture. It really should be really the best quality found. And you are doing quite well... You already have succeded. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do think the criteria for art work should be upped somewhat. Google Art Project means that we have a plethora of images > 2.25 MP available. But the curious thing is that many of those images are, so to speak, stopped down in quality. The museums have released high resolution images to Google Art Project, but not always at the highest quality they have available. Similarly the National Art Gallery of Washington, for example, has made much of making high resolution images available, but don't make them available at ultra-high resolution, as is the case with Fragonard's Woman Reading you nominated (a painting I do like incidentally - I only wish Manet's painting of the same subject was available at high resolution). So I would agree with you that it should be the best quality found certainly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, not always at the highest quality they have available. Hafspajen (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But I wouldn't support any change right now. Just a guest for the time being. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hate you disappearing. Hafspajen (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bit of a gadfly. But I'll always take an interest. I do thinks it's a very worthwhile project. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Olalala, now don't take pride in that one, hey there. You had a couple very clever points, you know that? And you are good at finding all kinds of interesting sites to complement discussions! Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (Have you heard about this one, Gadfly ethics?)
 * Well thanks, just a hobby. Expect to be a bit busy again the next few days, so shan't be looking in very often. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that... (Have fun...) Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Berthe Morisot With a Bouquet of Violets
Nice girl, this one, no? File:Geena Davis talks gender in media (9922589823).jpg - my favourite. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know Geena Davis at all well apart from her role inThelma and Louise, which I only saw once. I have real difficulty these days in getting through films at a single sitting, and I seem to have developed a taste for the Marvel universe, not exactly Citizen Kane is it? ... not sure Geena would be fantastically chuffed at being called a nice girl, боже мой ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * yeah, yeah - intelligent girl? Smart? Good looking? Talented? With lots of undiscovered possibilies? Witty? Hafspajen (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A mysterious creature
Thanks! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

.
So, well done, Coat of Many Colours ! Listen here, why on earth should we delete this one? Nice guy and sourced. What's the point? Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look Hafs, but the last time I joined in an AfD drama I got oversighted by an admin ... I told him to be off with himself in the nicest sort of way. If had done that in a nasty sort of way, as my instinct is very wont indeed, I probably wouldn't be here. Have a look later tonight. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, be careful. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Had a look. I don't see how I can credibly make a contribution as I don't normally edit in those sort of areas. I did create a stub BLP a few months for a prize-winning South African journalist and novelist Margie Orford and was astonished to find the stub templated for notability. There are evidently editors out there who take notability very seriously indeed. I think I'll pass on this one, but right I do think the nominating editor should show good faith and mind his own business. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think the same. That one and I had our dusting ihop on different issues, you know, sugar. Well, that's life... Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And anyway... .Hafspajen (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Takes me way back. Shared with all the family. Thanks for those. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, HATE that picture. Not everything that is van gogh is gold, I say. Now I am not going to vote more for a while just to avoid it. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which picure Hafs? The new version of Almond Blossom or the Roots I nominated at FPC? If it's the new Almond Blossom let me know and I'll restore your version and upload the other as a new file. Do it tomorrow once I hear from you. If it's Roots that's my favourite van Gogh. You don't have to vote for it! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nä. Not Roots, the Skull. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah of course. I loathe it too, but it is amusing. Crazy Vinnie had a sense of humour after all. BTW I just reverted Almond Blossom back to your version. I'll do the Tiles as a separate file tomorrow. Watching the football tonight! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my Good, isn't ready yet? Who is winning? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - did you changed the picture? You should have done that as an ALT. This is not the same picture any more. What happened? Hafspajen (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallo? That picture looks different now... Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope I changed it back to Crisco's trimmed file. I had problems reverting and in the end I just downloaded and re-uploaded his version. If it's not right Hafs, then just do whatever it takes to make it right. Sorry about that, just wasn't thinking. I'll check it tomorrow night and make my my own separate file for my VGM version, leaving your nominated version and its links alone. Its colour might indeed be better. It's not really a painting I know well. Football was brilliant. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not the same - and I don't know how to fix it either. Who won? Hafspajen (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I THINK Crisco fixed that. Now you must be very nice with Crisco, he is a great guy, promise that? I the main time I just go into isolation and eat grass like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus . Or maybe rather like Diogenes ... go back to my dogs. Hafspajen (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I uploaded the right Crisco file. I checked. What happened was that you probably saw my VGM version first. In truth there's no real colour difference between the two. It's just that our eyes are incredibly sensitive to colour. When you saw it reverted back to your 'pale' version you remembered the VGM darker version and no longer see it as pale as you originally saw it. I reverted the VGM version partly out of deference to those who voted for the original, but mainly because the file was no longer a Google file as the header describes it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I paint, draw and I am actually an artist, even if nobody belives that, anyway. You ain't much worth as an artist if you can't notice the difference between to shades. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I can discern the difference between the shades.But what we see is greatly influenced by what we remember and expect. The next time you look at something black on your TV examine it carefully. How black is it? As black as black can be? Well yes. But then how can that really be? Your TV image is back-lit. Switch it off. That screen's now not black, it's grey and nothing you see when it's switched on can in truth be blacker than that grey, as you can confirm by waiting for a reasonably large patch of black and then looking through with hands suitably ssreened to cut of the rest of the picture. That 'black' is now a light grey. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stopped wathing TV like in 2009, Coaty - I don't like the adds. read books instead. If you are about to find better files, why not try this one, and this. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't be getting on with the pre-Raphaelites I'm afraid. Solid Turner man me. There's a film out about him. Be sure to catch it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If IHafspajen (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) know you... ha.


 * It was the "like in 2009" above that worried me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where? Ah, what's wrong with stopping watching TV in 2009? Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One rather had no choice at the time, but I'll let you off just this once Hafs. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh. I would't bother about what happened in 2009, water under the bridge, new times. Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

... Bullshit. Hafspajen (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, let's forget 2009. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Solid Turner man me. What? Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Joseph Mallard. Doing my drinking now for this evening and I'm also about to engage myself in a project to remove Craquelure from iamges of oil painting. It's time I made my mark on humanity. I may be away for a while as I thrash out an algorithm. I do have some quite good ideas I think. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

.
I like that picture and I don't like what you are doing on that nomination. Please stop. Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You just won't see the point. But right, there's no point in continuing to interact over it. If I see nominations like this I will oppose citing inauthenticity as reason and shan't otherwise comment unless provoked to. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am trying to explain things too, and you won't see the point - my point either. Nobody is provoking you. You may win the war, but might loose something else.  Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to loose but my genius (would that it could have been my virginity a great deal more)... you must know that you have overstayed your welcome here by now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you have replaced your kisses. Thank you, and now go away and don't bother me again. I'm not long for this world and I want to pick and choose who I spend my remaining time with. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Magdalene College Dining Hall, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg
I've edited out the lens flares. See if you think it's good enough. I have a PNG version so can go back if I miss anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked good to me. I changed my vote to Support either, Alt preferred. It's one of those flaws frankly I wouldn't have noiuced, but once noticed it does irritate and best edited out I think. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=621205023 your edit] to Portrait of Doña Isabel de Requesens y Enriquez de Cardona-Anglesola may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * di Psiche'' at the Villa Farnesina in Rome. Her loose hair, the red garments the colour of love for Petrach, and her meeting the viewer's gaze are all sensuous details;


 * Cheers BB. Fixed. I love you very deeply, by the way. I just wanted to let you know that. Let it not be said that I am untouched by warmer sentiments. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)