User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2017/November

Williams tube revert
Mr. Corbett, calling me an "idiot" in the edit summary was uncalled-for. Your lack of civility is unwelcome. If you are feeling hostile toward other editors, you might consider stepping away from Wikipedia for a while and reconsidering what you are doing here. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 05:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you know what a factor is ? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , not to be snide, but do you know what an exponent is? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 07:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not try educating yourself instead of trying to defend your clearly ignorant edit? If you are unable to learn, then it is you who ought to be stepping away. Eric   Corbett  06:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please excuse this intrusion, but Corbett's edit is correct. Giants of Computing: A Compendium of Select, Pivotal Pioneers,Gerard O’Regan, page 268. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , if that was your only beef with my edit, why didn't you simply fix it and let me know, instead of reverting the whole thing? If you treat other editors rudely, don't be shocked if you are treated rudely in return.  Reverting edits wholesale because of a single error and not noting the reason or letting the responsible editor know most certainly can be considered to be "in bad faith". Now that the three-revert-limit has been reached in this instance, errors in that article are your responsibility and reflect unfavorably on your editing skills. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 07:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not just admit that you're wrong? That would at least go some way towards demonstrating that you're not the wrong-headed child you appear to be. Eric   Corbett  08:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Eric is right. Other sources showing the SSEM program calculated factors of 262,144 (or 2^18) : . You don't need a computer to calculate the factors of 2 - come on! Okay, it might have been rather blunt to refer to you as "idiot", but you made something factually incorrect with no edit summary explaining why - so what on earth did you expect? There's no point beating around the bush and dressing it up. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * (As an aside, since 218 = 2 x 217, the highest factor is 217. So you don't need a computer to find that either. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Obviously, but only if you know that. Presumably, the computer was supplied with 262,144, but not the fact that it was a power of 2. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (Back on subject) I'm not a big fan of calling anyone an "idiot". But if you choose to use rollback and characterize a correct edit as a "Bad-faith revert" you darn well better be right, or live with the consequences. How on earth could one possibly even think that a computer program was searching for the highest factor of 2? If you know what a factor is, you know it makes no sense. If you don't know what a factor is, why are you editing the sentence?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Some research today has revealed that the file is free use, so I'll be updating the licence shortly. Eric   Corbett  23:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Eric, could you share where you found the image under a creative commons license? As you mentioned the site itself has changed hands since then and I've been looking through the archives to see if I can verify the license without luck. It seems like the website was last taken over in late 2005. We just have to make sure that the image is being licensed correctly. The CC 3.0 license didn't come out until 2007, right at the tail end of that vehicle's production. So it may be one of the older licenses. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of emails from the site currently hosting the Stimson Sting image, allcarindex:
 * "Most photos are free for re-use. We do not claim copyrights for them, because our website is free community-based project. Please let me know which photos your are interested in and for which purpose."


 * "Fell free to use these photos. They are official photos from Stimson website when it was still available"


 * The cc-by-3.0 licence is my interpretation of the sense of the repies from allcarindex. But I could of course explicitly ask allcarindex for permission to use the cc-by-3.0 licence if you think that's necessary. Eric   Corbett  23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Free to use" could mean a lot of things. Does it mean public domain? My concern is that they don't know what free to use, and specifically the CC-BY license means. That allows anyone to use or modify the image for any reason, including commercial reuse. The commercial aspect is usually a sticking point for a lot of companies so if they do use a CC license they normally attach non-comm restrictions to it. It also raises questions as to whether or not allcarindex has the rights to tell you you can use the image. Assuming that Stimson Sting, specifically Barry Stimson, created the mock up they would own the rights to it and only they would be able to release it unless they transfer those rights to someone else. Being community based doesn't necessarily mean that they have the rights to the image itself. They could have taken it from Stimson themselves without permission (definitely possible if the company/website is no longer in business). Not quite sure how you want to proceed here but there are still some questions regarding this image that probably should be worked out. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll continue to do what I can to help resolve these issues. Eric   Corbett  00:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Stimson Storm.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stimson Storm.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stimson Sting 02.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

UK census data
Hallo Eric, I noticed that you tweaked a ref to the census without realising that the link was dead. Alarmingly we probably have thousands of dead links after ONS revamped their census data website. Data for parishes, wards, etc is now available from Nomis - go to https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report and input the placename. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography for more info. I've fixed Calverley. was developing a template for this but I'm not sure how far he got - possibly was still waiting for a reply from me? Pam D  23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, I was waiting for a reply from you before going any further, so had parked it while attempting to sort out some of the mess over English Heritage & Heritage England. Keith D (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's quite a problem. Eric   Corbett  01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)