User talk:Fæ/2018

License question on an IWM image
Nikkimaria is questioning the license on one of your uploaded images from the IWM because it's part of the Symonds & Co collection. She's suggested changing it to UK-unknown in my MilHist A-class review, but I thought you might have an opinion on whether that might be appropriate or not. Please respond there whenever you get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been recovering from 'flu. I was going to look at this in some detail as I remember thinking about Symonds & Co specifically, it may have come up in a copyright question or DR, but I'm unsure. PD will be correct, but there is probably more detail on how Symonds & Co were commissioned during the war. Today I have to catch up with other things, my first day of going outside to do stuff, but may have some time tomorrow. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I never even considered that they might have been commissioned to take ship portraits, which would be an interesting twist on things. Hope that you continue your recovery; this isn't particularly urgent so whenever you can find time is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, a poke around revealed nothing definitive, though the company was probably the one based in Portsmouth. The IWM has a collection with this name, of which 585 photographs are published online. Symonds & Co. appear active well before WW1, but not afterwards. Due to the history of photographs pre-WW1, it seems logical that these are not photographs taken for the Crown, so expired Crown copyright is incorrect. However as all attribution is to the company, rather than a named individual, it seems safe to apply the 70 year rule to the creation date, making PD-UK-unknown a suitable license. A simple search on Commons shows that 170 photographs may be affected and could be improved this way.
 * Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, thank you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Veteran
Thank you for uploading the photo and info about the Veteran (locomotive), which has been reformatted to an article today. NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and The Prosperity Special. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

New articles
You might be interested in seeing 3 new articles based on photos and information that you have scanned:
 * Neversink Mountain Electric Railway
 * Atami Jinsha Tetsudo
 * Hose bridge --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! --Fæ (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and another set of five articles:
 * Electric railway of the White Knob Copper Co.
 * Hot Springs Street Railroad
 * Evansville and Eastern Electric Railway
 * Walsh, Lovett and Co.
 * Schneider's Combination Cars--NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you know...
...that the 'Willauer Box' was part of Civil Air Transport, as it says on the photo that you kindly uploaded? Thank you for making these photos available to Wikipedians. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Ferguson
Bravo. Much better sourcing than the original version! Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Toby Young
Sorry, Fae, were you saying that my claim that I hadn't seen some of the replies was spin (implying falsehood)? All I can do is to reiterate that it was true. Anyway, the fact that I still think the current working violates the 'neutral point of view policy' suggests there's not complete consensus on this point. Here's a new suggestion re. the Young article: we can represent both sides of the argument, that his comments were misogynistic and that they weren't, thus allowing readers to make their own minds up (and not violating Wikipedia policy). I'll make a new edit along those lines now and you can tell me what you think. Cheers. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Fae, this is just to let you know that I've made a request for mediation over the Toby Young article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_mediation_in_a_dispute_over_the_article_on_Toby_Young Cheers, Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Toby Young. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) (Not watching this page)

A page you started (Arnaud Valois) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Arnaud Valois, Fæ!

Wikipedia editor GeoffreyT2000 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Needs history merge from Draft:Arnaud Valois."

To reply, leave a comment on GeoffreyT2000's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Arnaud Valois a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Arnaud Valois. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As an ex sysop, I look forward to hitting 10 edits on the way back. --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status of a painting in the National Maritime Museum?
I haven't been able to decipher the copyright status of Nmm nmmg bhc0686 large(2).jpg which is held by the National Maritime Museum. It's by Norman Wilkinson who spent time during the Second World War as an official war artist, though there's no information about when it was painted on the Museum's website. It does say that it's copyright by Wilkinson's estate which pretty much rules out Crown copyright and he hasn't been dead anywhere long enough for it to fall out of copyright. Please advise.

And is there a general rule about the copyright status of non-artistic photographs held by the NMM? Are they governed by Crown copyright?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)