User talk:Nthep/Archive 9

Rescuing the New Age page
Dear Nthep,

Thank you for rescuing the intro. to the New Age page.

I am one of the people who has not only made substantive additions to this page over the las two years, bu who has sought to protect it from a small army of vandals, ideological combatants, and sock-puppeteers. (The subject matter inexorably brings them out, I guess.)  I no longer have the time for this, and I sense that others have also fallen away.

Do you have the stature to get this page "protected" from those who are not properly registred on Wikipedia? If so, it is probably in Wikipedia's interest for you to do so. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, no problem sorting the vandalism out. Looking at the history of the page, I don't think it's frequent enough to warrant any sort of protection.  But that's only my opinion, you should make a request  at Requests for page protection to see if an admin who specialises in these type of requests has a different view. NtheP (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I actually did make a similar request, less than a year ago, to Requests for page protection regarding another page I've done a great deal of work on - Radical center (politics) - and received a reply very similar to yours.  Maybe things just look / feel different when you're an older contributor.  I will stop trying to wish Wikipedia were anything other than the wonderful, innovative, 21st-century endeavor it is now. - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your reply at WP:THQ
The message that you had problems with was because you included ref tags without surrounding the with nowiki tags. Unterminated ref tags cause subsequent text to be hidden. I added nowiki tags, but by the time I wanted to save it you had deleted the original. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Images by Prathamprakash29
Hi: On 1 November you deleted several images uploaded by this user as lacking evidence of permission. They all relate to New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary and included File:Top view of New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary.jpg, which was also deleted at Commons by Dianaa as lacking evidence of permission, but which he has subsequently re-uploaded, and File:Library of NRSJPS.jpg, which so far as I can see no one else has objected to and is in the article right now. (I may however have missed it in the long list of his deleted contributions here, and I can't see his deleted contributions at Commons). He has also uploaded multiple times File:Taekwondo classes at NRSJPS.jpg, which I was the latest person to delete - it's a copyvio of this. My question is, do you still think we should scrub the library picture? Despite the user's continuing re-uploads of at least one copyvio image and of images with no evidence of permission, the rest of us seem to be extending good faith to that one. And also, I have reinstated File:Yoga classes at NRSJPS.jpg in the article because unlike the others it has metadata supporting the user's claim of having taken it himself, and so far as I can find, no one else has deleted it. (It was redlinked because he muffed the syntax when he added it to the page.) It certainly is not from the same set as the Taekwando image, but I wouldn't know how to search beyond that and forget who first identified that source - it may have been at Commons. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is always possible they have started to learn. Until it can be established that it's definitely a copyvio, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and AGF.  His lack of responses to anyone doesn't help but I think we should let it go until there is proof.  NtheP (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, good, we're on the same page; that's why I put the yoga one back. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Other RMS Titanic surviors articles
Hallo. About the question of Vera Dick and Titanic, I report to you that Thenick777 is creating two other articles. I've copyedited Alice Cleaver and tagged it per notability. The article Léontine Pauline Aubert (that could be more notable) still now has no content (only the infobox) and no refs. The name is also wrong (but valid as redirect): the correct one is Léontine Pauline Aubart (as said here). Well, I just to inform you to request an eventual help for further actions. Imho, the articles should not be deleted (even if not notable) but, as for Vera Dick, redirected. My suggestion is a redirect to the page Passengers of the RMS Titanic, in which they are listed. Note: I don't revise notability about Alice Cleaver. Thanks for attention and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've redirected both articles (and the redirect) here. In the first case the notability is not revised, in the second one the author left the page without any content (apart the infobox). The one I've added for copyedit reason is not sufficient to revise notability or not. I hope it could be the better technical solution by now about this pages. If I was wrong, feel free to revert my edits. I've also linked to Thenick777 a pair of guidelines about notability and "MOSBIO". Sorry for disturb, maybe as admin, also involved into the Vera Dick case, you could control this issue better than me. Again, regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for not replying sooner. I think you've done the right things by redirecting and pointing the editor in the direction of the notability guidleines.  Being a survivor of the Titanic is not a good enough reason on it's own for an article. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting
You deleted the images again without discuss or even notifying the restoring admin in question? Did you review the previous discussion? The user has provided ORTS permission for another image. Both images are published by the exact same person. Image was tagged that OTRS permission is pending. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2013
Delivered November 2013 by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

HMS Barracouta
The Kent County Council website is down at the moment. Will be on to it as soon as I can. Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Westinghouse_Solitude.jpg
Greetings. Just trying to get the hang of posting an ancient (~1890) picture on a wiki page I am upgrading. As a newbie to Wikipedia, I am finding the Wikipedia-specific syntax and procedures obscure and the documentation nearly impenetrable. The picture in question was used in a 2006 newspaper article (source path given with the picture, possibly with the wrong brackets/keywords/format). But certainly the newspaper is not the first to use this photograph. It has been floating around in various newsletters, pamphlets, articles, for about a century. The newspaper article cited did not separatly cite a copyright for this picture, so any sin that has been committed has been committed many times before. Thus, I think there should be no problem with blessing this picture to be shown in Wikipedia as PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said on you talk page, there are two important dates, the date of creation and the date of first publication.  The public domain/copyright status depends and can vary on what both of these are.  That no copyright was claimed on the most recent use is not the point.  If you want to upload the image, it's beholden on you to positively establish that the image is out of copyright or in the public domain for some other reason, lack of proof that it is still in copyright isn't enough.  These aren't complexities introduced by Wikipedia but by US  copyright law.  If you can find a source that shows that the image was published prior to 1923 then fine, the problem goes away immediately but you have to find that source.  That there may have been many previous breaches of copyright doesn't make any difference either (Two wrongs do not make a right).  Find the oldest publication that you can where this image appears and we can check out what that makes the copyright status. NtheP (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Thanks for the tips. Of course, proving a negative can be very difficult, if not impossible. Establishing the early publishing provenance of an obscure 100+ year old photograph may well be fruitless. The best-quality version of this photo I have found is the one I posted, taken from the pages of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article cited, dated 2006. Note that such a newspaper is a professional organization that must worry about copyright issues all the time, more so than the amateur operation that is Wikipedia. They published it without attribution. To me, that is enough of a scholarly foundation to include the picture, citing the newspaper as the source. Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's divorce some of the issues here. The version of the image used doesn't have to be the oldest published so there is nothing stops the version you have uploaded being the one that stays as long as its PD status can be ascertained.  To do that, what is the earliest date of publication that you can find?  Why do you believe the photo dates from around 1890? - can you be anymore precise about the year?  Put those two dates together and refer to this chart and the appropriate licence can be worked out.  On what you have said at the moment, it's either 95 years from 2006 or certainty that the image was made prior to 1893.
 * What other publishers do with their regard to US copyright law is irrelevant, if an image is going to be posted here stating that it is in the public domain then we want to be as certain as we can that is the case; "other have done it" is not an acceptable standard - as someone else has already pointed out to you - these are Wikipedia's rules about uploading free images. Neither is the risk (or lack thereof) being sued for copyright breach a relevant factor, there is no tolerance on this.
 * So please try and find some more information about the image, that is what will best help in keeping the image on Wikipedia. NtheP (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted the newspaper (the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) librarian directly and learned the following about this picture. The newspaper has in its possession the original of this photograph: it is in their photo archive, but they know they do not own it. Nor do they know who owns it. There are no markings on it that give a hint as to whether it ever was published before. Even though they published the image on May 2, 2006, they do not claim a copyright on the image; that explains why it was shown without attribution in the article. They have no paper trail for learning the provenance of the picture. For all we know, the article might have been the first-ever publication of this particular picture of the house, but again, they do not claim a copyright.

As for the date of the picture, it is a fact that it was demolished by the city in 1919 when it was a collapsing wreck. Westinghouse's heyday in that house was between about 1885 and 1900. This is the time period from which we think the picture must stem, since the pictured house is in fine shape. There is no date, unfortunately, affixed to the original. There are several other pictures of the same house in circulation, but as I mentioned, this is by far the best in quality. I recommend that Wikipedia "be bold" and leave it posted.

Finally, I would point out that you did not answer my question: Can you quote a specific passage in the US copyright law that would prevent this picture from being used in this situation? I would like to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty123uiop (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That the Post-Gazette doesn't think it owns the copyright on the image doesn't really help, except to remove the possibility that they did from the equation. That they have a good print of the image does tend to suggest that this is an anonymous image in which case copyright will expire either 95 years after date of first publication or 120 years from creation whichever date expires first.  Now by your estimate of when the house was at it's best means that copyright may have expired on January 1, 2006 or may not expire until January 1, 2021 and that's the problem.  Wikipedia is quite firm about this and where there is significant doubt applies the precautionary principle and goes for not hosting the images. The debate is about what is significant doubt, in this case that its possibly 7 years or more before this image is almost certainly a PD image.
 * Can I find a section in the US copyright act that allows for an image to be published when it's not known to be out of copyright? No I can't but then I wouldn't expect to.  The act defines what copyright is, how long it lasts and what remedies are available in the event of breach.  It is not a guideline of what to do in gray areas.  That is for each publisher to determine and Wikipedia chooses to have a very low alomst zero tolerance to allowing exceptions to proven PD status images. NtheP (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Coin images
Could you double-check the source source you added to File:Php coin 0.10 rev.png and other similar images? The PDF file seems to contain different photos of the coins, so our photos still seem to be unsourced and licensed. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They looked the same design and dates to me. NtheP (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly different photographs. Since coins are 3D objects, we need a source to the same photos as we are using, not to different photographs of the same coins. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it to FFD then. A source was provided originally, not an online one but they were sourced. NtheP (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The only source was for the coins, not for the photograph. You have to add a source for both, otherwise the images satisfy WP:CSD. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well now there is a source for images of the coins, why don't you upload those images as new versions, then everything is satisifed? NtheP (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion
You recently deleted an image after. It appears you have made an error. There was no clear consensus to support this deletion. You should replace the image immediately. Your closing comments show you have misunderstood the issues being discussed. If you feel it's necessary to further discuss the matter, then perhaps you should start a new discussion (as the last one had become deadlocked and stagnant). In the meantime, the image should remain with the article in question, where it has been for the last eight years. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well just on vote counting the count was 7:3 in favour of deletion, not that, that is the criteria the decision was based on. More to the point was I didn't see a valid fair use rationale in the discussion and as I said in the decision, the legal case was not about her appearance in the image, but the use of the image itself by Playboy suggesting that she had participated in a nude photoshoot.  That is not a discussion that requires an image to illustrate the point so NFCC#8 wasn't met. It's your perogative not to agree, in which case you should initiate a discussion at Deletion review. NtheP (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You should know that vote counting is not the way to decide discussions, but consensus-building; and there was no consensus in that thread. If you wanted to express your opinion about the dispute you should have stated it as a comment, not by closing the thread. Diego (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I know very well that vote counting is not the way to adjudicate deletion discussions and is not the way this discussion was closed. The comment above was merely an observation on the positions of those who contributed to the discussion. It was a policy based decision on the WP:NFCC. When the decision is delete or retain, what is consensus? Unanimity? If so then everything comes to a grinding halt as paralysis by analysis kicks in. I appreciate that not everyone is going to be satisfied with the outcome and that is why there is a process for reviewing the decision. I'm also aware that the first step in deletion review is to try and resolve with the closing admin and I thank you for following that process but other than rehashing the lines presented at the deletion discussion I'm not reading anything new so I decline to revert my decision and invite you to raise a review at WP:Deletion review, a discussion I will not participate in other than to reiterate the basis of my original decision. NtheP (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "It was a policy based decision on the WP:NFCC" - Other editors already cited NFCC, and if you had read the entire discussion, you would have seen that each NFCC argument was countered with a valid response, as the image does satisfy NFCC. If you had a new NFCC argument to make, you should have simply added it to the discussion. You should not have closed it, nor should you have deleted that image. There was no consensus for you to do so. Now I would urge you to reinstate that image (back into the Alba article as well), and reopen the discussion as well. (or start a new one). You had no cause to close and delete, and we shouldn't have to go thru deletion review because of this. - the WOLF  child  22:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume I didn't read the entire discussion and the article and the non free content discussion several times. I did, and my decision was based on considering NFCC after those readings.  You obviously don't agree with my assessment of this picture against the NFCC in which case you need to take this to deletion review. NtheP (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought the whole point of having discussions and reaching consensus was so that no one person could just arbitrarily and summarily make these decisions on their own, which is what you have appeared to have done here. Just what section of NFCC do you feel this image violates? Why did you not add that to the discussion so that others, who may disagree with you, may present an opposing view?


 * Also, you neglected to sign your comments above. I added an unsigned signature template for you. You then reverted me (!?), leaving the comment again without a signature. I asked you about this here, and I see you have deleted my question, without answering.
 * - Why are you insisting on having an unsigned comment?
 * - Why did you revert me, when I was simply helping you?
 * - Why did you delete my question without a response?
 * I don't want to make any assumptions other than this being a miscommunication. Could you clear this up, please? Thanks - the WOLF  child  00:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

All deletions are in the end the decision of a single person, having first considered the points raised in the deletion discussion and the relevant policies that apply. This discussion related to the use of a non free image to illustrate part of the article on Jessica Alba. The Non-free content policy is one of the most stringent policies on WP and for an image to be retained it has to meet all 10 of the criteria. I don't think that there are any issues remaining among the particpants in the discussion with nine of the criteria, the exception being NFCC#8. NFCC#8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." From the comments made and the text of the article page, the point was made that it was not how she looked in the image that was objected to but that Playboy used the image without her consent and its use implied that she had done a nude pictorial shoot for the magazine. Nowhere, including in your own spirited contributions, was the criteria addressed in how seeing the image siginficantly aids the reader's understanding of this issue and that words alone could not convey this. As "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This absence makes the NFUR defective and failing to meet all the crtieria of the NFCC. Hence a policy based decision to delete.

I did not, contrary to what you apparantly believe, adjudicate on the issue but on the discussion (as per Closing discussions, and on the discussion presented on what is primarily a policy based discussion I didn't think that the NFUR attached to the image and the discussion of the image in the article on Jessica Alba was sufficient to meet the NFCC. There's no personal opinion on the issue in this, it's about reading the discussion and closing on the content of the discussion.

As for the signatures, I prefer to sort my own omissions like that out in my own time. Thank you for pointing it out. NtheP (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yeadon railway station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yeadon and North Eastern Railway (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) 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NtheP (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
Books & Bytes Sign up for monthly delivery Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world. Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations... Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...  Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...  Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...   Read Books & Bytes , 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I can't seem to get it to do anything. Tried in User:ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ/sandbox. You can respond here if you prefer. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All good now! Thanks. ТНОМАЅ МАСКЕТ (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you know the wording you get from the template? - "Hello, I'm Nthep. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive . . ." - well if you don't subst the template then when someone else edits the page, the username at the beginning changes to the name of the most recent person to edit the page. Subst'ing the template stops that happening. NtheP (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Undeletion
I would like to request undeletion of these falling images that you deleted on May 3, 2013 as under the reasoning of F4. I would like to give you notice that under OTRS ticket number 2013120610014454, the copyright holder has released the image under the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and GFDL licensing. Thank you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The images are File:Photograph of copies of The Function of Form.jpg and File:Photograph of translated versions of the Function of Ornament by Farshid Moussavi.jpg. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All done - over to you. NtheP (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Elsa Image
So exactly what was the reason for its deletion and can i restore it again if i got the licensing right or etc.? Byzantinefire 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, if we're talking about commons:File:ElsaPose.png then as a picture of a Disney character it was violation of Disney's copyright. The best that could be achieved would be to upload the image to Wikipedia, not Commons with a non-free use rationale.  The criteria for non-free use can be found at WP:NFC but all 10 of the criteria have to be met.  For an example see the rationale used for another Disney character - File:Fa Mulan.jpg. NtheP (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzantinefire (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, leave me a note when you've done it and I'll check the rationale over for you. NtheP (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elsa_from_Disney%27s_Frozen.png#Summary Byzantinefire (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of things but should be good enough. NtheP (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Neil Aspinall stands in for George Harrison during rehearsal.jpg
The concern given was 'not only "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text", it has been'. Please can you explain your response: "does meet NFCC#8 which was listed concern"—it doesn't seem to make sense since "Could the subject..." is a quote from NFCC#1, not NFCC#8. Aquegg (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#1 more normally refers to the availability or not of a free image and I don't think either of us are contesting that a free image exists of this situation. The "adequately conveyed" text although quoted in that paragraph, surely, refers far more to the significance or context that the image adds to the article i.e. NFCC#8? In this case, I think that it does add significantly to the text as showing an actual rehearsal taking place. I'm more than amenable to reconsidering if you want to expand on why you think the text is enough. NtheP (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can add much more explanation: reading the article text, I understood that Aspinall stood in for Harrison during a camera rehearsal. I then looked at the picture, but my understanding of what had occurred was not increased at all, let alone significantly: the picture shows Aspinall standing where one might expect to see Harrison—no surprises or added clarity over the text. That the event took place is not in doubt or dispute—it is reliably sourced.  In any case, it's the job of the FUR to clearly address all 10 NFCC items, and the current FUR makes no statement as to why an image is necessary here. Aquegg (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as no one objected to the deletion proposal it's not my job to impose my opinion because I have the admin tools. Image has not been deleted. NtheP (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Royal Military Canal
Many thanks for the info. My source was Defence Area 36 - Royal Military Canal: Bilsington / Ruckinge, which says; "The infantry brigade defending 'T' and 'Z' Sectors during the critical invasion period of June-October 1940 was the 31st Independent Brigade Group. In October and November 1940, the infantry battalion defending the line of the Royal Military Canal in 'Z' Sector was the 1st Bn. Royal Ulster Rifles...". There's a footnote (5) which says; "There is no surviving War Diary for this brigade at The National Archives. It is possible it merged with the 131st Infantry Brigade which was replaced in this area by the 169th Infantry Brigade in February 1941. The 135th Infantry Brigade (of 45 Division) was also defending the Royal Military Canal in June 1940 - TNA: PRO WO 166/990 and TNA:PRO WO 166/4500." It all sounds a bit confused. My main aim was to establish whether it was correct to wikilink to 31st Brigade - it seems that the current link to an airborne brigade is not very helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking for the individual battalion war diaries? They might help. NtheP (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go if I have time over Christmas. In the meantime, I'll just de-link the RMC article. Many thanks for your input. Alansplodge (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2013
Delivered December 2013 by  ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

Thérèse
why did you initiate the process that has led to the deletion of all the best therese of lisieux images? were you made aware of some problem or did you just decide it was important ? Sayerslle (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, as I said in the deletion discussion, an OTRS ticket was submitted by the Office Central de Lisieux informing us that the images are not copyright free and askng that they be removed from Commons. Personally I agree with one of the people who commented on the discussion that it's a pity they had to go.  I can't see a problem with perhaps one of her being uploaded locally to WP as valid non free content. NtheP (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Yes it is very disappointing - the paintings of Therese look nothing like her, but I suppose are better than nothing. One last question please - If her sister Celine died in 1959, when will the photographs she took become copyright free? Oh , and if I tried to re-upload just one photo is my best argument , 'I think it is a valid use of non-free content as it is only image available of therese in the Lisieux Carmel available' - something like that? Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It gets quite difficult and depends on when the picture was first published but probably not before 2020 at the earliest (date of Celine's death plus 70 years). With regard to uploading one as non-free use you would need to use the rationale template Non-free use rationale something like this (assuming you use an image of her as a Carmelite)


 * Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. and I shall steal your arguments because it is exactly right that cameras were rare within enclosed convents at this time. Thérèse's sister Céline got special permission from the prioress to bring it with her when she became a nun. Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free, glad the suggestion is of use. NtheP (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My user page is true but my family left Headingley - Argie Avenue,  -  when I was two, and unfortunately I can't remember it - but I watch the Rhinos on TV when I can, an armchair supporter I'm afraid, though I have been to Elland Road quite a few times  - thanks again for your help with the Therese images. I will try and get one back I think. Sayerslle (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=586254361 your edit] to Victoria Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * other household names. The programme was transmitted on ITV1 on Wednesday 7 November 2007. Two Hit Music Network stations were also
 * NtheP (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=588583645 your edit] to The Queensbury Lines 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:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The terminus of the line, Halifax St Pauls was only 1.25 miles from the main station in Halifax but was {{convert|
 * NtheP (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian Hill
As long as it's properly referenced, and then explained in the talk page, then no issues. GiantSnowman 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We may have been looking at this at the same time.

You might want to look at my note, or see: User_talk:Alanyoung2154-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) The usual sequence is that the person who owns the copyright sends in a permission statement, and around the same time, but often later, User:Alanyoung2154 uploads the images, often using a different name, and the OTRS agent matches the images, and confirms the permission. I've wondered whether we should ask for a better process, but now that I largely understand it, I'm not inclined to push.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was wondering, but wans't sure hence the offer to do the upload for them. If Alan does the uplaod then fine, I'll go and confirm the licence afterwards. Nthep (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junior Félix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Day (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) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nthep (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2014 (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 Ronald Clair Roat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludington (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) 09:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nthep (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Mobile laboratory designed by WA Young.jpeg
You added an OTRS tag and additionally, but gfdl doesn't have any "cc3" parameter. Please check the page again. I assume that "cc3" means version 3.0 of some Creative Commons licence, but it is unclear which one. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also affected: File:Memorial fountain to Noguchi and Young.jpeg & File:Dr WIlliam Alexander Young.jpg --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn cc3 was a parameter for the GFDL, fixed anyway. Nthep (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)