User talk:Ww2censor/Archive12

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12

Copyright and notability
Hello ww2censor. The article Knut Glomsaas seems to be a translated and partially rephrased excerpt from the reference provided. All the facts contained in the article is also included in the reference, which is an article from the Trondheim-based newspaper Adresseavisen. Could this be a copyright violation? Would it also be one if the text or an excerpt of it were retold from memory in one's own words? The subject's notability has also been disputed. He is mentioned in Store norske leksikon in the article about military music as a well-known military musician. He also has an entry in Cappelens musikkleksikon (Cappelen's encyclopedia of music). I would think this indicates he is notable in the Norwegian Wikipedias, but I wonder if he is in the English one. What would you think? Iceblock (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be better of to look for some more guidance at the copyright problems talk page. If this was a direct copy and paste I would say it is a problem but as it is likely a translation I am not so sure. I have no experience with such a scenario but assume it is the same. Based on your additional source comments I would say that you should add those references and expand the article. If you copyedit and rewrite in your own words it will possibly avoid deletion as you would then have proven the notability which is now questioned. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have rewritten the article (though the body-text section became smaller), and added a list of works from Cappelens musikkleksikon. I searched the archives on the CP talk page for "translation" and found that facts cannot be copyrighted, and I think this applies to the list of works, as the way of presentation is not duplicated. (In the book, it is listed in-line, as opposed to the vertical list format. But I don't think there are so many substantially different ways to write such a list anyway.) Please correct me if I'm wrong. Iceblock (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I will ask at the CP talk page. You don't need to respond to the striken through text above. Iceblock (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is likely good enough for now but could do with some more prose, however what you call references are really the sources. You really should try to use inline citation to reference information that might be questioned as well as sources that are other than those used for references. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stanhope
Randall here, the error was with the computer not me. I finally got the link to work. This is free material, and it very good as a reference. In fact i,am getting ready to put up more References on him. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall O (talk • contribs) 20 May 2009

John Steinbeck stamp
The stamp image file:SteinbeckStamp.JPG is now used to illustrate just one thing in the article: the fact that he was honored with a postage stamp. Fair enough? S B Harris 06:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, please stop marking pages with a claim of fair use with db-imgcopyvio. What you may be looking for is {{subst:dfu}}. WP:CSD explicitly excludes images with a claim of fair use. Thank you, Amalthea  10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No. not fair enough. The abuse of stamps in biographies has been a problem but little has been done about it but I am working my way through them slowly and occasionally come in contact with an editor who objects. Merely saying that the stamp honors a person is not enough to pass the fair-use claim. A non-free stamp must only be used in an article about the stamp itself and not to show that the subject was on a postage stamp; this can be conveyed by prose alone. This stamp is still a copyvio AND the fair use rationale is improper. If you don't like that you will have to get the fair-use criteria changed. If you are going to fight this, and no one who has fought this type of use has won to my knowledge, then I will have to nominate the image for deletion instead of a speedy. The only way in which you can possibly use this stamp appropriately would be if there was verifiable critical commentary from reliable sources about the stamp itself not its subject. Saying what is on it and who issued it is not critical commentary. ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a simple, blatant copyright violation since it is used under a claim of fair use, so it doesn't qualify for WP:CSD. See db-imgcopyvio. As I said, feel free to tag them with {{subst:dfu}} instead, which is what I asked to be done with the now restored File:SteinbeckStamp.JPG. I have no particularly strong opinion on this one way or the other, but the specifics of Wikipedia's WP:FUC are complex enough that it almost always requires the seven day grace period or an IfD discussion. Also, I don't agree with your assessment about the appropriate use of copyrighted stamps, and I don't think it is supported by either NFC or WP:FUC. You seem to know of a couple discussions about the display of stamps in articles though. Can you point me towards one or two of them? Amalthea  12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have restored a couple of other stamp images that you had tagged for speedy deletion and converted those to dfu. I agree with Amalthea: the images do have claimed fair use rationales, and the issues are complicated enough that speedy deletion is inappropriate -- a seven day notice and opportunity for discussion seems reasonable to me.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that you're unfamiliar with U.S. copyright law. By law, anything produced by the U.S. federal government cannot be copyrighted. See United States copyright law. Ergo, the Steinbeck stamp, which was produced by the U.S. government, is not copyrighted. So please end the battle over a non-existent copyright. -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually not so. Since 1978 US postage stamps have been copyrighted by the US post office, and thus are not completely free to be used in any commercial use by anybody. But the reasons for this have to do with making them harder to forge and use for monetary gain, and so on. There is no fund which the US post office uses to prosecute copyright vios from people who show pictures of stamps in anything approaching fair use situations. Which a free WP article about a person mentioning the stamp in their honor, would certainly be. Nobody has ever been prosecuted by the post office, EVER, for this. Such a thing would be preceded by a letter of complaint, even if it did happen. So deleting these things from Commons is just foolishness. S  B Harris 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not really. See United States Postal Service and Stamps of the United States. Amalthea  21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. And the Steinbeck stamp would be (c) US post office, since it was issued on his 77th birthday 27 Feb 1979 (I was off by two years). However, it's still not an issue since the US post office would certainly consider use to illustrate a free article, in a section ABOUT THE STAMP, as fair use. S  B Harris 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying but I had to search for some links and also been busy the last few days. A fuller rational for deletion follows below:

In most instance where stamps are not being used correctly in biographic article, removal of the stamp from the article and then marking as an orphan has been efficient but I have no problem in discussion this in depth and even bring it to WP:IfD where more expert editors can weigh in. If no reliable third parties have written about the stamp in relation to John Steinbeck himself then it should not be included and we may even be supporting original research by assigning the stamp some importance in the biography.

The improper use of non-free stamp images has been discussed at various places before and deletion sweeps have been made to remove such uses, including those in some rather high profile people's biographies. These administrator noticeboard discussions prove this is an ongoing problem that needs addressing regularly: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive54, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62 and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive165. This January 2008 IfD page clearly demonstrated that even though some editors disagreed with the deletion nominations, many being used in raher well known peoples' biographies; most were deleted because they failed the WP:NFCC criteria.

More recently individual stamp deletion nominations, such as and Marie Marvingt in addition to recent general discussions Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40 where the consensus goes against keeping non-free images in biographic articles without critical discussion. In this Steinbeck instance, one editor has suggested that because the USPS has never prosecuted anyone that we should not be deleting these types of images. This goes completely against Wikipedia respect for copyright and must be ignored as a complete red herring and the view of the post office in fair use of not, by another editor, is not our concern. We try to respect fair use, hence WP:NFCC and WP:NFC.


 * Firstly, this stamp is clearly copyright because all post-1977 stamps are still copyright of USPS as noted in the appropriate template and per Commons:Stamps of the United States.
 * The only way this can possibly be used here would be under a fair-use claim but it must pass all WP:NFCC policy.
 * Issue 1). The main reason the fair use rational fails is that if fails WP:NFCC which states; 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. All reader's can easily understand that the USPS issued a stamp to honour John Steinbeck by the inclusion of prose that says so. There is nothing detrimental in not having an image of the stamp and inclusion the image does not add anything except decoration.
 * Issue 2). Non-free criteria WP:NFC #3 states that: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject. This is for use within articles about the stamp itself and not in biographies to show the topic or subject on the stamp.
 * Issue 3). There is no critical commentary about the stamp that might allow its use. This is a basic criteria of WP:NFC but needs to be backed by verifiable reliable sources. Simply stating who issued and produced the stamp, and who it honours is not critical commentary.

Remember the burden of proof to provide a suitable rationale is on the editors who want to retain the image in an article and not on the editor nominating any image for deletion. If there were some reasonable critical commentary AND an appropriate rationale this image might not be a candidate for deletion per the enforcement of WP:NFCC. If you still don't agree this use is inappropriate the next step is to go for a formal WP:IfD nomination. ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Stamp article
Thanks for looking at the Postage stamps and postal history of the French Southern & Antarctic Territories article I wrote; I made some revisions in Sources, as you suggested. If you wouldn't mind, I've been working on expanding the War tax stamp article and would much appreciate it if you were willing to have a look at that one. -- Amvros (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the tax stamp article but it is really rather messy and I will try to clean it up later. I am not sure you understand our use of sources, such as a Scott catalog. You should use a cite book template because it gives you all the parameters that can be filled in and one should fill in an many as possible. "Scott Catalog 201 edition" does not tell one exactly which one you used; most, if not all, do have isbn numbers.  That is the sources but we also need to use references which should be inline using a citation templates form WP:CIT which again has many parameters. There should be at least one inline citation per paragraph and especially for each statement which could be questioned and those appear in a "Reference" section.  Have a look at Official mail which I wrote and uses both references, sources and external links appropriately. The use of page numbers is rather necessary so anyone who want to check the data can find it easily. Many older articles are deficient on both sources and references but that is no reason to continue the old ways. This has all to do with the criticism that Wikipedia is not a reliable encyclopaedia and anything we can do to put such criticism aside is good editing. Hope that helps you. Neither Postage stamps and postal history of the French Southern & Antarctic Territories nor War tax stamp use reference citations and have minimal sources, so if you can flesh out those it will be much better. I assume you actually have the Scott catalogue and other sources to hand so everything you need is close by. If you need help getting used to a better process, please ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain please
Could you explain this edit please. BigDunc Talk 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page where I have just explained this. ww2censor (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PNA Philatelic Office
I'm a bit surprised that you have removed the contact details, especially as this information was on that page for over a year. You participated in the discussion about that exact chapter in February 2008 (see here) and at that point you did not object. You actually noticed that the link to the PNA Philatelic Office was not working, rather than making any objection for its inclusion...

I'm perfectly willing to compromise, leaving out the exact communication details, but I'd like to have an explanation from you why you have changed your mind about this, now suddenly describing that information as essentially spam and promoting a commercial enterprise as well and being unencyclopaedic .... Bleddynefans (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are mixing up two things. IIRC, the discussion you refer to concerned the link to the official website and not to the mailing address that was included in the text. It is very unusual to see addresses like this included in the prose. Any link should really be in the external links section to a website. Perhaps I missed the mailing address in the prose when I looked over it last year and my summary comment is still what I think today. I have looked at my edit and perhaps it was too tough. I think you should start an external links section where you include the website link. I have a question for you. If that web link is working now, then I don't see what additional understanding is there to the reader's knowledge by having a mailing address that promotes a commercial enterprise? If you look at Postage stamps of Ireland, our only FA, you will see both internal and external links to the philatelic bureau but no mailing address. If you feel very strongly about it let's discuss it with others on the project talk page. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no strong views on this, so I've made minor changes on your edit, adding a reference. The bureau does not have a working website, so I can't add it to external links. I have recent reports that the bureau still exists, but since Hamas took control of Gaza, the official PNA (ie. Fatah) stamps have been issued from Ramallah. According to reports, Hamas have issued at least one set of stamps. Bleddynefans (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems like a suitable way to go. Obviously there are logistical issues over there especially right now. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Details required for Census Bureau map images
The Census Bureau web site does not directly provide links for its maps, and I want to thank you for your tweaks in sourcing File:Census Bureau map of Washington, New Jersey.gif. In addition to the several other maps under discussion, I have uploaded several hundred other maps from the census bureau, none of which have a URL that might be used to see that the original came straight from a United States Government source, and I can't imagine spending the time and effort to correct each of them to stave off deletion. What should I be doing to deal with these FfD's? Thanks again for your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what I did; find a url. If you did not capture a url for each image at the time you uploaded them you only have two choices; go back and find them, or forget about it as being too much work. That decision depend on how important the images are in the articles you have an interest in. Maybe someone else with a similar interest can be enlisted to assist you. This type of thing takes time and you may have better things to do and to be honest I got fed up after just one image. Not very constructive but the best advise I can offer you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort and the advice. I'll probably do them one at a time when and if they're nominated for deletion. I can get the links from the fact page fro each municipality as a link. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The United States Census Bureau images are freely licenced as federal government work while local municipality images will likely be copyright, unless you can prove them to actually from federal sources, and then you will need to provide a fair-use rationale. Just find the url for them as they come up for deletion would seem like the way to go because you are unlikely to be overloaded all at the same time. ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured out the federal vs. non-federal issue some time ago, and now the issue is URLs. I can go to the Census Bureau's fact sheets one by one and grab the URL as needed. I did most of the ones nominated and I think I can handle the FfDs as they pop up. Thanks again for your guidance. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip Cairns
Thanks for rating it B. Should I send it for a GA assessment if it's that good? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me give it a read and I will reply here later, maybe tomorrow. For a start I think it should use an infobox. Besides all the web citations, are there any books or scholarly papers you could quote from? ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... not that I know of... but I have several GAs from online sources alone... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  07:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that seems like a glaring omission is his birth date. Mixed sources strike a better balance but that was just a suggestion not a necessary requirement. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah well... nothing wong with a B... it didn't exist for long enough anyway... :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Faux Rock
An article that you have been involved in editing, Faux Rock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  At am a chat 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My Dublin edits have been removed.
Hi Ww2censor. Given all of the recent unfortunate crime activity in the Dublin area, I decided that this was worthy of mention in the Dublin article.

I made a statement that was sourced from a reliable, verifiable and neutral source. Also, the story is notable. For example, the Irish govt has had to introduce new legislation to combat the issue.

Can you shed some light on why people may not like me mentioning this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishPatriots (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Windmill Lane Studios
Hi Ww2censor, I have given Windmill Lane Studios the "immediate attention" it was requiring. Do you think it is of "low importance" though as the people and history I have found to be associated with it makes me wonder if this correct? Also, could you please tell me if this is free to use - it says "some rights reserved" and I want to do it absolutely correctly. Thanks again. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Candlewicke, you are a hard worker indeed. Windmill Lane Studios certainly looks the better for your work. I have updated the Ireland WikiProject assessment to a C-class/mid-importance and hope you can agree with that. A few points; we really don't quote big chunks of text from references as there is for two Irish Times references. We just link to the reference page itself. Is there a reason for that. I would like to know when recording stopped at the studios and that is missing. The lead seems a little too full of detail that might be better in the body of the article and while I am sure you are familiar with WP:LEDE especially the MOS:INTRO section part of which says: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. That particular image is using a good licence for Wikipedia and many more, if not all, of that Flickr user's images are appropriately licenced many of which are of Ireland, so could be a good source for us. Upload it to the commons, not here, though I don't know what your use will be. Keep up the good work. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's fine, I fully trust your ratings as you have done so many of them. The reason for The Irish Times thing was that I won't be able to access it in a year because they archive it and I've been asked for quotes before by reviewers at GA so that might end up being problem if it ever becomes good enough - more of a temporary solution, although not ideal obviously. You're right about the lead now that I look at it - although that can be fixed, be it by me or by someone else - it isn't a massive problem or any cause for alarm bells I hope (certainly better than what it was before). Thank you for your input, it really makes me happy again as I have been a bit disillusioned and confused over the current deletion attempt on Cathal Mac Coille. I am going to give you a barnstar because I suddenly feel better. :) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that idea, I have done this now. Ottava appears to be my only critic at the moment... however, and I find this most worrying of all, he is now encouraging users such as Cargoking (acting in good faith as Cargoking is not a malicious editor) to remove sources from the article. And it is these sources which are countering Ottava's claims of original research in the first place... I am very worried at this development as this may compromise any of my future (or even past) edits if Ottava decides to follow me around... and he has already vowed to subject at least two more RTÉ employees to the same charade... I think there may be quite a few WP:Ireland-related deletion discussions on the way simply because of me. :( -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you have various possibilities but if you want to clarify whether the sources you are using are reliable try going to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but other places you could take your problems with this editor to are WP:RfC, WP:AN, WP:ANI or even WP:WQA though none those options are where we may want to go immediately. Let me know if I can assist. I presume you have my talk page on your watchlist, so I won't be leaving talkback notices for you. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You doubt incorrectly. He is now using my talk page to speak to you... sigh... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello. Instead of adding more and more deletion requests for same image category and for the same uploader, please put them all under one title (i.e 'XXX images') and make a list of these non-free images. I can help if you wish.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 04:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think I know what you mean but am not sure how to achieve that. If you can do it I would appreciate it. I am about finished for now with this guy as it takes a long time to track down some of the sources. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added them under "File:Gandhi with family.jpg" deletion request. Please add any other files under the same section (in the same way). Thank you.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 04:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I've left a somewhat belated thank you. Have a good one! — Satori Son 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * & thanks to you too. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagicons in infoboxes
If you are coming here to complain to me about my removal of a flagicon from a biographical article you have an interest in. Let me explain that flagicons fail MOS:FLAG if used to indicate nationality or country of birth in infoboxes in order to avoid flag problems. Use of flagicons to indicate place of birth or death are expressly forbidden per WP:FLAGBIO. It is best to avoid any problems from the start and the reasons are described in that section of the Manual of Style. Please go read it even if you disagree with the removal. Unfortunately many editors are not aware of this. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied on my own talk page but I'll post my reply here as well. You'll be aware that the part of the guideline you quoted to me applies to birth and death information, or non-sporting nationality. You may not be aware that in the infoboxes you are editing, the flag refers to sporting nationality, which is permitted. Here's my post from my own talk page:


 * Your quote only applies to birth/death information, and is not applicable here. Scroll down to the relevant part, i.e. "Sportspeople" and it says: "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes."


 * "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality."


 * In both cases, the flags represent sporting nationality and only appear once, as recommended in the guideline. All Formula One drivers have a single flag in their infoboxes to show sporting nationality, and it is a long-standing consensus at the F1 wikiproject. I can see you're editing in good faith, so I'm not being awkward, but I suggest you take it up at the WikiProject. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please discuss this further before removing any more flags, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please desist. You are in the wrong here and unless you plan on rectifying your trail of destruction you seem to be creating a lot of work for other editors.  Pyrop e  13:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out that the "Nationality" box links to FIA Super Licence to make it clear that it refers to sporting nationality? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To what should we attribute your lack of response? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Real life intervenes! All my edits are only made to improve the encyclopaedic quality of articles, so if anyone thinks otherwise or accuses me of being destructive, that is not the case or intent. First, no matter what, flagicons should be used minimally and in most cases are only there for decoration because they add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic in question. In my view this is the case for the F1 drivers and motorcyclists. The second problem is that, for the non-specialist reader who does not know the difference between nationality and sports nationality, the use of flagicon beside the word "nationality" in F1 articles, clearly attempts to indicate some nationalistic pride which is an inappropriate use. Perhaps more importantly, while some infoboxes do link the word "Nationality" to the Nationality of drivers section which incidentally is a completely unverified section that needs relaible sources, I think the link should clearly state "Sports nationality" because nationality is clearly something different, just as Ian Dalziel indicates. Therefore the flagicons with the word nationality are confusing and ambiguous as they stands currently. The guidelines for "Sports nationality" probably should be clearer but in any case I suggest the project clarify the linkage properly.


 * This whole sports nationality thing can be rather confusing. Having done some online research I see that different sports and different countries set different standards and criteria to define sports nationality, just to frustrate us. However, within this wiki the use of nationality instead of sports nationality, with or even without flagicons, can throw up some curious, confusing and ambiguous situations such as Mike Hailwood whose page uses 3 infoboxes though it may not be the best example to use. The TT infobox indicates his nationality as English with an England flagicon but he should be listed as a national of the United Kingdom and the Union flag would be correct. His F1 infobox also lists him as English but without a nationality, sports or otherwise. Surely his sport nationality when competing internationally would have been Italy when he rode for MV Agusta and Japan when he rode for Honda? He was English and emphasising England as his sports nationality with a flagicon would be ambiguous and confusing. When John Surtees was riding MV Agustas or driving Ferraris was he not representing Italy? I again can see confusion and ambiguity arising while other drivers with simpler careers may not have the same problem if they compete for the same country as their country of origin.


 * In the overall scheme of things I see the MOS:FLAG guideline "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" takes precedence over the unsourced and unverified (F1) "sports nationality" in the use of flagicons. I am not going to have a big fight with your WikiProject but suggest you at least clear up the linkage ambiguity of "nationality" 'v' "sports nationality". I believe all my edits are proper but you will no doubt revert those you disagree with. I will however continue to improve other articles by the removal of flagicons where they are unnecessary, used as decoration and do not add to the reader's understanding of the topic. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to launch into a big argument here because I don't believe there's one to be had. While I accept that the idea of sporting nationality may be unfamiliar to some more challenged users, it is generally wikilinked to an explanatory article. If that is unclear to some, then I suspect it is perfectly clear to a very much larger number of readers. I completely disagree with your unsupported claim that one part of the guideline overrides another. As for your example of Surtees representing Italy, I'm a little nonplussed. It's the first time I've ever heard the idea that a driver might represent the country of whatever team he's driving / riding for. It's utter nonsense. It's like suggesting that David Beckham now represents the USA because that's where his club is based. A driver has a nationality that he represents in motor sport, determined by the licence he drives under. It never changes, regardless of the team he drives for, unless (in extremely rare cases) that driver becomes the citizen of another country. If he wins or finishes on the podium, his flag is flown and his national anthem is played. I don't know how much clearer that can be. As for this nationality being "unverified", these nationalities are uncontentious and very easily verified, being uniform across the wide range of sources available, thus they do not need citing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Following on from, and heartily endorsing, Bretonbanquet's comments, I am surprised that someone who clearly does not understand the topic that they are editing on feels so strongly that they are correct. I understand your comment regarding the ambiguity of "nationality", but in light of the wikilink and the listing of the nationality in words next to the flag (your argument would actually logically result in the removal of this field altogether, not simply the flag), the polite course of action would have been to approach someone who did understand the subject matter to ask for clarification. In fact, some sports WP do indeed use a turn of phrase that emphasizes the sporting nature of the information conveyed, by using the term "represented" or similar. This is certainly something that would arouse an interesting level of debate were it brought to the attention of the community as a whole, say, by asking a question on the WP:F1 talk page. On a second point, I'm intrigued by your assertion that removing the flag clarifies things for the reader. These are not decorative, they are emblematic. Most of these drivers raced with a flag painted on their cars, and the privileged few had them hoisted over their heads after a race. Many drivers in days gone by would stop at the side of a track to pick up a flag from a crowd or team member before embarking on a lap of honour. Their use is deeply ingrained in the sport (and many other sports besides), and their inclusion on drivers' pages helps to identify the driver and adds to a reader's sense of place when they reach a page. The mind absorbs pictures much faster than text. I suggest you tread softly in future and do a little more reading on a subject before you wade in. I appreciate that you were acting in good faith, but your judgment was poor.  Pyrop e  12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Ireland email list
Hi Ww2censor:

I just wanted to let you know that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives and any other similar events. --Bastique demandez 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

grammar in a cite
Is this correct? "A Cinderella stamps is" .. "stamps" and "A" and "is" don't appear to agree. If that's what the cite says, it's fine, but it made me wonder if it was a typo. tedder (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Grammer ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. I don't like to correct grammar in a cite I don't have access to. (oh, and hi- not sure we've conversed directly) tedder (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been watching Wirtland ever since its images were uploaded, first here and then on the commons, without any permissions, by Witizen who seems to be a single use account but he really does seem to be trying to comply with policy and guideline, jumping through all our copyright and permissions hoops. Nowadays I mostly deal with philatelic articles and image copyright issues. Good to talk to you, though I see we are both on the Motorcycling WikiProject that I started back in 2006. I am not too active there these days and I seem to have missed welcoming several newer members including yourself because I moved the members to a separate page and then forgot to put it only watchlist. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, that's where I've seen you. I think I saw Wirtland on ANI or somewhere like that. It is good that Witizen is willing to come along- it's hard with COI editors sometimes. Nice to know you are fellow moto scum! tedder (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion
The images you listed can be deleted. One is an outdated pic and the other shows my nametag. I have no objections to those two pics being deleted. Hueydoc (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fyi regarding FfD
You might be interested in a in an FfD.--Rockfang (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj 1.jpg and File:Anini PrasadBasavaraj.jpg
Hi. Please be careful when tagging images like this. Both of these images were uploaded to Wikipedia in June 2007 and to the other site in November 2007, meaning that either the same person uploaded them both places or the other site stole them from here. (Or, I suppose, it is possible that both users copied the photo from some unknown third party.) It's actually a pretty common thing for people to upload photos to Google Earth from Wikipedia without respecting our licenses - twice, I have filed copyright complaints with them when my own photos which I uploaded here under the GFDL were taken and used without attribution. --B (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So what are you actually saying? Are the image good or bad? Do we even know where they came from. Based on what you say I don't think we really know where they came from but you seem to be saying to WP:AGF for the 2007 uploader? ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was uploaded here before it was uploaded there meaning that he definitely did not copy it from there. We have no particular reason not to believe his assertion of authorship.  All three of his uploads have the same digital camera metadata and look like they were taken by the same person.  If they are used on another website with an upload date prior to July 2007 or are used on a site that we know doesn't steal images (ie, something not user-authored), then ok we can delete them, but normally we assume good faith unless there is a reason not to. --B (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like good logic to me. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for you help on the Thomas MacNevin article. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix Park
First of all, congrats on your excellent user page, I really enjoyed looking at those stamps. I have as requested found a reference to my contribution on the Phoenix Park (the OPW website). You may wish to satisfy yourself, as a senior editor, of its bona fides and then delete the request for sources/references that you posted yesterday. If you see me appearing again please leave a note on my "my Talk" page and I will do my best to address it (as I may not always revisit my contributions).

Is mise le meas, Skreen (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. There are more stamps to be found at Portal:Philately and at Postage stamps of Ireland a crowning moment of bringing it to FA status. Senior editor? I'm not so sure about that; many others are far better than I. The source you added looks good but I would move it back to the previous sentence because it does not confirm the 1660 date or current quantity of deer. If Phoenix Park is of interest you could try to improve both its prose and references. Many article are still lacking in reference and now, when I write new pages or edit, I try to get references from the getgo, rather then going to look for them. Somewhere I have a photo of the cups, depicted in this image in the 2nd from left bottom panel (note the Phoenix Monument), from the Irish Grand Prix, that are in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Hall of Fame Museum, that I should upload though there are quite sufficient, even too many images, for the current prose. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for the delay in responding to you. I will try my best to update this entry but must admit I am not a subject matter expert.

Skreen (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)