User talk:Xdamr/Archive 7

CFD Category:Anti-creationism
You have either edited Category:Anti-creationism or contributed to the previous discussion about its encyclopedic value.

This a courtesy notice that it has again be nominated for a deletion discussion.--ZayZayEM 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of [ sic ]
Saw your revert on Meritorious Unit Citation (thanks) - are you aware of any extant wiki-guidance on the use of [ sic ] in articles? I couldn't find one that was relevant to the revert in question (planning for a possible edit-debate) PalawanOz 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf
The correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf, and should not be referred to as the Arabian Gulf when using the English Language. The Persian Gulf is the preferred term in United States English, UK English and United Nations, as well as the Wikipedia naming policy. I do not disagree with a mention in the article Arab World which mentions that the term Arabian Gulf as a term used by certain Arab countries, but I believe that by putting Arab/Persian Gulf, it only serves to confuses people. As there are two 'gulfs' around Arabia. The Red Sea (known as the Arabian Gulf in certain publications) and the Persian Gulf.(JosephLondon 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I too favour 'Persian Gulf' over 'Arabian Gulf' but this is not a piece of quoted prose we are dealing with, it is the official term which the Governments of New Zealand and Australia have chosen to use in respect of these medals/decorations. As such 'sic' is inappropriate.


 * I would also refer you to Naming conventions, which states that editors should not edit articles solely to change from one controversial usage to another. If you feel that the use of 'Arabian Gulf' may lead to some confusion with the Red Sea then by all means edit the Arabian Gulf page to make this issue clear (though I see that this has already been done).  But by making your edits to these medal-related pages, you are altering precise terms which were definitely settled on and chosen by the governments concerned.


 *  X damr  talk 13:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help
Would you mind add some references of the Inter-service decorations of the United States military?

Thank you.--东北虎(Manchurian Tiger) 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Unfortunately my particular area of expertise is with UK and Commonwealth medals and decorations - though I have a superficial understanding of the US system I lack the in-depth knowledge to properly address this area.  May I suggest that you try the Orders, Decorations, and Medals WikiProject?  Looking through the membership list there seem to be quite a few editors for whom this is their central interest.


 * Best wishes,  X damr  talk 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually you seem to have approached a number of WP:ODM participants. Good, hopefully this might lead to some results.  --  X damr  talk 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:1914StarObv.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1914StarObv.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BW versus colour
Hi Xadmr - a question/discussion for you on the Talk:1914 Star page. PalawanOz 05:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:DefenceMedalObv.png
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:DefenceMedalObv.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:1914-15Star Ribbon.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:1914-15Star Ribbon.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:1914-15StarObv.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:1914-15StarObv.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:1914StarObv.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:1914StarObv.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:39-45StarRibbon.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:39-45StarRibbon.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:39-45Starobv.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:39-45Starobv.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:ACEStarRibbon.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:ACEStarRibbon.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

Image:ACEStarobv.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:ACEStarobv.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Category:Jewish football players
Hi there. I was just wondering if you had given any thought to closing this as an upmerge instead of a delete. I know that the popular opinion was delete, but upmerge seemed to make sense to me since these articles were likely removed from a parent category to be placed into the category that got deleted. As such, it made sense to me to consider an upmerge to put them back to where they were. --After Midnight 0001 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that an upmerge to Category:Jewish sportspeople? --  X damr  talk 14:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that destination would be fine, or possibly Category:Jewish American sportspeople, since only 1 was Canadian. I'm more concerned that the articles stay in that portion of the category tree than I am with the precise destination. --After Midnight 0001 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being so long in replying. If you consider a merge justified then by all means go ahead, though the category is long since gone and its contents lost so to do so would be quite time-consuming.  I'm afraid that I have precisely zero time to do anything wiki-related for the next little while, so I must leave this for someone else.


 * Best wishes,  X damr  talk 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia
I have taken this one to FAC and a question came up which i was hoping you could answer. In your book of decorations does it discuss whether the VC for OZ is kept and made separately to the "Imperial" VC. Are they just kept in a big pool to be taken out when needed? I have looked at various sources and cannot find an answer. I was hoping that maybe you could shed some light on it? If not don't worry, just thought i would ask. Thanks. Woodym555 15:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I don't have a concrete answer. I've not come across anything which directly addresses the issue, though reading between the lines I'm 70% sure that it probably is the same metal.  Even going to the horse's mouth doesn't really tell us much other than it is struck by Hancock's and is of identical design to the Imperial VC (http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/victoria_cross.cfm).   User:PalawanOz has done a lot of work in Wikipedia's Australian medals department - perhaps see if he has any insights?  Other than that, the only thing I can suggest is that you try contacting the Aus govt and see if they can offer anything.


 *  X damr  talk 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared
An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, 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. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion attempt on a NZ copyright image
I have received a note stating that Image:United Nations Service Medal for Korea.png (a NZ Crown Copyright image) was a free-use-disputed image... could you keep an eye on the talk page and contribute if you think appropriate? This could be a problem on quite a few items... PalawanOz 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. We'll have to see if your FU rationale holds up (I hope so).  If it does then I think we ought to consider adding it to the entire stock of NZ images as a matter of urgency, otherwise we risk losing our best image source at a stroke.  --  X damr  talk 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - same issue has now been raised (by the same admin on an image deletion frenzy) re Image:Vietnam Campaign Medal obverse.png - except now he is questioning the validity of the NZ Crown Copyright directly - please join the discussion here if you can PalawanOz
 * I lost the battle on the Korean medal - although there were no responses to my attempt at discussion when an admin deleted it anyway. How does this system work? Surely if I start a discussion, then the admin should have the decency to reply prior to ignoring me? Anyway - The Vietnam medal discussion has at least begun - would appreciate your input PalawanOz 07:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at the Korea image and your rationale, which I accept. The image does not seem to have been deleted after all, simply orphaned.  I've reinstated it within its article.  So far as the Vietnam medal goes, I'm less sure.  Though the NZ picture is nice, given the medal's large circulation to US troops I'm sure that there's likely to be a US govt alternative (ie. Free) knocking around somewhere.


 * I've always had the vague feeling that this insistence upon Free images to the utter exclusion of all else has had the effect of inserting a subtle POV into wikipedia. US govt images are readily available and therefore readily used, all of which tends to make wikipedia's imageset quite US-centric.  The number of articles where I have seen illustrations of heads of state having the ubiquitous meeting with President Bush etc is considerable.  Such pictures are largely unavailable for most other heads of state (eg the Queen) given the strictures of Crown Copyright etc.  It all goes to present a slightly skewed impression I feel.


 * Anyway, I think the Vietnam image is something of a special case. However for the most part, I think an appeal to a) the limited number of awards made (anything under 5,000 should qualify as being relatively scarce), b) the lack of any significant number of published texts on the medal (therefore there is unlikely to be any considerable quantity of 'free' content), and c) Resolution etc, should be proof against most attempts to remove these various images.  I'm afraid, much though I might like to, I simply can't come up with any compelling argument re. the Vietnam medal - the rules have been laid down (whether we like them or not) and I'm afraid that this image falls foul of them.  However I do not think that this is likely to serve as a precedent for a general crack-down on other NZ CC images - so long as we are able to formulate the appropriate rationale.  I will though take a look around and see if I can come up with a free image.  If I can't then that in itself might be grounds for retaining the NZ picture.


 *  X damr  talk 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NZCross1999Obv.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:NZCross1999Obv.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)