User talk:Stan Shebs/archive 11

Commercial vessel template

Hello. As you may know, there are a variety of infobox templates used for ocean liners; at least one of which is ill-suited to passenger vessels. As a consequence of a discussion I had with User:Ebyabe at User_talk:Ebyabe#RMS_Queen_Mary, Ebyabe has generously agreed to create a template for passenger vessels. It appears at Template:Infobox Commercial Ship. Its creator needs assistance with the fields for the template. For example, it will need a tonnage field, but would not need a displacement field. Should beam be moulded breadth, or extreme beam? Should length be pp, or oa? Given your interest in this area, would you be willing to particpate in the project? If so, go to Template talk:Infobox Commercial Ship and weigh in. It may be that different templates are needed for passenger ships (gt), freighters (dwt, net), containerships (TEU) and that one size will not fit all. Thanks for your interest. Kablammo 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps

Hi, unless you're a very old stamp designer working for the French government, you can't possibly have the right to put French stamp images into the public domain. All such uploads to commons will have to be deleted. Stan 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hum... 6 on the 9 stamps I downloaded are about 70 years, they come from an old stamps collection from my grant grant father who died in 1941, so normally, as far I m concerned by the law, I sincerily believe that after 70 years, those 6 stamps are in the public domain... now dealing with the last 3 ones, those come from my own stamps collection, and I tried and thought : "if those one don't work, they will be erase... no more".

To conclude, I work on Wikipedia for few monthes, some times I know I walk on the line... but I just feel as a Wikignome and I know there are other people like you who remains (or just inform) me what is the more correct to do....

That s all.... Best Greetings from France

Paris75000 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum... okay, all those stamps (except the hindenburg ones) will be erase cuz the limit timeline is too close... and dealing with my habit to walk on the line it is just about some pictures' domain,... when i write an article or correct others ones (in french or english), noone have to look after me. it's just that I'm a biologist not a lawer...

i hope that's all, i beg ur pardon to make loose ur time on the pictures i downloaded.

Paris75000 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Zanzibar rare animal species

Thanks for that extra info on the Zanzibar leopard stamp. The great thing about that series is that two of of the stamps - the rhino and the pangolin - depict animals that don't exist in Zanzibar and as far as is known haven't in historical times (unless they were in the local zoo???). I've often wondered who designed these stamps and what they were thinking. Was someone playing a joke? The red colobus stamp indicates at least one good source of information because it has the local name for the monkey (kima-punju). Zahir Mgeni 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Plant categories

Hi Stan, thanks for your message. I know what you mean about the plant categories, it's an (almost) impossible task! The plants I have categorized are

• Plants I have grown myself
• Common garden plants here in the UK

Just about done for now, but I'll probably add other plants if and when I get round to reading the articles (if it needs doing). Not too sure about the flowers category though, if it should be plants known for for their flowers (e.g. roses), plants that can be used in floristry, or any plant that flowers.--Starrycupz 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peiper picture

Hello,

I see you tagged the Peiper picture (Image:WaffSSPeiper 3-2.jpg) as unsourced. I'm not sure what kind of material you'd like to see. The photo is at least 61 years old and I doubt it is still copyrighted. I just looked whether I had a copy in a book to confirm its origins but all I found are a number of other small pictures of Peiper (including two from the Dachau trial), all according to this book from US military archives (all but the trial pictures would be of German origin). So I could technically replace this one, but without providing any better sourcing (and I have serious doubts any pictures of that type can be sourced). I notice another picture (Image:PeiperSS.jpg) is used on Peiper's biographical article, but it actually uses a fake copyright release (it does not name the photographer who supposedly released it, on the other hand it reveals the picture's origin (Signal, a German WWII military propaganda magazine). Other images of similarly unknown origin still remain untagged... So what's the common procedure, how is anyone supposed to add relevant pictures of German military personnel of WWII to articles if they can be randomly tagged in this way?--Caranorn 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the German legislation [[1]] link provided on the List of countries' copyright length page and found the following.

SECTION II PROTECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Article 72. (1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works. (2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer. (3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after the publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69.

Maybe I misunderstand this but the duration seems to be fifty years for photographic material rather then the 70 years for most other copyrighted material. Of course it might still be necessary to determine when a picture was first published (I usually don't deal with legal text and I find part of this translation particularly obscure).--Caranorn 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if it's as I assume and this picture (like many others) is indeed from US military archives it will indeed be almost impossible to determine a copyright holder today. The best that would be possible is indeed to provide the source, but not doing so should not be grounds to deletion (which tagging a picture unsourced is). Though I do understand your concerns.--Caranorn 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, the pictures in the German Peiper article were removed because they had been proposed for deletion in the commons. As far as I can tell no German contributor actually took part in the discussion for deletion etc.--Caranorn 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't know about the 50-year thing - nor does commons, oddly enough. In any case, I don't see how we're free to make a special exception for German photos with unknown copyright holders; since I'm not the only one who works on image sorting, you would need to write it up so that editors present and future will know about the special exception, which means changing the image policy in a very visible and public way. Feel free to try, but it would be less work to travel to Germany and knock on doors looking for the photographer. :-) Stan 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to propose a policy change of this type, so I'll have to stick to knocking on doors (Germany is next door to me, though obviously I won't be getting any results;-)). I haven't exactly been active in the image area except for my own coats of arms and a map I've started work on yesterday (in all cases they are original work, therefore I never had to bother about copyright as I simply wave mine...), and tagging a few images for deletion on the french wiki (as they'd already been replaced by more appropriate ones with clear licensing). So I'm beyond my area of experience in this issue.--Caranorn 20:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm so hung up on this fair-use thing

I'm investing a lot into this particular argument right now (and not much else on WP, seeing as I have a full-time job and a life), because I feel it's something that needs to change. I apologize if I come across as harsh, but I'm coming across as harsh because I feel that I've been pushed to my limit here. Look at it this way: I've been following this fight for two whole months and have tried the compromise route. You guys don't want the compromise route. You want things to fit your ideological extreme.

If things that fit into ideological extremes, we'd all have either direct participatory democracy or communism. But we don't, so reason needs to go into the argument.

I don't want to see a site that I really like get screwed up for purposes of a flawed ideal which you'll never reach or will require slashing and burning the good things about WP to reach. - Stick Fig 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, if you're serious, you need to go about things in a different way. First, you need to rack up the edits, sort of the WP version of paying one's dues, ideally in the image area. Much of our image policy is influenced by the need to deal with a thousand or more uploads per day, most of which are problematic in one way or another, and the firsthand experience will help you prune out ideas that don't scale. You'll also cross paths with more of the players in that area, get more of a sense about who's who. It would also be good to spend some time working on images at commons, for comparison. If none of this work modifies your views, then at least you'll have more credibility in the eyes of others, and you'll be able to cite more examples backing up your position. Stan 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm emphasizing to you, due to what I deal with at work every day, it wouldn't. And honestly, it seems questionable to assume that coming from the perspective of being a hardworking editor who isn't deeply involved in the same sort of image editing as yourself. I think, without discounting your suggestion, it would help if some of those in a position of power took into account the needs of the average Wikipedia user when pushing forward with policy.

That's where the problem is coming from in the first place. You're treating this as something that makes your life tougher, almost, whereas many of the average editors I've dealt with consider quality above all else, including free. Let's educate users and figure out a way so that it's a solution that pleases the outside looking in rather than just the other way around.

If you want to question my credibility because I'm not one of you guys, fine. But I'm one of the other guys and I'm directly affected by the policy too, and there's a lot more of us other guys. Think about the average user instead of my credibility, because my points are valid whether or not I edit images like you do. - Stick Fig 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Regarding W.A.C. Bennett, I take as precedent other articles containing stamp images, such as Johnny Canuck. My understanding is that Canada Post authorises noncommercial use of stamp images, but maybe you know something I don't. Fishhead64 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall get on it tomorrow and amend the info. accordingly. Fishhead64 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to leave a note of appreciation for your always-thoughtful comments at WT:FU. Jkelly 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle Page

I have added an entry to the talk page for the beetle entry that you are continuing to add. I would ask that religious thoughts not be included in this scientific discussion and be removed. I do not share the same point of view and find it distracting (at least) to have to read about it. Please consider that not everybody shares the same belief as you, and that religious thoughts be added to religious pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtflood1976 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bureaucrat

Noting your recent note on the bureaucrat page, I thought I'd point out Wikipedia:Changing_username#Nataliebell_.E2.86.92_TVkent and Wikipedia:Changing_username#Erillanin_.E2.86.92_ErilLanin, which I was just about to perform, but which I would be more than happy to leave for you if you'd like. ;) Essjay (Talk) 14:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations!

You are now officially back on the active list! Hope to see you out there soon beating me to the backlogs! Essjay (Talk) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agave Syrup

Dear Stan. Thanks, your help is needed - Bagdani keeps reverting to commercially motivated material copied uncritically from marketing sites. Doesn't read the changes others have made and just reverts wholesale.

Michael Fourman 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on History of the Peloponnesian War

Dear Mr Shebs: Thank you for bringing my attention to the lack of tag on the manuscript image on the page for Thucydides' History. I have reuploaded it and put an identifying tag on it. I hope it is sufficient. If not, I can improve it. The photo itself is from E.M. Thompson's Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, OUP 1912. Thanks!! Jim 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour

Hi Stan. It seemed to me that Postal history really needs a good reworking and no one seems interested in the collaboration within the philately project, so I did it a major rewrite here but would appreciate if you would give it the quick once over before I post it online this weekend in place of the current page. Make or suggest any changes you wish. Thanks Cheers ww2censor 06:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have now posted a complete rewrite of the Postal history page. I'd love to hear your comments. Thanks ww2censor 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good! I had a couple tweaks in mind, need to get to it. Stan 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what they are and I can do it. Cheers Thanks ww2censor 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilliopsida, Liliopsida, Aloe, Aloe Vera, and Monocotyledon

Stan -- You created the page lilliopsida as a redirect to monocotyledon. The page aloe vera then listed lilliopsida as its class, and that was linked to monocotyledon directly. For one, I think that lilliopsida is a misspelling of liliopsida. Also, since aloe uses liliopsida and links to it directly in its class, I think aloe vera should link to liliopsida directly as well. I have changed aloe vera so that it spells lilliopsida as "liliopsida" instead; however, I still have it linking to monocotyledon. Do you have a thought about all of this? Thanks. --TedPavlic 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to link the liliopsida on the aloe page to monocotyledon. --TedPavlic 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Without A Name

Thanks for making those outstanding edits to my article of Liber Sine Nomine. I can even spell it now. If you come across any of my other articles, feel free to edit away - you do excellent work! I do a lot of articles that are related to Petrarch and Christianity (even though I am NOT a religious person). I like doing things with Jerome. I also enter in VIDEOS. Perhaps you have come across some of them (i.e. Cello, Flute, Segway, hang gliding, Colonial Williamsburg). I like to enter in VIDEOS that will "illustrate" what the article (or Section) is talking about. I don't see others entering in VIDEOS (for whatever reason). One set of VIDEOS however, set up quite a controversy. I sure was surprised about that. It's the VIDEOS in Street Light Interference. --Doug ^talk 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Video "Ogg" files for articles

Since you do a lot of things related to images, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions. Why aren't VIDEOS used very much in articles?

1. Technical reasons like one doesn't know how to convert "ogg" files their video. (example: an "MPEG" to "Ogg" Wikipedia video)
2. Technical reasons like one doesn't know how to download the necessary file to make the Window's Media Player work properly?
3. Technical reasons like one doesn't know how to download a necessary video player that will play the "ogg" video files?
4. Videos lead to controversy (because of possible interpretation of what is on a video - different viewpoints from different people on how it is "viewed")?
5. Technology still new -verses- ordinaly pictures (i.e. JPG) that are much more commonly used more often by people in general?
6. Too long to upload or download a VIDEO (several minutes) -verses- an ordinary picture which only takes a few seconds?

If you think a combination of these, then which ones would be most likely reasons and why? I'll check back here later for any answers. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 14:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the first three, plus a general dearth of free-license videos. Given that people are routinely uploading 8-10MB images to commons, I don't think bandwidth is so much of an issue anymore. Speaking for myself, videos often don't fit into my browsing pattern, in which a page gets 20 seconds of attention before moving on - I would only stop to watch a 3-minute video if the topic was ultra-interesting. Stan 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these answers. I was a little suspecious that it would be MOSTLY due to technical reasons. Perhaps someday in the future videos will be technically easier for the "ordinary" person (meaning one with little software ability) to handle. Interesting also your answer of "bandwith". In other words then, uploading an 8 MB "ogg" video would NOT necessarly be out of place - since apparently MANY people now-a-days have Broadband Internet (i.e. cable, DSL) instead of the Old School of "dial-up". Understand that of "browsing pattern", however if someone was especially interested in the subject, perhaps they might stop a few seconds longer to view the associated video. An example would be my video I put in on the Segway article. Many people have NEVER seen a Segway in operation (or even heard of what it is), so perhaps when they look it up in Wikipedia, they then come across my video and play it to see what it does. It takes perhaps 2 minutes to play. Also I noticed you did NOT comment on possible controversies of videos. The videos I am putting in are my own personal " home videos", so I can license them accordingly. I was told by another administrator that I can NOT put in "home movies" because the were NOT previously published (i.e. historical videos, NASA videos). Bottomline is that apparently I CAN put in personal videos, as long as I license them accordingly. Two videos that have set up much controversy with a particular administrator is those on Street Light Interference. I am NOT using these videos as a Reference, but ONLY as "illustrative" of what SLI is. The publication of this phenomonon has already been published by Hilary Evans in his book The SLI Effect, that of course I referenced in the article. The videos I am entering is only "demonstrating" the SLI effect and I do NOT believe it to be original research. This other administrator says that "home movies" by their very nature are original research because they are showing something happening. He says I have to have my videos previously published. In his opinion the videos are "subjective", therefore original research. However I can not control how he "views" videos or JPG pictures (for that matter). Please give me your "viewpoint" on this, if you would be so kind. Thanks again. --Doug ^talk 15:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A video is "original research"? What admin told you that? Wikipedians have taken thousands of their own photos, and nobody calls them "original research"! Of course, the video can't be used as the source of any facts stated in the text, for instance you couldn't add a video you took in the zoo to prove that "chimpanzees prefer Marlboros" or whatever. People often confuse "original research" with "original content" - we do very much want the latter. Stan 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point! It turns out now, I have talked to several administrators (especially on Wikimedia Commons) and I have determined it is correct and approved to be able to enter personal videos (a.k.a. "home movies") into articles. This is taken from the discussion on the article Street Light Interference:

As a subtler point, I think compiling together a photo gallery of supposedly-affected streetlights is original research. This is something I've drawn from other Wikipedia discussions: photographs are generally objective, but the point you illustrate with those photographs can be subjective or original research.

At the moment he is letting me have these videos in the article; however since has pulled them 3 times. I suspect he will pull them again, lableing them original research. I am doing everything possible in the way of wording to make it from a neutral point of view and NOT using them as a "reference" or as a "source". It is STRICTLY from the point of view as an "illustration". Thanks for your reply. For awhile he would not let me enter ANY videos (i.e. cello, flute, Segway, hang gliding, etc), based solely on the fact they were "home movies" and NOT previously published. At the moment, he will NOT let me enter a set of 4 little pictures (75 px) showing the lamp types NOT effected, even though I have the exact pages in the reference source book that says this (dated 1993). I tried 6 times, each time he pulled; latest reason being doesn't give a good flow to the article. I'm NOT going for "flow", just accuracy as to what a previously published source book says. I didn't say this, it was Hilary Evans of a London publisher in book The SLI Effect. --Doug ^talk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Below is ALSO taken from the discussion page of Street Light Interference:

Your videos are an unpublished analysis. The book is published. You are not. You don't get to count yourself as "published" because you're talking about the same thing as a book. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled for a long time BEFORE I could enter ANY videos into any articles. He protects that article alot (for whatever reason?). This article was NOT originally written by me; I was just editing it starting a month or so ago. Then all this controversy came about from MOST anything I write for it; he removes it! I write DOZENS of articles per month and I don't have any problems what-so-ever. You know the quality of my articles. Mostly to do with Petrarch. --Doug ^talk 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you can get an idea of the quality of work I do on articles, in the last 3 days alone I have written articles on 20 short biographies related to Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. I am not trying to prove any point of view. All I want to do is edit articles and write original articles. Articles I work on is on my User Page. --Doug ^talk 21:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These words below and these pictures I am not allowed to put into the article of Street Light Interference, even though referenced to the exact pages of the reference source book written on this phenomonon in 1993 by the published book The SLI Effect by Hilary Evans of London. What do you think of the words and pictures?

It is reported by SLIders, on pages 22 and 23 of the source book The SLI Effect, that the Street Light Interference phenomenon never affects these type lamps below.

• 
  Neon
• 
  Tungsten
• 
  Fluorescent
• 
  Incandescent

Also I can NOT put anything in "External Links", other that the items this administrators wants there (his 3 items only). He comes completely unglued even on the mention of putting other related links there (test yourself, you will see). In Reference about the reference book, I can not use the words: Download of this book is "Free", put into PDF. Even though this is true! Are these words something one should NOT say? One thing I did notice about this administrator's Talk page is that apparently he argues with many people. He has a lot of "conflicts" with other people with their articles and edits. For whatever reason (unknown) he is extremely protective on this article of Street Light Interference (like he owns it) and will not allow others to make edits (or very few, with much struggle). I do alot of articles and do NOT come across anything like this at all. Almost always when others edit my articles, it is very good (like what you did). How one administrator can cause this many problems is beyond me. Perhaps I should just leave the article the way he wants it and let him have his article. I have plenty of articles to work on anyway. None give me any problems. What do you think should be done on this article of Street Light Interference (a "viewpoint" from an administrator)?--Doug ^talk 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of including pictures of unaffected light types either - each has a perfectly fine article with its own illustrations, that's why we have the blue links. If someone doesn't know what "neon" means in this context, they can click on the link and see the pictures there. Stan 06:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I see your point. Thanks for writing a comment on Street Light Interference. We will see now if others will add to this article and expand it further. I believe I will not do any further editing on this for awhile, until it settles down. Besides I am having way too much fun writing articles related to Petrarch and Jerome and Giovanni Boccaccio. I hope you stumble across some of my articles and edit them someday in the furthure. Your edits are outstanding and will improve these articles much. Thanks again for your help. --Doug ^talk 13:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

It is a good habit to look at the history of an article before reverting vandalism. You reverted one edit for Yukon River, but the same anon actually made a number of edits. Somebody came along and removed part of what was left, but I just reverted all the changes back to the last good version. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh Progammer's Workshop

Why do you disagree with UNIX being written in uppercase? I really wish I had pilfered a Unix [sic] block from primary school. Yes, that's right, in primary school we had these plastic cubes in various colours, that stacked together, called Unix.

The UNIX trademark is written in capital letters; several books on the UNIX operating system from the '80s have it written thus. I do not see why it should be acceptable to write it otherwise.

Surely, you wouldn't accept CD-Rom or Nato as correct spelling?

Here's hoping you'll change your mind ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Applemeister (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Email?

I sent you email through your "email this user" link. Is there a better way of contacting you? Jkelly 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename backlog

Any chance you might have minute to take a look at the 40 odd outstanding requests at WP:CHU? I seem to remember seeing a discussion between you and Essjay a while ago that you wanted more of chance to use your crat tools but others were beating you to it, so I thought I'd let you know... WjBscribe 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind- Nichalp has cleared the backlog... WjBscribe 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ephedrine

Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.--Eloil 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIC images

Many images made public by the Government of India throught the NIC (National informatics center) website has been removed even though proper explanation was given. This is unacceptable. Even those issued by the PIB (Public Information Bureau) was removed. Chanakyathegreat 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous game

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Continuous game, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

If you do not feel that you're the "author" of this article, I apologise, it's just that you seem to have made the biggest contribution to it. ~ Giggy! ^Talk _Contribs 04:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, if you would like to discuss the Cabo San Lucas pictures, let me know. Thanks, Chrisknop

Abu Dhabi stamps

Hi there glad to see like me you have a keen interest in philately (although I am currently selling my collection on ebay as it takes up too much room!!!)- I have begun by listing and picturing the stamps of Postage stamps and postal history of Abu Dhabi what my ideal would be is to to have an entire list of all stamps ever issued on wikipedia by state and country but providing information on each issue!!!! Imagine how many articles that would be!!!!!! I have also created a template for the postal history to connect articles but the first aim should be on articles on each of the 700 or so entities that have created stamps then we can build upon that by setting out the list of issues and stamps. What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Expecting you" Contribs 10:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image to Penny Blue is this correct? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Expecting you" Contribs 10:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the image. I have now also added the infobox (don't forget the infobox for notable stamps) but don't have a value to hand, so if either of you have that, please add it. Thanks ww2censor 17:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was a little over ambitious but yes by definition an encyclopedia is a summary but can you honestly say that wikipedia is a basic summary!!? It has an enormous amount on articles which cover some subjects to the extreme giving every bit of information possible. Perhaps covering every stamp is a bit ambitious, but I definately think each entity should have a detailed articless or articles like Ireland and some coverage of at least the issues -this should be our goal first surely -you can't knock me for wanting coverage to reach a high level. And I know wikipedia isn't a catalogue - hopefully there should be information on the more important issues. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Expecting you" Contribs 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PV

Dear Mr. Shebs,

why are You deleting my additions to the Puerto Vallarta information. The University is of public interest, and my noncommercial, mostly actual information site also, if there is a problem with my advertisers I could take them out off my page.

I have to ask You, because You did not delete the visitpuertovallarta site, the unique commercial one and not actual at all.

03/06/07

Thank You Mr. Shebs

for not deleting the university and my noncommercial site again. Most PV related pages are commercial and offering bad information. I try to go the other way. It will use its time, but I will provide unique information. As I saw in Your profile You speek some german, if You need some help on an article, I would be interested to parcitipate. I am no member of wiki, but You find my personal data on my site.

Regards from PV , CG

Awn

Hi Stan, just wanted to tell you the Awn article you created has been moved to Awn (Botany) as the Awn page needed to be made into a disambiguation page for Awn (Botany), AWN (Software) and AWN (Organization).

> Rugby471 ^talk 07:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed category

Recently I happened to stumble across the fact that the categories Philately of Great Britain & Postage stamps of Great Britain were renamed/moved to Category:Philately of the United Kingdom and Category:Postage stamps of the United Kingdom following discussion here. The first thing I knew about this was when a bot moved the category on some of my watch pages. I saw that no philatelic editor made any comments and that no notice was left on the Philately WikiProject by anyone, though that may not be required but it would seem like the place the notify people who would know the topic.

Anyway, as you well know, no one in the philatelic industry uses the term Stamp of the United Kingdom for British stamps. Certainly the major catalogues don't use the UK term. Do you agree this name change should never have been made? If so what can we do? Is Deletion review the course of action? I have not used it before. Thanks Stan ww2censor 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. :-) This is another one of those "specialized usage vs general consistency" dilemmas that comes up so often. Is WP a general encyclopedia that includes philatelic material, or a union of general and specialized encyclopedias? Secondly, is it a worthwhile effort to fight for a special exception to WP's usual practices? I would say not, because industry usage seems like more of a longstanding convention rather than a key point of fact (I've never seen an "official" explanation of the GB preference, for instance), and redirects work well enough to get people to our content (there should be category redirects irrespective of the name chosen). Deletion review or categories for discussion would be the right places to reopen, but based on past experience, "everybody in philately uses GB" alone is not going to be compelling enough to get an overturn. Stan 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it not possible to have a category redirect or not? I don't think I have ever seen one but in this instance it might be appropriate to have a redirect rather than trying to fight a losing battle. Thanks ww2censor 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are possible - in fact, we have, ha ha, a whole category full of them - Category:Wikipedia category redirects. Stan 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A/UX

Hi Stan, I was just wondering whether you know anything about Apple A/UX. I'm a student and thinking of mucking around with this operating system, and I was wondering whether you have any experience with it. If you could e-mail me on alexander.loder[at]gmail.com. Thanks. --AxelLoder 13:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday stamp

Just in case you don't have the philately project on your watchlist, Holiday stamp has been nominated for deletion, so you should make your comments here to avoid the AfD being successful. Mind you the article could do with expansion. ww2censor 04:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Civilization_box_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Civilization_box_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image concerned prior to policy.. Sorry ShakespeareFan00 14:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M wikiproject

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Addbot (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Arecaceae

But, really, only a handful do produce coconuts. KP Botany 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps of Ireland

You might be interested to know that I put Postage stamps of Ireland up for WP:FAC today as a self nomination. Cheers ww2censor 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at the images in this article because the first person noted that: "Non-free images lack fair use rationale"? You know about this situation better than I do but I have added a fair use rationale "because they are being use in a stamp article". Maybe these is not enough but I also assume that all stamp images issued before 1932 would actually be PD. Your assistance appreciated though I should possibly have asked before putting it up for WP:FA. TIA Cheers ww2censor 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really could do with your help on the images on this if you are around. I do a few edits from you today, so if you got a chance could you help out. BTTW, I posted the following on the FAC page for the article:

"According to fair use of stamps they must be "For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject" and that is the case for all the images that are actually stamps, not labels. Also I refer to the Irish statutes for Irish Government copyright that states "Government copyright in a work shall expire 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made." So perhaps those images older than 50 years should be made into {{PD-stamp}}. I have also asked another, well experience administrator and philatelic editor to review the images in the article for me, so I will defer on those for the moment and leave you a post when I have revised the licensing, with fire-use rational or an other licence, depending on his suggestions. Do you suggest that I use the {{Non-free media rationale}} template anyway? Image licensing will be acceptable."

I intend to re-license all 50+ year Irish stamps used in the article as PD based on the statement above and tag as Fair Use the 50-year old images of which there are only a few. Would you agree with that? Sorry to push you but I hope you can help out, as this FAC would be the first philatelic article to get passed. ww2censor 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's start with the 50-year cut point - been doing that for commonwealth-area for some time, no grumbles. The rationales are a new little irritation, we don't have agreed-upon practice but some editors are imagining that it's all settled anyway. Can't guarantee time today actually (got a date!), but will carve out some in the next few days. Stan 17:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the license tags on all the images used in Postage stamps of Ireland as {{PD-stamp}} but also linking to the Irish legislation. For the one image that is less than 50 years old I have retagged it with the rationale free use tag and filled that in fully. It surprises me that only one editor has made any attempt to decide the WP:FA status of this article. Do you know any other editors who you could encourage to weigh in on this WP:FAC? BTW, the {{PD-stamp}} tag does not seem to exist on the Commons. Why is that? The alternate one there seem to be {{PD-old}} that has a 75 year expiry time while the same tag here has a 100 year expiry time. Thanks ww2censor 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons tends not to have tags classified by subject matter, and to discourage tags not connected to a specific reason for the status. So PD-stamp didn't seem worth creating over there. PD-US-stamp would make sense, PD-Irish-stamp, etc, where the tag text explains the specific reason why they are PD. (Given the PD-old is wrong, PD-Irish-stamp seems like a good idea for commons, plus you can move the PD images there and get them out of en:) I don't see anything left to do on images for the article, but Image:Stamp irl 1997 £1goose.jpg seems like it should illustrate modern definitives, otherwise you have nothing illustrating recent stamps. Personally I think you could justify a paragraph and illustrative stamp for each definitive series, dunno if you want to go to that much trouble at the moment. Stan 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make a PD-Irish-stamp for this purpose on the commons? There has been little comment on the WP:FAC page. Regarding the Image:Stamp irl 1997 £1goose.jpg, I have actually I already have worked on a more detailed draft definitives article because the main article is already too long. Thanks ww2censor 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Christmas seal US 1925.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Christmas seal US 1925.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of mountains

A tag has been placed on Gallery of mountains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.225.157 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Civilization_box_cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:Civilization_box_cover.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]