|
User talk:Verbcatcher/Archive 2017
Hi Verbcatcher,
I think I'm ignorant of Wikipedia policy and the change I've done was beacuse I'm working for Al Azhar University, so I thought it's my responsibility to upgrade the humble content at the Wikipedia page of Al Azhar University.
Al Azhar University-Gaza is not to Al Azhar University in Cairo.
Hence, I'm kndly asking for a way to upgrade the content? Ghadasal (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadasal (talk • contribs) 06:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. There is no need for you to waste your time, and server resources, by "fixing" redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating Sant Jordi Awards, Verbcatcher!
Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
hopefully you can find more sources to expand the page! See Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb
To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Ajpolino (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your feedback.I'm new to wiki editing, so I'm grateful for being pointed in the right direction. My copy of Kelly's History of Liverpool University arrived in the post today, so I should be able to reference the first chairs of anatomy, physiology, Medicine and surgery from there. The LMI presidents list, including Thelwall Thomas, were from T. Bickerton's History of Liverpool from the earliest days until 1920. I supposed these men to be notable by being LMI presidents, but I'm still learning the criteria for what is meant by notable. My research at the moment is looking at connections between C 19th medical networks e.g. medical school and LMI. I'll try to get some references tomorrow and will probably make a more thoughtful selection of notable alumni/staff during the course of my research. EstherCole (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) EstherCole (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A 12% increase in 3 years looks to me a very strong (explosive) growth, when comparing it to the 2-3% increase for non-muslims in UK, while white brits does not have it all...
–TLA93 (talk) 14:10, March 25 2017 (EET)
- It is a significant increase, but in my view "soared" and "explosive" suggest a more substantial increase and reflect the style of the Daily Mail to which they are sourced. Wikipedia should aim for more neutral language, particularly on sensitive subjects. The figures are estimates, not census figures. I was also concerned that I could not find the figures on the ONS website mentioned in the Daily Mail article, but decided not to tag the figures as {{dubious}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether photographs I have taken of books that I own are breaches of Wikipedia copyright policy. We shall now find out and, if they are, the articles will be diminished by their removal. If you have copyright-free images of Newman and Hando, do please use them. While on the topic, I would suggest your having approached me to discuss the issues would have been a rather more collaborative action, and a better use of your time. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @KJP1: I am sorry that you are upset by my nominating these pictures for deletion. In my view they are clear copyright violations. If so this is not an issue of editorial judgement, and discussing the issue did not appear to be productive. However, I am happy to discuss my reasons and to advise you as best as I can.
- The copyright rules for Wikimedia Commons are summarised in c:Commons:Copyright rules. Specific guidelines for book covers are given in c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Book covers, which says:
| Book covers
Book covers, unless they are very old, usually carry copyright-protected designs, and photographs of them may not normally be uploaded to Commons. The fact that you are the physical owner of a book does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the cover design by uploading a copy here. A rare exception to this rule would be a book cover which is simple enough to not exceed the Threshold of originality.
|
- That directly addresses these two images. However, it is not my decision and an administrator who specialises in these issues will decide whether they should be deleted. You can ask questions at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and if the images are deleted you can ask on the deleter's talk page.
- I added the links to the nominations to assist the administrators by confirming that these are book covers and to establish when the books were published. This is particularly relevant for the Hando book as the design is somewhat retro and it might have be old enough to be public domain.
- In this case there might be a way around the problem: post the images to Wikipedia as non-free files (Wikipedia and Commons are different things and have different rules), and add a fair use justification, see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. When I was last involved in this I used File:Nicholas Monsarrat - The Cruel Sea book cover.jpg as a model, or you could look in the subcategories of Category:Fair use images of book covers.
- Book covers are typically used to illustrate articles on the book. I have not found an example of book cover to illustrate an article on an author and such use might not meet this rule in Wikipedia:Non-free content:
| 8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
|
- You can ask about non-free content at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
- On another topic, I noticed that these image pages include a camera location. This was probably derived from the metadata attached to the image by your iPhone. This may reveal where you live, which you might want to keep private.
- Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hi, verbcatcher. i started the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article because another article in Wikipedia mentioned a scratch orchestra (it was an article about some aspect of ballet, but I can't find it at the moment), and I thought it would be powerful to have the mention in the ballet article link to an article that described a "scratch orchestra" in some detail?
Is there a way to find which articles in wikipedia link to the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article?
Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Greg Dahlen, my main concern is that the article does little more than define the term. There appears to be little scope to extend the article. Almost by definition, there are unlikely to be examples of 'notable' scratch orchestras, and I am not aware of an substantial "scratch orchestra movement".
- You can find which articles link to another by clicking on the "what links here" link under Tools on the left of the page. The only article that links to Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) is Ballet company.
- There is a dictionary definition of 'scratch orchestra' here. You might add a definition to Wiktionary, which includes this definition in its scratch page:
6. Made, done, or happening by chance; arranged with little or no preparation; determined by circumstances; haphazard.
- a scratch team; a scratch crew for a boat race; a scratch shot in billiards
- a scratch race: one without restrictions regarding the entry of competitors
|
- You might add
- a scratch orchestra: one put together for a particular concert or project
- However, I am unfamiliar with the rules and conventions that apply to Wiktionary.
- Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
---Thanks, Verbcatcher. Well, the article I started on Wikipedia includes examples of situations under which a scratch orchestra would be put together. It seems to me that describing these various situations goes beyond what a dictionary would do. On that basis I would think it qualifies for an article? Do you agree? I would think the article has some capacity for expansion. For example, it may be that information has been published, or will be published in the future, about different details of how a scratch orchestra is put together, or problems encountered in putting a scratch orchestra together. Someone may have published, or will publish, specific experiences in putting together a scratch orchestra. On that basis, too, it would qualify as an article, perhaps a stub? Greg Dahlen (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It still seems too thin, and there may be a problem with identifying acceptable sources. The article currently only cites one source, which is a blog posting that does not qualify as reliable.
- I think it would be best to convert the article into a paragraph to the Orchestra article, and to convert Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) into a redirect to this paragraph. The redirect could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} and at some stage replaced with an article if adequate material and sources can be procured to justify a separate article.
- I envisage a expanding the Amateur ensembles section of Orchestra using the following outline:
-
-
- May also be called 'Philharmonic' or 'Philharmonia'
- Opera and ballet orchestras
- May also play orchestral concerts
- Chamber orchestras
- Scratch orchestras
- Amateur ensembles
- (using the existing text)
- Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
---hi, Verbcatcher. Why are you thinking "amateur" ensembles since I believe "scratch orchestras" in most cases are paid? Btw, for me to get a note that you replied do you have to tag me in the reply? If so, and you reply, please tag me in the reply so I'll know you replied. I actually didn't know you had replied here, I came looking for how to markup certain edits and then noticed you'd replied. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Greg Dahlen:, I am sorry if I was unclear, my proposed change to orchestra was to rename the Amateur ensembles section to Types of orchestra with a short subsection on the main types of orchestra, as outlined above. Scratch orchestras can comprise professional, semi-professional or amateur musicians, or a mixture. Btw, 'professional' is not the same as 'paid': amateurs are sometimes paid and professionals sometimes play for free. I apologise for not pinging you with my earlier response – I usually add pages that I have edited to my watchlist. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
---Verbcatcher, I am sorry, when I read your proposal I heard the phrase "amateur ensembles" and missed the detail and scope of what you were proposing. You do realize that the introductory section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra gives a little detail on some of those categories you thought to include in the expanded section? Would the subsections within the newly expanded section over-repeat what's already contained in the introduction to the article? As an example, the introductory section says, in the third paragraph from the top of the article: "A full-size orchestra may sometimes be called a symphony orchestra or philharmonic orchestra. The actual number of musicians employed in a given performance may vary from seventy to over one hundred musicians, depending on the work being played and the size of the venue." Would you more or less repeat this information in the proposed newly expanded section? Greg Dahlen (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Greg Dahlen, I admit I have not studied the orchestra article in detail, I was looking for a place where a paragraph on scratch orchestras could usefully be added. The lead section of an article should be an introduction and summary (see MOS:LEAD), so some repetition between the lead and the rest of the article is to be expected. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- hello Verbcatcher. Well, I'm not sure either. Not being very knowledgeable about orchestras, i don't know how much there is to say about each kind of orchestra. Until we decide, what about simply giving "scratch orchestras" their own section after "amateur ensembles" in the orchestra article? Although scratch orchestras might not be assembled that often, still I would think it is an important enough phenomenon within the orchestra world to warrant its own section within the article. After all, amateur ensembles got their own section. Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi User:Greg Dahlen, that makes sense. I would be inclined to put it before the "Amateur ensembles" section, because some would place a scratch orchestra above an amateur ensemble in the pecking order. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm, Verbcatcher, sorry I don't reply so fast, I don't have a computer at home but only use them in public libraries. I'm a bit inclined to put it after because i think "scratch orchestras" are probably assembled far more rarely than amateur ensembles? Altho not an orchestra expert, I kind of guess they're assembled quite infrequently. But I'm going to ask on that quora blog where I got the original info on "scratch orchestras." I'll get back to you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg Dahlen, I don't think they are infrequent. Many amateur choirs (and possibly amateur musical theatre companies) assemble an ad-hoc orchestra of professional players for each concert. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
---Verbcatcher, if you think it should go before, I don't have strong feelings about it. I can move it if we're agreed? Or you can. I would think we have to keep the blog footnotes because those are the only place I could find anything substantial on "scratch orchestras."
One thing I would like is that if someone comes on Wikipedia to search for info about scratch orchestras, when they write scratch orchestra in the search box it would bring up the scratch orchestra section within the orchestra article. but i'm not sure, does the search box ever bring up sections, or only full articles?
Interestingly enough, I just attended a performance by a "conductorless" orchestra. They claimed to be one of the few in the world. That probably should become a section within the "orchestra" article as well. Oh wait, I see now there is a full article on conductorless orchestras.
By the way, would you give me your opinion on another article I wrote? It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Makdisi. I think with what I currently have sufficient notability has been established for the article to remain, but another editor put an "inadequate notability" tag on it. Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher,
That paragarph is fine, NPRN stands for: National Primary Record Number. Sorry can not think of a source that springs to mind.
As for the National Monuments Record of Wales, take a look at the following links:
https://rcahmw.gov.uk/services/royal-commission-archive/
https://rcahmw.gov.uk/national-monuments-record-of-wales/
Not every site on Coflein is a listed building or Schedualed Ancient Monument. Over the last one hundred years the Commission has amassed a huge amount of information from site visits and various other sources.
You may also be intrested in the Historic Wales website which can be explored via organisation data layers and overlays of current OS mapping and OS 1st Edition Mapping.
Thanks, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you made this edit. Care to elaborate? --GHcool (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GHcool: Based on the article, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a movement that campaigns against the Israeli government's policies and actions concerning Palestine and related issues. In the BDS disambiguation page we need a short phrase that describes the topic of the linked article, which should be factual and non-contentious. I have reverted two of your recent changes to this:
- I reverted this with the summary Possible POV edit: campaigning against the policies and actions of the Israeli government is not the same as "against Israel". By this I meant that the BDS movement was not campaigning against Israel in general. The article does not say that the campaign is against the existence of the state of Israel (although some of its supporters may be). "Possible POV edit" meant that I suspected that your edit might have been influenced by your personal views on the topic. This was not intended to question your good faith but to alert you other editors to this issue.
- This is worse. I reverted it with the summary focuses on the Palestine issue. Israel's policies and culture are wider than this. The culture of the state of Israel is much wider than this, see the Culture of Israel article. Based on the article, the BDS campaign is not against Israeli culture, although it might oppose some manifestations of this to try to pressurise the Israeli government.
- The current text (a pressure group in support of Palestine) is not ideal because the BDS campaign is also concerned with the Golan Heights, the rights of Arab-Israeli citizens and the right of return of refugees. However, the following sentence indicates that support of Palestine is the main objective:
- On 9 July 2005, a broad spectrum of over 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations initiated a campaign for a boycott, divestment and international sanctions against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause.
- The current text does not mention Israel, but that connection would be assumed by most readers.
- We could put A campaign against the government of Israel, but I prefer the existing text.
- I am happy to discuss this. I do not have a special interest in Israeli or Palestinian politics, I originally came to BDS looking for the dental degree. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would feel more comfortable with A campaign against the government of Israel. BDS's support for Palestine is much more suspect than its opposition to Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's lack of support for BDS is the smoking gun for many suspicious of the campaign's pro-Palestinian bona fides, but there are other reasons to conclude that BDS is an oppositional force. --GHcool (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem like a reasonable person. If you agree with this edit, I won't fight it. If you think my argument of 28 April makes sense to you, I'd appreciate it if the disambiguation page can say what we agreed to. --GHcool (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I have been away. The edit you have linked (this edit) restores the text to my version here, so I am ok with it. Have I misunderstood something? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit in question restored your wording despite your concession that A campaign against the government of Israel would be acceptable to you and my acceptance of that wording (see above). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- GHcool, I didn't actually say that I would accept A campaign against the government of Israel (if I implied this then I ave changed my mind). On reflection, the current wording is clearer and is accurate. It is usually preferable to say what an organisation or a campaign is favour of rather than what it opposes. The few examples I have found follow this format:
- None of these are exact parallels to BDA, but they support my preferred wording. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, but I accept your judgment and will not fight it. Thank you for your time. --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these are General references, then please cite them in the text, at least once. Just floating them on the page is neither nice nore acceptable, because no one can figure out what information is coming from them. Or just put them in a section called "General references". Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher, please see the talk page Dominion of India. You'll see the same British Empire project tag there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @NadirAli: I think that the wikiproject is also wrong in Talk:Dominion of India. I have posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire#Was the Dominion of Pakistan in the British Empire? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Commonwealth#Was the Dominion of Pakistan in the British Empire?, but neither wikiproject appears to be very active, so we may not get a response. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Verbcatcher, Pakistan was not part of the British Empire. It had a separate parliament, like India, but shared the same monarchy with the British Empire. However if you choose to replace the tag that it, I will trust your judgement. It's not that big of an issue for me. But it should be changed on both talk pages then.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @NadirAli: this is related to the distinction between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy. Pakistan was a constitutional monarchy where the monarch did not set public policy or choose political leaders. Sharing a monarch with the UK did not mean that Pakistan was ruled from or by the UK. I'll give the Wikiproject members a chance to comment before making more changes. The same issue applies to Dominion of Ceylon and other British ex-colonies.
- However, it's not totally clear-cut. Commonwealth of Nations#Origin quotes Queen Elizabeth describing Canada as the "first independent country within the British Empire", but she was referring to 1867 when the terminology was different. It's not a big issue for me either, but I like things here to be accurate. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument and I agree with it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your {{Reflist|40em}} works for me on Leander-class frigate. The reason I changed {{Reflist|30em}} to {{Reflist|2}} was that {{Reflist|30em}} gave me too many inconveniently narrow columns when used on my normal monitor. Your solution is a better solution than mine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toddy1:, thanks. We should try to take account different viewing devices, including tablets, phones and perhaps virtual reality headsets. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuously reverting edits of mine, changing them, or just completely removing them. Please stop doing that. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hiitsmebobby:, from what I remember I concluded that one of your edits was undesirable, and something about that edit made me suspect that you might have made similar edits elsewhere. Following-up another editor's edits in this way is a common practice on Wikipedia. Please do not take this personally, I am not meaning to harass you. I always try to give a clear reason when I revert, either in the edit summary or the talk page. I am happy to discuss any my edits, please identify any which you disagree. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Verbcatcher: The present tense on British-Russian relations was needed. "Since 2017". It is 2017. The UK and the US are still discussing it, and changing the Ukraine support was really unnecessary. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2017.
- @Hiitsmebobby: I made this change mainly because your text was likely to become outdated, see MOS:DATED. I have come across many Wikipedia articles where a paragraph like this has not been changed since it was added several years before. Your paragraph was:
- This text may be totally inaccurate in a few years time. There may be major improvements in relations next year, or a major war that would make the statement ridiculous. We cannot rely on a Wikipedia article being updated in any given timeframe. Also, Wikipedia articles can be used to create books which freeze the text at an arbitary moment, see Help:Books. I always aim to edit articles so that they make sense at any time in the future.
- Also, reliable sourcing is a central tenet of Wikipedia. Your sources are newspaper articles dated January and April 2017. They cannot be used to support statements about what has happened since then, so your statement "are discussing sanctions on Russia" is unsourced. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i'd like to create a new article: Paolo Aldighieri. I write it in my sandbox User:99ernst/sandbox. What can you think about it? Can i create it? --99ernst (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied on your talk page at User talk:99ernst#Paolo Aldighieri (sculptor). Verbcatcher (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher, I read you review, absolutely excellent. The article is notable. He has a couple of entries in Worldcat, which makes him automatically notable.
I think the sculptor has had a bad run on WP, there has never has been anybody who has written a decent about him, they are all rank. scope_creep (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in sculpture and architecture ad particularly where the two set intersect (Architectural sculpture), but was surprised to see (without seeing a picture of the whole building) your pictures of the National Museum Cardiff where the figures are described as being pediment figures, but there seems to be no pediment. To me these look like what we in the colonies would call "attic figures." Just a thought. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Einar aka Carptrash: Hi, You appear to be correct, but I am unsure of the right terminology. The building is shown in File:Amgueddfa Genedlaethol Caerdydd.JPG and File:Rear of the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff.jpg. There is a projecting horizontal feature around the building below roof level, and these sculptures are positioned on top of this. To me, attic means either an internal roof space or the adjective for Attica. "Attic figures" is ambiguous, and I think the primary meaning would be ancient Greek or neoclassical figures. A Google search supports this.
- My best source for this building is:
- This says "The sculpture on the attics is tightly integrated with the architecture" (page 228, not currently available in Google). This avoids the confusion with Attica, but I think this use of attic is confusing for the general reader. The Public Monuments and Sculpture Association describes the "sequence of allegorical sculptures on the façade of the building",[3] but I think these sculptures are above the façade, not on it. I think "above the façade" is clear and accurate, and I will probably use this on the images that I have uploaded. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher .
Sorry re not linking SPA. Some one else linked it afterwards. I had thought SPA was a well known abbreviation. I will link in the future, I was just in a hurry.
Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher
I re-wrote the article on its Talk Page. Above it, I wrote an Affidavit, stating that I am a keen listener. How can I improve the article not to have it 'declined'? Sjalkema (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Verbcatcher
I don't know why you reverted my edit in Llandaff article. In addition to the listed episodes (Human Nature, The Family of Blood and
The Eleventh Hour), DOCTOR WHO shot a fourth episode, Vincent and The Doctor, where Llandaff was faking the church at Auvers which Van Gogh paints in the plot. There are lots of references in the internet about it, check this one: https://moviemaps.org/locations/1nh
Thanks.- Casette (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Casette: I reverted your addition of Vincent and the Doctor from the Llandaff article because:
- You did not cite a source
- Location filming in Llandaff is not mentioned in the Vincent and the Doctor article, which states that "The episode was filmed in Trogir, Croatia".
- The episode is largely set in Arles in southern France, where the streets and landscape are very different from Llandaff. This makes location shooting in Llandaff unlikely.
- Most websites for Doctor Who locations are self-published fan sites and as such not reliable sources for Wikipedia, see WP:SELFPUBLISH. The source you suggest here appears to be one of these. Ideally we should cite a BBC source for this. The BBC page cited in the Llandaff article does not mention this episode.
- However, I have just watched the episode, and have convinced myself that the exterior and most of the interior scenes at The Church at Auvers were shot at Llandaff Cathedral (which I know fairly well). This is confirmed by the sculpture shown in File:Llandaff cathedral entrance.JPG, which appears clearly in one shot. However, adding to Wikipedia on this basis would break the Wikipedia:No original research rule.
- I have found a mainstream newspaper article that supports this. It is not ideal but I think it is an acceptable source.
- I will restore you addition, and add this source. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
--John (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- John, please clarify your motivations for issuing this notice. It appears to have been prompted by my edits on your talk page and at Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury. If I have made any edits that conflict with WP:BLP or other Wikipedia policies then please be clear and specific.
- The notice threatens me with sanctions. The edit is tagged with "discretionary sanctions alert" and has been logged as such. This implies that I have misbehaved in some way. Is this justified by my edits? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You indicated here that you intended to restore tabloid material to a BLP. This would be a problem and I wanted to formally flag up to you what sort of problem it would be. I am glad you have not done so. --John (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @John: I explained in Talk:Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury why, in my view, the material did not conflict with the WP:BLPSOURCES policy. Rather than engaging with my comments you have issued a "Mandatory notice". The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons is unhelpful, and this notice and your action in posting it give an impression of intimidation and bullying where guidance and education would be more appropriate.Verbcatcher (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the reformatting of the individual shots on Calan (band) and will use that on future pages. I'm going to make the group shot just a tad larger, but not nearly as big as before. Lhcollins (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't added audio clips yet. Would you consider adding a clip for "Kan" off their latest album? Lhcollins (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lhcollins: I can't find an article on Kan and I am unfamiliar with the band. I added the clip to Calan because it was available on Wikimedia Commons, having been released with a suitable license by the Sain record company. The Sain clips are listed in c:Category:Audio files by Sain (Records) Ltd. If a clip is on Commons then it is easy to add it to a Wikipedia article, otherwise it is much more difficult. You are unlikely to obtain the copyright clearance required to upload a music clip to Commons (unless you are a record company boss). You may be able to upload a music clip to Wikipedia as a non-free file with a non-free use rationale, but the rules for this are restrictive. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lhcollins: You have inspired me to investigate the rules for non-free audio clips and also how to capture them from websites. I have just added a clip to Yesterday (Beatles song). New files are often checked by new page reviewers, and non-free files may be checked more intensively. It remains to be seen whether my contribution will be reverted or updated. If my contribution is kept then I could add clips to other articles. If you want me to do this then please let me have a URL where the music is freely available (i.e. without having an account, e.g. an iTunes preview) and the article where the clip should be added. Alternatively, you could set up the technology yourself, I started here. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was inspired by seeing that it is possible to add brief audio clips. I plan to research that as well. I do my own photography for the pages I create because of the copyright issues connected with using pictures by others. I see that one way bands can add album covers is through MusicBrainz. That was new to me. I'll let you know what I find out. Lhcollins (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the clip of "Kan" that Sain posted on Wikimedia and added it to the page. It works! Lhcollins (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lhcollins: It looks odd to have two clips there, I thought one was sufficient. I chose Synnwyr Solomon as it appears to be the title track on their latest album. We could include all the Calan clips in a List of songs recorded by Calan, as has been done on Welsh Wicipedia at cy:Rhestr o ganeuon a recordiwyd gan y band gwerin Calan.
- "Core data" at MusicBrainz is licensed under {{Cc-0}}.[4] This license is ok on Commons. However, "Supplementary data" is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. This license is not acceptable on Commons because it does not allow commercial use, see c:Commons:Licensing. It is unclear which license applies to cover artwork. If you post any Cc-0 items to Commons the I suggest you use the {{LicenseReview}} tag to request that the licensing information on the source website is documented, see c:Template:LicenseReview. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Other people usually add the detailed album info, but I will keep that info in mind. I usually just write about bands' backgrounds based on newspaper and magazine articles and post photos. I chose Kan because it is the first track on the album and is the one being circulated in the US, where I am. It is a powerful track. It does look a little odd, but it may be good to have a couple samples, then refer them to that other page for more. Unless that is cheating...I'll copy it over the English wiki. Then I have to get back to my day job... Lhcollins (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lhcollins: You are allowed to copy content from another Wikipedia language if you give the information needed to maintain the attribution history. According to WP:TFOLWP you should indicate the source in your edit summary and add the the {{translated page}} tag on the talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Verbcatcher,
Thanks ever so much for your invaluable help in improving the page on the book. --Elnon (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I was trying to be helpful.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the value of a news article which can no longer be accessed. Paulharding150 (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paulharding150: the reference in Winston Churchill (1940–2010) was to an article printed in The Guardian. Printed copies of the newspaper are available in libraries. Sources do not need to be accessible online. I'm sure there is a Wikipedia guideline about this somewhere. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Verbcatcher. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for going through this article Clement Price Thomas. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whispyhistory: I am glad to be able to help. My interest in Price Thomas is mainly because of his Welsh connection. I have no expertise in surgeons, although I did write the William Thelwall Thomas article. It would be interesting to know more about Price Thomas's parents. It is unusual for a grocer in a small town in industrial South Wales to send his son to an English public school, particularly his ninth child. This was a boom time in the South Wales coalfield and it attracted many dynamic and ambitious people. This family history website gives details of his ancestors (not citable here). "Price Thomas" was Clement's surname but not his father's surname. It is unclear whether Price was originally his second forename or if he used his mother's maiden name. It was not uncommon for Welsh professional men to assume doubled-barrelled surnames because they are more memorable (Wales has a national shortage of surnames), an possibly to give an upper-class impression. We say that Clement was deeply religious, so it would be good to say which denomination he followed. He was buried with his parents at New Bethel Chapel, Mynyddislwyn which indicates that his parents were non-conformist, and that he did not reject their religion. However, it was common for those joining the English upper-middle classes to join the Church of England, and this might have helped his career. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He gets more interesting day by day. Thank you. I'm planning a dyk...if you have any ideas. If I can come across anything else. I'll forward to you or add to article. Please do add anything if you find anything of interest. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- is it ok I took out comment from dyk ..:*Avoid ALT1, because a contemporary article in Time indicated that is was normal for the king's doctors to be unpaid.[5] Verbcatcher (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)and amended DYK accordingly. Thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help so far. Your grammar is far better than mine. Please feel free to look over Arthur Tudor Edwards. I am still working on it so your advice is appreciated. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You may also be interested in Sir Horace Evans. Anyway, thank you for everything and have a lovely Christmas Whispyhistory (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
