This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ww2censor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WW, this is a village I created a stub for seven years ago (tempus fugit etcetera). I almost don't know where to start in order to clean up the un-encyclopaedic content. Nobody seems to be watching or editing these articles; usually they remain as reasonably coherent stubs simply because nobody adds anything!
Does the Ireland project still exist, or are the few remaining editors merely focused on imposing pov rather than adding content? (Current news, sport and popular culture excepted - those are very well dealt with).
But the geographic content is dire and getting worse.
I'm inclined to agree with you that geographic Irish articles appear not to have much interest for anyone right now except for those you mention. There are many new Irish football player stubs and articles of current news topics, but I don't see much new stuff being created within the project. Editors may be working on their own in concentrated topic areas. That's my feeling as few project pages seem to get any attention and even when an Irish WP:FA comes for review it's the same few who try to keep them from being demoted by updating, as I have helped on occasions. Personally I really only concern myself with quite a few Co Wicklow towns and villages, and even then just to revert vandalism and nonsense. Other than that I do watch a wide range of Irish topics but spend quite a bit of time on copyright media here and on the commons. Besides which, I moved back across the Atlantic last year but as we are still working on our house much of my literature is still in boxes. Ballycumber does need a bit of work but I can tell you it is a lot better than some and better than the ga:Béal Átha Chomair version. And would you believe there is a Russian version also using you photo! ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow - That's a scary message that pops up when one edits here! This Russian version has this nifty table:
Общие демографические показатели
Всё население
Изменения населения 2002—2006
2006
2002
2006
чел.
%
муж.
жен.
248
216
−32
−12,9
105
111
Adding these to towns and villages might be better than expanding the "People" section to include the local legend on the u-16 football team who scored 11 points in the county semi-final in 2009!
You mean the red warning box? I just got fed up with disjointed discussions. That and "talkback" templates seem to do the trick most of the time, except for occasional illiterates. Discussions are better on one talk page to get the whole picture especially when they get protracted. Cute little Russian box but I'm not quite sure I know what the 105 and 111 numbers are; the Google translation gives "husband" and "wives" so I presume they are the gender totals. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually like to do some more work on it before putting it into mainspace. If you want to assist please do but either way it does need smoe cleanup before moving. I think it is worth a DYK when it is ready but that also requires a QPQ DYK review. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You tagged the Roscommon lead section as being too short and not adequately summarising the article. I expanded the section, but would like your opinion as to whether it is now satisfactory and whether the tag can be removed.
Thanks. While the length is better I think it is too selective in details rather then: briefly summarising the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article per WP:LEDE especially MOS:INTRO. ww2censor (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Susan Renhard Information
Hi there.
I noticed that you have been an editor to the Susan Renhard page. I am in need of some newspaper articles regarding the murder for a University dissertation and was wondering if you had access or knew how to get access to these? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
You are over stating my contribution to that article. All I did was place a deleion notice for one image, so my knowledge on the topic is nil. Sorry to not be more helpful. Did you do any online searches? Sometimes you need to really root around to get good results. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing to you because you are one of the people that helped with this article. An editor has just decided to use the Samantha Smith talk page to make an anti-communist political statement. Should i remove it? It's not aimed at improving the article and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Paul Austin (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything recent that fits your description. Exactly which edit are you referrring to? If it is unsourced, you can remove it and warn the editor that unsourced edits, are not accepted, unless supported by reliable third party sources. ww2censor (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Maurice Burrus
This is now the only red link on the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists page, though there are probably some omissions from the list - I haven't checked it for completeness yet. I have left the link for you if you want to use it before somebody else does. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Some time ago I thought I had suggested you might help out a bit at User:Ww2censor/Maurice Burrus if you were willing and able. Based on your prompt, I have added some more content but, having read the French and German articles in which there are virtually no inline citations I can use to expand his personal and political life, I did not add much on that front. Maybe you know of some sources or have access to some non-philatelic literature. I could not even find confirmation of his elections to the French Third Republic. If not, and you suggest it is good enough, I will move it online after you reply though I still feel it needs some work. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I will take a look, there are now more red links in the RDP list and more soon so he does not stick out so much. I know you don't like red links but they will fill in soon enough. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
That was fast. Were you waiting? I'll see what you say next. Personally I'm not sure several of the people awarded the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists are really notable in their own right though they appear to pass WP:ANYBIO so if no one complains I'm fine too. Let me know later on. ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree they don't look that notable sometimes from a one line stub but the RDP list is prima facie evidence for notability isn't it and every time I expanded an article I found they were notable in other ways too. Medals, political offices, etc. Gerald Ellott is a case in point, he was prodded so I expanded and found lots of things to add. People who are notable in one way are often notable in another it seems and particularly so with philatelists. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
None of the project assessment logs appear to have being updated since that date. I see that your post at User talk:Theopolisme has so far gone unanswered, so I don't know what the problem is but it is an enwiki wide problem. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice that if I click on a category in the header boxes the list comes and it omits ones I have changed. It seems the assessment updates are not being carried into the visible table. Sarah777 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Maurice Burrus.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! Ww2censor,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JustBerry (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
They got that one completely wrong didn't they? I don't know why you didn't just make it live. RDP is enough on its own. What is the best way to proceed? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
With one or two short introduction sentences, at most, but with candidate lists and results lists, all this type of pages are lists to me. I did se a few that had no table of lists but they were for upcooming elections IIRC. I retagged several that were tagged and added to those untagged. Do you not agree with me that these are not articles tyye pages per se but lists? If we really disagree, let's get another opinion. ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't have strong feeling either way, it's just they these could evolve into articles of the non-list type. Maybe we just take them on a case-by-case basis? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If they do evolve into real articles that happen to have a list in them, then I will be happy to support that change. Ok. ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How do I change the category of this file to "fair use"? I have tried to contact both wikipedia and the permissions address with all the rationale and other criteria, but this does not seem to get to the correct department. There must be a direct way. My attempts have made a second file available. Hope that works. Aldercraft (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
June 12. The second file is still not come up "fair use"!
This is a publicity photo used for promotion and is offered to all who might write about the subject or use it in programs, critiques etc.
Aldercraft (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Clutter?
I'd like a second opinion here.
See [1].
I removed one of those N/S/E/W templates that infest many geographical articles - I terminate them on sight. They seem to be pointless clutter. Any opinion? Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Are they really necessary especially if they is already a map of the island showing the location? Personally I'm not much in favour but I would suggest raising a discussion on the WikiProject. Can you tell who was adding these? If they are still active it may be worth a question as to why they think they are necessary or even useful. ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we've communicated in the past, but we've certainly worked on the same article (Epaulettes (stamp)) and I wondered, given that there seem to be hardly any active philatelic contributors here any more, whether you might possibly be up for doing the GA review? I don't know if you've been through the process before, but it should be quite pain-free and I think the article is in pretty good shape already. Please let me know if you're interested - it would be a really massive help! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually I noticed some of your work especially this article. As you say there are not enough active philatelic editors. While I've not actually done any WP:GAs myself, I have been involved in some WP:FAs. Based on your request at the philately project I looked at the Epaulettes (stamp) article and fear that, even though it is quite well written, it is not up to muster because it is rather incomplete. Even though I did not know this stamp issue prior to reading it but with a little look around at my own philatelic library I noticed several things missing that I think should be included for it to pass GA. I was considering do the actual review but I did not want to appear confrontational or offensive towards all the work you have done on this topic. ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for that! No, I certainly don't mind if you point these things out - we're all up for improving the article after all! My reference books aren't great, but even if you don't take on the review, I'd certainly be grateful if you could point them out. If you're up for doing the review which I'd certainly welcome, you can find some instructions here. Anyway, let me know if you're up for it and thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem but I did not get to it. I took a look and see that neither In Australia nor Men in the Market Place have any prose to support their use, just the captions, while other non-free images such as Les fleurs dédaignées and The Summer House both have commentary prose and are sourced, so those two still concern me even though User:Crisco 1492 seems to think they are all ok. I'm sure you can fix them. I can comment on the FA if you like. ww2censor (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Market Place is representative of the style which the prose discusses, rather than the work individually, which is why I accepted it (I think we can agree it's considerably different than her later work); there's a quote as well, although that's less conducive to requiring an image. In Australia has two paragraphs referring to it, and the text is so tied to the visual aspects of the work that not showing the image would (in my opinion) significantly damage a reader's understanding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the quick response. Indeed I see the In Australia prose and that certainly satisfies me completely. Men in the Market Place is debatable as there is no actual commentary about the painting itself but as you say the general style and influence may be ok as justification though with FAs one tends to be rather more critical than usual which is whay I made the comment. I'm good with that and happy to see someone does these reviews. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair point about In the Market not being explicitly mentioned... not familiar enough with painter FAs to know offhand how common it is for non-free paintings, which are not indicated in the running prose, to be used to illustrate a certain style (although it appears to be common in the lesser quality articles I've read). To be safe, and if the sources support it, perhaps hamiltonstone could add a sentence or clause which points to the painting as an example (i.e. "such as In the Market"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My view is that non-free content must illustrate something important that is covered by the article, that could not be illustrated by any alternative free content, and for which the article would be substantially poorer if there were no illustration at all. That is how I read NFCC 1 and 8. In the case of art works illustrating an article about their creator, i would say that it does not matter whether the particular illustrated art work is discussed in the text, provided that the illustration meets those criteria, and provided that no other free illustration could provide such illustration. As there are no Nicholas paintings in the public domain under Oz law, this satisfies that criteria. In the case of Men in the Market Place, the image caption is intended to be read in conjunction with the text so the reader understands that this is an illustration of her early adoption of the post-impressionist style. That said, i can see that a cross-reference from the text would help, per Crisco, so I have added that. Thank you both for helping out. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Crisco 1492:@Hamiltonstone:Here is a relatively recent Austalian newspaper article I think can be used to contribute a bit on the In the Market Place image as it has specific details and then there would be both commentary about the paiting itself and it will be sourced. Remember that the FA is about the artist not about the painting so each non-free image must comply with all 10 non-free criteria and I think that would satisfy the issue. The image rationale could also be rewritten slightly after that.
Your interpretation of NFCC is rather liberal in my opinion and I have been following and involved in NFCC for quite some time. NFCC Criteia 8 is however quite subjective but if the prose can tell the reader the information without the need for the non-free image and his/her understanding of the topic is not impaired by the lack of an image, then the non-free image should not be used. Either way, some critical commentary about the image itself is necessary to justify the use of such a non-free image and that commentafry really requires that it is sourced. I've provided some advise above which allows you to achieve that objective for the one image I feel still has an issue. We are talking about a potential FA here, so we are expected to be quite critical. Otherwise the article looks great and interesting. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Quite a while ago I thought that Fivebills might assist, as he indicated on a previous post, in expanding my Guy Bullock draft. I don't think it is quite ready as the "Useful links" sections needs to be teased out into prose with citations or removed. Would you like to assist getting it ready for mainspace? I agree he seems to be under appreciated and the lack of many sources appears to support that situation. Thanks for asking. ww2censor (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I've no issue with that. I have too many slow moving drafts I wish were in mainspace, so anything you can do to improve it in that direction will be appreciated. It's on my watchlist, so when you think it is ready, just leave a post on the talk page or remove the sandbox template. Thanks for the quick reply. ww2censor (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I'm replying here because this is more to you than being about the article. Yes, I think it can go live and my choice would be to move it directly there rather than go via AFC (but perhaps that is what you have in mind). Just go ahead any time. DYK if you like, I'm not fussed. I need to reference the Everest stuff better because I've just typed from memory (but I can do the refs quickly). At present I am trying to get more on his career but I know I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel when I get to the Edinburgh Gazette! I have ordered the Wade Davis book but it may take a while to arrive and then I'll be on holiday so let's not wait for that. I know some sites say he was a mathematician but I doubt it. Perhaps he was good at it at school (did he go to university?). Thincat (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, so we will wait until them. Maybe I'll try to do a QPQ at DYK in preparation as I'm sure we can make an interesting hook. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I wondered about submitting 1921 British Mount Everest reconnaissance expedition to DYK (it's still new enough) but in the end didn't feel like it. Do you fancy that one now? (You wouldn't need QPQ!!!) I have another article in the long wait already. I wondered about the hook concerning Bernard Shaw (look in the expedition article). This anecdote might at a pinch be worked into the current article. I tried to concoct a hook about them thinking the ERG flowed east when in fact it flowed west but it was too complicated. Thincat (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The Davis book has arrived. As I rather expected, most of the material about Bullock relates to the 1921 expedition and I shall be adding to 1921 British Mount Everest reconnaissance expedition from time to time. What little there is of a biographical nature I've added to User:Ww2censor/Guy Bullock. There is a fair bit about what Mallory thought of Bullock (and vice versa) but it isn't too significant so I have left this out. I have found another newspaper reference of some interest relating to his diplomatic career so I have included that (the newspaper itself suggests "Harry Bullock" is meant to be Guy Bullock). So, I think it is ready to go live in whatever way you chose. Please rewrite my remarks about Jeffrey Archer's book if you like. Thincat (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved it into mainspace this afternoon but had an error with the Davis citation for the marriage, which said: Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names, so removed it because it was a second citation anyway and that fixed it. I don't understand the problem as it appeared to be ok on my user draft page. Thanks for all the help. Do you want to do a DYK as I am sure there is a decent hook there? ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Recently I've been finding drafts have been fine in my user space and have given reference errors in main. It looks like some error messages are suppressed in user:. I'm not really wanting to do a DYK nomination myself but I am perfectly happy if you'd like to and I'd also be happy to help. DYK look to be sticklers for exact source quotation in hooks. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi ww2. I have added two works to this page, neither of which I think are dispensble. One shows the artistic milleau in which Bacon was working at the time, another provides a bridge to older master he was indepted to and verbalises reservations on that master times and attitudes. I have tried to show this in the gallery, after failing to verabilise via sources. Somethings pictures say better than words. I would appreciate it if you could navigate me through the correct way to retain these pics; I dont want to compromise the article for readers. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that since my image review a week ago much had been changed image-wise that I don't think if entirely for the good. A few images are again forced big in size (not even his images), a non-free image has been added to a new gallery, which is a no-no per WP:NFTABLE specifically because there is no critical commentary about the image. Also I think the gallery, as it is formatted, detracts from immensly from the article because it puts the emphasis on images that are not even Bacon's. A gallery of normal sized gallery images which influenced him might not detract so much or appear so imposing or seem so important. Currently it's so in-your-face that is appears to me to be more important than any other images. I see you also uploaded File:Alberto Giacometti The-Cage first-version.jpg, which is a derivative work but the image itself is not freely licenced so will have to be deleted for that reason; you don't have permission from the photgrapher and the source probably did not even take the photo, so that is inaccurate and Alberto Giacometti is not the author of the photo. So, I'm sorry but I will put it up for deletion because the commons do not accept non-free images anyway and even here it is still a problem. Besides which I think the cage concept is actually understandable without an image though an image would certainly help, so it is a pity that Alberto Giacometti's works are still copyright. Did anyone else use this concept, perhaps earlier, whose images might be freely licenced? Unfortunately I don't see how you can retain either of the new images. Hope that helps. Move some or all of this to the FAC if you wish. That way others can chime in. ww2censor (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ww...the Irlproj system is still catatonic. Could you use your powerful influence here to prompt someone into action? Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanka for your confidence in me but, actually I don't have any clout and we are not the only ones complaining, so, I fear, we shall just have to wait until someone steps up. ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll go look tomorrow as we have people coming for dinner in 1/2 hr. For the moment that redirect will do. BTW, with a little assist on the Peer WP, I put the last of the PMGI online, Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont, so maybe you can give it the once over if you get a chance. Thanks for the heads up. ww2censor (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
Well done getting Bellomont sorted out. I just did a few tweaks, but it looks good. And his frock is gorgeous. Want! ;)
So, after quite some searching around, I found this (see page 17 - about half way down) and this portrait of Robert Trotter. These four are called PMG, however, some instances call it a deputy position and yet the Post Office Directories issued by the PMGs do not use the term deputy, so some more work need to be done, either way it should make an article. I'll start a draft and if you want to help out we can take it from there before un-redirecting the current page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've just ordered Three Centuries of Scottish Posts which I will pick up in London when I am there next week. Hopefully it will have something good. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, ww2c. That's great.
I can be a bit of pedant, and I didn't like the way that the current state of wp left Wedderburn a holder of a non-post. I will look fwd to seeing what you come up with when you study the books. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about replacing all the CNs with one Refimprove, but I saw on the page's history that you reverted an edit that took out all the CNs without using the page-wide Refimprove. I have real-life limitations and you are very active especially in this area, so I thought I'd point this out to you and leave it to you to decide what to do.
Having many CNs make it difficult, especially for people with certain disabilities but even just for some busy people, to read the entire article. I understand that many CNs can point out all the items that need refs, but I really think it also gets in the way of even starting to add refs because of how overwhelming it is.
I do agree that that IP user's edits needed reversal, but only because he didn't compensate with No Refs or Refimprove. Or how about this (new ideas as I post!): make a structured list of what points need citations and put it on Talk:Notaphily? Or even link back to an earlier version on the talk page? We need to balance out accessibility with provability.
If you want me to see your response, please add User:Geekdiva to it so it will show up in my notifications (which I discovered by accident but it works well), and I'll make a good effort to get back here. But because of my limitations, I'm going to leave Notaphily alone since I used up my energy here. :)
Ps. I also liked the way you didn't respond in your edit summary to the insults in the IP user's summary. Heh! Best possible response.
To clarify, I think that CNs (which I use often) are best suited after the article is mostly referenced well. It serves as a "Ya missed this one!" pointer.
@Geekdiva: While I can't agree with all your views, this article has no references, so the most appropriate tag is one simple "unreferenced" tag: there are no references to improve on. So many cns are just not worth it, and certainly detract vistually but they have their place but maybe not only when an article is reasonably well referenced. I also use "unreferenced section" tags where necessary. The article could possibly also do with an "attention needed=yes" within the project banners on the talk page if that field is supported, though whether anyone follows up on those I really don't know. I have this on my watchlist but have little interest or knowledge in the topic itself. Thanks for your interest and compliments. ww2censor (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Co Monaghan arms.svg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Charles Wesley Powell
Draft:Charles Wesley Powell I asked for help with photo PD/fair use issues. You graciously responded and gave me suggestions. THANK YOU! I think I have figured out how to properly include the necessary PD templates on the images I want to use from the Smithsonian Institution. I'm going to tackle copyright info on additional photos. Again, thank you. Panamaorchids (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postmaster General for Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Charles II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postage stamps and postal history of the British Virgin Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falmouth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Film censorship in the Republic of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TCD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It said in the article quoted that the focus has been on the Big Men and diplomatic exchanges, but "in popular discourse the compelling story of Ireland's economic survival was nudged to one side" etc. PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just that you said "I have books back to 1975 that provide the wartime economic impacts are detailed, so 2000 appear a spurious date." The article I quoted says "the turn of this century", ie 2000, spurious or not.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for such a warm welcome. It's too bad about the picture, it was probably a really good one because it had him holding a plate up to the camera with his name on it. You can check it out for yourself if you would like here is a web address to the YouTube video, just skip to 1:04/1:05 to see what I'm talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQz6lvh9dKI— Preceding unsigned comment added by I Dan tha Man I (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@I Dan tha Man I: You are welcome for the welcome. If you look at the YouTube video page you will see that is clearly states: Music video by Above The Law performing Murder Rap. (C) 1990 SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT which is the first clue that we can't use it. Have you tried searching Flickr? Try this link https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ and only search the first and last categories as these are the ones we can use. BTW please sign all your posts otherwise we don't know who you are or where to find you. You can do this easily by adding 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ to the end of your posts on talk pages. ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm unsure of which license I I should use. I gathered all the information and images myself on the image. The images on the image are from google search, the image itself was created on Microscoft powerpoint but I wasn't allowed to put a pptx file on wikapedia so I used a tool called snip get an image of it turning it into a PNG file. The information on the poster I wrote some my own words, some in my own words but from secondary resouces and some from secondary resources. So which licence should I use?
Info-Learn, IL (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to File:Pollution.png, then you need to provide a link to each and every image used and the source urls must show clearly that each image is freely licenced so we can check the copyright licence tag you add to the image. The licence of those source images will determine the licence for the poster, which, in turn, will be determined by the lowest most restrictive licence. A Google image search clearly states that images may be copyright, so you must only chose freely licenced images. If you fail to provide that information the poster will be deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck @Info-Learn, IL:. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A source url is the link to the webpage, i.e., the web address of the page the image is on, called a Uniform resource locator. I really don't need you to cluttering up my page with this stuff and wasting your time doing so but at least you have a record of the sources. You must put them on the image page together with the copyright licence for each one, so any reviewer can find them. However unfortunately, I did not see one page that has a clear free licence on it. Most have copyright notices, so we will not be able to use it and if even one image is copyright we still connot use it even if all the other were freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Jenny
In my view, it IS necessary to the story, because it shows that the Jenny Souvenir sheet was not a unique Postal Service initiative: that the Service had issued invert reprints previously. Removing my remark leaves the misleading impression that the Jenny sheet was an unprecedented release. Tant pis. BFolkman (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you disagree but the Jenny souvenir sheet is not stated to be a unique issue, nor one of many, so its omission does not mislead readers in the slightest nor imply one way or another that it was an unprecedented issue. Why would you think that? I don't see your reasoning at all. Adding the fact that a previous sheet was released is totally unnecessary to the reader's understand of the issue of the 95th anniversary sheet. So what if USPS previously released an error sheet? That fact may very well be an appropriate addition to the souvenir sheet article and possibly a small mention in errors, freaks, and oddities. @BFolkman:ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Another thing...
While I'm looking into that I note a sinister development.
[27]
Notices are appearing on Irish roads articles above the infobox (eg - (N11 road (Ireland)), that suggest we might be forced to follow an Australian template. (I'm not clear what it is suggesting, to be honest).
It appears to mean expending the parameters from the Australian template into the regular template, but we don't have to use them. ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Bonne année Sarah. It depends entirely on the copyright of the lyrics. When were they written and when did the author die? These are the determining factors and as the section is unreferenced I don't have clues. Perhaps you do? If it is still copyright then a link and/or short extract would be suitably appropriate. It looks like the whole section, which is completely unreferenced, is a cut/paste job from this webpage. Let me know if you find anything else as I don't see any other significant links. ww2censor (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Ww2censor,
Thank you for looking at my work. I have expanded the lead section, but I would appreciate concrete examples of what else I can do to address the two other issues. I am very anxious to collaborate with you to fix these issues and get those notices off the page as soon as possible.
Thanks in advance for your reply (preferably on 'talk' or 'view history' tabs of the page). AlexandraSl (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unfortunately until you provide reliable third party sources this article is not really going to improve. Every reference is from a Dooley related website or article by Dooley. One non-Dooley reference is a book review and one is a quote by Dooley. Get rid of most of them, keeping at most 5–10% and find journalistic reportage from good newspapers or books for a start. As the tag says the lead does not summarise the content: see WP:LEDE specifically MOS:INTRO which states: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Personally I doubt a higher rating is possible without quite a lot of work. You might drop a note to the Philosophy WikiProject talk page for their assistance. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
![[26]](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=mexico&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=R1eXVMTqJYv38QWv3YK4BQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=UCU1wuAsXjPa-M%253A%3BsezFi9oLNsqZpM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.usforex.com%252Fupload%252Fcontentpages%252Fmexico%252520flag%252520map.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.usforex.com%252Four-services%252Ftransfer-money%252Fmexico%3B1600%3B1088){kind=link}