User talk:5464536/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Bahrain Post

Hello, just to let you know that I moved the "see also" section because it goes above the "references" section (see Wikipedia:Layout). Regards, --Beloved Freak 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Again ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback, like the one I left you above, is a template you leave for people to tell them there is a message on you talk page for them. You leave it by adding the template {{Talkback|your user name}}. It can also be added by WP:TWINKLE and can be configured with more direct links. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive talk page

OK, I setup the talk page archiving. You can change the settings if you don't like them; I made then=m fairly simple and short thought I prefer to use 14 days and leave a minimum of 2 posts on the page, so it is not completely blank but the choice is yours. I also setup the first page. If you want to go back and add any of the more useful posts you can always do that by going through the history and pasting the posts into the first archive, when it is full the bot will automatically start a new page. You can always delete any non useful posts if you want more work, but I just let it run on its own. Hope that works. Later. ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Maidonian (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Meter stamp

Hello, I've found your new article but I think the content is more or less already dealt with in Postage meter. Do you really think we need a standalone article for the stamp? De728631 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't anticipate a large article but it is a philatelic term in it's own right and significant field of philatelic study. There is a lot of literature on them. I think the mark is different from the machine. Maidonian (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's alright then. Happy editing. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I'm not sure you are watching my talk page. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stamps

Why did you replace my original source here? Ah I see what you did, thanks for your interest in these articles. Someday maybe we'll have a half decent article about each stamp entity. Keep up the good work! ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Let me know if you are watching my talk page so I don't have to keep dropping you a talkback alternatively I will notify you I have replied. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

INTERPHIL

I am old enough to remember this important convention. I removed your Prod. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Fraser

A tag has been placed on Paul Fraser, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PhGustaf (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Stanley_Gibbons_Catalogue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stanley_Gibbons_Catalogue.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Female philatelists

Country Definitives

I see you decapitalised and moved Country Definitives contrary to the Royal Mails own capitalisation per [1]. Several stamp dealers also capitalise it. Do you have any sources that show definitives should be decapitalised? ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we only capitalised the second word when it was a proper name. They are normal English words I think. The fact that RM does it is not relevant. Maidonian (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In general we don't capitalise normal words except where it is the WP:COMMONNAME such as Nazi Party not Nazi party. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have treated this one as a generic philatelic term in the same way as Health stamp (unique to NZ) and PHQ card (unique to UK). There does seem to be inconsistency as we also have Presentation Pack which is not unique to any country. When I changed it I did so because I thought it was a generic term undeserving of full capitalisation. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from William Gardner (English coin designer)

Hello Maidonian, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to William Gardner (English coin designer) has been removed. It was removed by MickMacNee with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 349524944 by Maidonian (talk) designer of a widely circulated coin is sufficient claim of notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MickMacNee before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Haddon Hall

Please add a citation to a WP:Reliable source to WP:Verify that the information that you added is correct. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Done. Maidonian (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

UPU stamp

You may not realise that it was unnecessary to upload the US UPU stamp under a new name, on the commons, just to provide a straighter image. All you had to do was upload a new version over the existing image by clicking on the "Upload a new version of this file". Now we have two images and the new one has no image description, source, author or date, other than its licence and only one category. I will do that for this one and mark the new one as redundant, so it get deleted. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to do what you suggest but something went wrong. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. If you need guidance in future just ask. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Postage stamps and postal history of Syria

On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Syria, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of File:Stamp Syria 1919 4m on Levant.jpg

blanked page

Hi Maidonian, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding File:Stamp Syria 1919 4m on Levant.jpg. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 00:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of File:Briefmarkenautomat-04.jpg

blanked page

Hi Maidonian, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding File:Briefmarkenautomat-04.jpg. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 01:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Postage stamps and postal history of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Hello! Your submission of Postage stamps and postal history of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Postage stamps and postal history of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

On April 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of the Nyassa Company

Thank you for your welcome. As you've seen, I think, I've expanded the Nyassa article and uploaded some images to the Commons site (with the help of a few people!). I'll try and expand a little more, at least by adding images of some of the series not yet covered in the gallery. The thing is, most of the stamps were issued by Waterlows solely to take advantage of the philatelic market, rather than to satisfy any actual postal need in Nyassa. I've hinted at this, and could go in to more detail, but there's little in the way of independent sources on this subject - the historical article already cited is about it, although I'm awaiting a couple of articles from the USA which should shed more light. Is it something that I can cover without being able to back it up with sources? I know Nyassa (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work on that article. Ideally all content would be verifiable using reliable third party works. We eschew original research here but will use other people's original research once they have published it! You need to backup as much as you can using references. If you can't do that then you should be cautious what you write. Incidentally, I made your Commons cat a subcategory of Stamps of Mozambique. Every category should be a subcategory of another category. Also I think you have given author for the scans as 'Me'. This should be Nyassa Company as it refers to the original author not the person who scanned the stamp. 'Date' in this context would be the date of issue of the stamp. I assume that you are connected to www.nyassastamps.co.uk but that won't be a problem as long as everything is referenced and you keep the Wikipedia content objective and neutral. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay - I'll pick up those points when I get a minute and try and work out how to amend the files on the Commons site. I know Nyassa (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the order of the external links around - although, yes, I am connected to www.nyassastamps.co.uk, I think it's far and away the most relevant site to the actual subject matter of the article, so should come first - of the two other links, one dedicates two lines to Nyassa in total, and the other dedicates even less to it! I know Nyassa (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but they are usually in alpha order not relevance as relevance is subjective, but it really isn't very important. I noticed that the other links did not have a lot of Nyassa content but they are quite good on Portuguese colonies generally and therefore likely to be of interest to the reader. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Home Counties

Hi. I understand that it is reasonable to expect to find a section named "list of Counties" in the article. However it appears to to have been inserted as recently as 25 April in edit]. Tha article did fine without it and it does rather conflict with the lead that states "There is no exact definition of the term and the composition of the Home Counties is sometimes a matter of debate". The various definitions in the "Official use" section cover what may or may not be considered a home county. It seems that I removed a similar list two years ago, except that it had different counties in it! [2] The trouble is, while a list would indeed seem to be a "fundamental part" of the article, people are just making up their own POV definitions. If you look at the talk page you will see that the inclusion or exclusion of Hants and Sussex is a matter of heated debate. The present list excludes Hampshire for no apparent reason. Seeing as it is completely unreferenced and likely to lead to edit warring I think the list was omitted in favour of the map and list of various official usages. I would suggest that the list should go again per WP:BURDEN. Perhaps we could replace it with a table showing which sources have considered which counties as "home counties". Actually as I think about it it might be the solution....Lozleader (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The table is helpful, and better than a list, though it contradicts the comment in the article that the term first arose in the late 19th century, as the post office directory is from 1851. The omission of Hants seems to be justified by the table, unless you deliberately left it out? Maidonian (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Hants is in there now. It would have been a bit odd to have a bit of dorset without the intervening county! Lozleader (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kirkstall Valley campaign

Hi. In March you PRODded this and I deleted it. Its undeletion has now been requested, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. I have told the requester about notability and suggested he adds independent sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Crown copyright?

Say, wouldn't File:1957 Stamp of the Turks and Caicos Islands.jpg be crown copyright and now PD, since it's been out for more than 50 years? Stan (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

... and should then be moved to the commons after refactoring the information and licence. ww2censor (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to Commons, how do I delete it here? Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion. You could perhaps adopt a better naming structure like one Stan started several years ago, i.e., in the form of "Stamp country year value" even though many stamps don't take that form and there is no way to enforce naming. However, I think it concisely provides the essential information in the best way to let casual readers what they are looking at. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

List titling

Are you committing to renaming the other 147-odd lists in Category:Lists of people on stamps? When splitting them out from the original list, I left it as "on stamps" instead of "on the stamps" so that it matched the master list, and to keep title wordiness down a bit. If you really really want to rename them all, I'm OK with that, but a mix of syntaxes is not good. Stan (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought it was a mistake not a deliberate act! Maidonian (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree with Stan on this one. Let's keep them consistent. Talking of titling, I see that you are making some new country stamp article but you are not formatting the title properly in bold per MOS:BOLDTITLE. I fixed a few but you might check the rest. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See message above. I have no intention of changing any others. It didn't occur to me that they would all be ungrammatical, I thought someone just left "the" out by mistake, but its fine and I understand the reason. Re article titles, I have been meaning to look at that and will do so. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, nice work on elucidating Nigerian philately! Would it make sense to merge any of the articles? I tend to favor incorporating predecessors if there is any kind of administrative and territorial continuity, Nigeria still mystifies me a little in that respect though. Stan (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did consider doing one big article but on balance I thought it would be easier to split them up with the main Nigeria article as the key. Several had already been created or were redirects to non philatelic articles. Nigerian philately is quite complex, territorially. Maidonian (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea

I have nominated Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postage stamps and postal history of Equatorial Guinea. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Parent categories

The purpose of categorisation is to help the reader by providing a navigation tool. A parent category is for articles that are key to the subject area and clearly Philately is the key article in Category:Philately. Index of philatelic articles is not key but is a useful addition to the parent category, while portals always reside in parent categories; and I do not believe there are any other articles that should be placed in this category. Other articles which discuss aspects of the subject go into appropriate sub-categories. Obviously any article about philately, postage stamps, postal history, etc. could go into the parent category if we were completely indiscriminate, but how would that help the reader?

I have moved Philatelic investment and Postage stamp paper out of the parent category and into appropriate sub-categories, in both cases following precedents in the categorisation of similar articles. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Philatelic Investment is not a philatelic term, it is a subject in its own right so I removed it from Philatelic Terms and put it in Philately. We don't have to squeeze everything into a sub category even if it doesn't fit. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

British posts in Madagascar

Hi Maidonian, I uploaded several images on commons:Category:Stamps of British post in Madagascar. I would greatly appreciate if you create an article for British posts in Madagascar and use some of those pictures to illustrate it. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added it initially as a section within the main Madagascar article as I don't think either of the two service were official British Post Offices abroad (if they had been British stamps would presumably have been used), despite the involvement of the British Vice Consul in the earlier service. The 1895 service certainly wasn't official. I will see if I can find out more. If you know more, please add it. It can still be expanded to a stand alone article if enough information can be gathered. Nice scans. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Both British services are recognized as the true postal administrations by the SG catalogue, Rossiter et al. Stamp Atlas, and Encyclopaedia of Postal Authorities. I was also able to locate, at least, BCM in the Scott catalog and SG shop. The 1895 service could not be official in any case because, as Rossiter et al. write, there was the French war of occupation. But before that, "the British accepted the imposition of a French protectorate over Madagascar in 1890 in return for eventual British control over Zanzibar (subsequently part of Tanzania) and as part of an overall definition of spheres of influence in the area." So, officially, the British could not pose as an administration on the island, especially when the French troops did a massive military intervention at that time (see Second Madagascar expedition). This might evoke an unnecessary tension between the British and the French. Moreover, in other sources I read that the French actually demanded to terminate the local British Inland Mail service, which was no wonder, since the French were the masters of the situation on the island. I think the above info, at least, from Rossiter et al. (sandafayre.com), SG's allworldstamps.com, SG's stanleygibbons.com, Scott, and Encyclopaedia of Postal Authorities (www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite), can be used to create a separate article on the subject. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a Google book on the subject: The postage stamps, envelopes, wrappers, post cards, and telegraph stamps of the British colonies, possessions and protectorates in Africa ... Volumes 1-2, Philatelic Society (London), 1895-1906. This is an official publication of the Royal Philatelic Society London. It describes in full details (as much as was available at that time) both services in question. There is no doubt that they were postal and used postage stamps. The first service was run by the British Vice-Consulate who issued the stamps, and the second one was arranged by a syndicate of British merchants who printed their own stamps that were "procured from the Postmaster of the British post, Antananarivo" (p. 114). The British syndicate was engaged by the Malagasy Government "to work the inland mail matter between the inland towns and with the ports" (p. 114). There is also a statement that "the stamps... were made with the idea of selling them to collectors and dealers... but a certain number of them were undoubtedly used for paying postage" (p. 115). The final remark (p. 116) states that "these stamps were only in use for a few months, as the post was suppressed when the French troops entered Antananarivo at the end of September, 1895." The whole chapter on the British post in Madagascar starts here. This is a very reliable source as to the recognition of two British postal services in Madagascar by the Royal Philatelic Society London. --Michael Romanov (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept that the services were real posts, albeit there may have been some philatelic motives. I didn't think they were significant enough to warrant their own article as one lasted for only about three years and the other for months. In addition, there is plenty of room for a detailed explanation within the Madagascar article which otherwise is almost empty. I see that the other British post offices abroad articles seem to relate to more significant services. On the other hand, if you create a separate article using all of the sources you mention I certainly won't object and I don't think anyone else will either. There is plenty to write, it is just a matter of whether it meets the criteria for it's own article. If I were you I would create it. I think you know more about this subject than I do Michael. Maidonian (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's leave it at the moment like this. And I will keep in mind that a separate article may be reserved for the subject. In the meantime, I will copy this discussion to the talk page for the Madagascar postal history. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK Maidonian (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Stamp collections

There are both notable collections and notable types of collections. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are, but that doesn't mean we need categories for both and we certainly can't have two with such similar names, it is a recipe for confusion. I have listed it for discussion here. Maidonian (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)