User talk:Philafrenzy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Philafrenzy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Martin Erler. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cind.amuse 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I removed them deliberately because I thought everything had been dealt with including notability and references and I did explain this in the edit summary. Please let me know what specifically you think is still wrong, if anything. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It is actually a violation of policy to remove unaddressed maintenance tags. Continued removal generally results in a block of editing privileges. Nobody wants that. Anytime that you have a question pertaining to edits that have been made to an article that you are working on or watching, it is best to first contact the editor to ascertain their rationale. An inappropriate action is to revert or remove those edits or maintenance tags with which you disagree. That said, the current article needs cleanup and copyediting to comply with the Manual of Style. No periods/no hyphens. Notability is in question, due to inability to verify sources provided. These need proper formatting, including ISBNs. I'm assuming that you want to qualify the subject as an author, if so, you may want to review the criteria found at WP:AUTHOR and include clear content that indicates notability accordingly. All books need proper formatting, including ISBNs. Additional wikilinking is needed. Current content lacks references. Anytime you have a question, please feel free to contact me. Cind.amuse 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I removed them becuase they had been addressed so that is not a violation of policy. Perhaps you could have been more specific initially instead of throwing every tag you could think of at the article. No additional linking is required, it is already adequately linked and I cannot help it if the references are from actual books, not webpages. None of the sources used have ISBNs or I would have used them. As you know, journals don't have ISBNs and I don't think there is any policy that mandates their use anyway, please let me know if I am wrong. Notability is not in question as the subject has won an international award in his field, has published a significant body of work as an author, is a Fellow of a learned institution (Royal Philatelic Society London), and is widely cited by others in his field (philatelists) in their publications. That said I will continue to work on the article to improve it. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • It's nothing personal, honestly, but you are mistaken in your expressed right to remove maintenance tags. Again, if you believe that the issues mentioned in maintenance tags have been adequately addressed, simply contact the editor to ascertain their rationale and/or ask questions. An inappropriate action is to remove maintenance tags with which you disagree. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See possible refs which could be added to the article to support notability: [1] I have gone through and cleaned up and restructured the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse 18:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
          • That's fine and having someone else look at it critically actually helps a lot but I find specific feedback more helpful than generalised statements. I will address the specific matters you have raised. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(2p worth) I know that when you are creating an article, getting maintenance notices can be irritating but having the article creator deleting notices is often taken as an early sign of problems. A few suggestions and relevant links to get around this are:

  1. Ignore the notices, carry on improving the article in good faith and explain on the article talk page why you think the notice should be removed. Although the Notability template looks like a threat to delete, if the article has a few reasonable sources it is very unlikely to be nominated for speedy deletion. If the article is a marginal case and others feel it does not exactly meet the notability criteria (or one of the many variations of it) then this ought to be discussed on the article talk page and even if nominated for deletion this normally provides at least 7 days of discussion and opportunity for improvement.
  2. Create a draft in your userspace to chip away at until you feel it looks good. If it has an independent review before being created as an article then this will ensure it is robust. We have an optional process for Requests for feedback and Help:Userspace draft explains how to manage your drafts. I have some examples myself at User:Fæ/Draft.
  3. Try adding the {{construction}} template to the top of the new article (or an article you are expanding). This is just an advisory notice but most folks will give you far more leniency for a day or two while you sort out the article rather than automatically blitzing it with notices within the first hour of creation because it has been flagged to the top of several automatic reports (which can be a good thing to help manage spammers, hoaxers and vandals). The construction template will remove itself if not edited for 7 days and if anyone nominates the article for deletion while it is actively being improved they would have to have a very good case and would be expected to explain it clearly (though strongly recommending moving the article to a userspace draft is often a fair approach for a poorly sourced article).

My opinion is that your first article creations (such as Chinese Golden Monkey stamp) look very good, excellent for a new Wikipedian and are better than Start-class in quality. If you are thinking of creating an article that might be a marginal case of notability then it would be worth discussing it on the WikiProject Philately talk pages as others might either support it and help or suggest expanding an existing parent article first. Fæ (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional feedback which I will take on board. I intend to create mainly philatelic articles and I think notability is going to be a real issue here because many subjects are covered only in specialised or single sources and, as shown with Martin Erler, others have only printed sources that few people have access to. It doesn't mean they aren't notable but it makes it harder to prove. I will do my best. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking that example, as soon as I see that Erler has won internationally recognized awards I know this is not a speedy deletion candidate and, personally, I would not flag it as a notability problem (though it might attract other improvement notices). You can have articles based on a single-source but I would continue to search for alternative mentions in magazines and newspapers. If a source is hard to verify (say, because the only copy is physically lodged in the British Library or it is a rare out of print magazine from the 1980s) this does not stop it being a valid source but there may be discussion about its verification. At the end of the day, we trust you to verify the sources you are adding under the fundamental principle of Assume good faith. Fæ (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Erler

I noticed the continued refinement to this bibliography, at least some of these appear on WorldCat for Erler so you may want to add some of the {{OCLC}} numbers to the list making it easier for anyone to verify. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I will look at that. The titles are dual english/german so I am trying to get them right but sometimes different sources have different titles for what is probably the same book. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Userspace

You may be aware of the guidelines by now but userspace drafting is explained in detail at User pages and So you made a userspace draft and they might be handy to refer to if you run into complications. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

England Winners stamp

Where is there any evidence that the England Winners stamp is known as a forgery or fake which would give you a reason for linking it in Philatelic fakes and forgeries where you readded a wikilink to the article with this edit? Show me why it should be there. I don't see it. Besides which the England Winners stamp hardly seems notable enough to have an article of its own. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(Philafrenzy) I've emailed you a couple of matching newspaper articles to consider that might help demonstrate the England Winner stamp had suitable impact for the general notability guideline to apply if they are referenced. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood ww2censor. I didn't say it was a fake it was already there and the reference above (7) by Mackay was the source for the information. I don't have that book to hand but will be able to check it within the next day and confirm the reference is correct. I just linked it. As for notability, I think the article explains what happened and why it is notable. How many stamps end up being listed on the stock exchange? I will check that too when I have a chance but it is notable anyway for the public frenzy it created at the time. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it was not you who said it was a fake but I only noticed the entry for the stamp when you linked it to the new article, so I thought it was you; sorry for the accusation. It was added by Ekam with this edit back in April 2008 but I did not notice it nor questioned its inclusion since then. There does not appear to be any evidence this stamp was eve forged or fakes made, so it should be removed, unless when you review the Mackay book, which I don't have here, says otherwise. Assuming there is no evidenve then it should be removed completely from Philatelic fakes and forgeries. The stamps own article does not support the fake statement either. This webpage also does not suggest any unofficial printing of any kind. Regarding the notability, I am rather doubtful the stamp itself was actually quoted on the London Stock Exchange but additional information on that is needed from some verifiable source. I await your investigations. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Worth looking at are Stamp statistics, Evening Times, 13 September 1966 and Stamp column, The Phoenix, 8 July 1967 as they are easy to view online, and it is worth noting this entry in Hansard. Fæ (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments which have been included. I have checked the Mackay book and the reference is correct. I would think this was a forgery made to deceive speculators, not the post office. I have no other source for the information but will look out for one. I toned down the price information and removed the stock exchange quotation information from the England Winners stamp, but will put it back in if I can find evidence. I also included Fæ's sources which were exactly what was required. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that either the stamp is a forgery or not, or forgeries are know or not. The article says nothing about it being a forgery or there being forgeries made. Other than the Mackay statement, which you have not actually quoted (could you transccribe it for us please?), I don't see anything, anywhere, to support the forgery claim, so for now, unless you can come up with some reliable source I will remove the link from the forgery article. You are welcome to add it back if you can cite something better but then you will also need to add any forgery info to the stamp's own article. I found this forgery of an FDC but it is the FDC that is forged not the stamp. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion here. No one is saying that all of the England Winners stamps are forged, they are not, the original editor added the information that the stamp had been forged and he gave a reference using the Mackay book. I then linked to the stamp and checked the book too which I have here. The whole passage is too long to type out but under the heading "Forgeries" on page 150 Mackay says "Other notable examples of postal forgeries are: " before listing them out exactly as shown in the article. I understand that it might not seem to fit, but it makes perfect sense as although the stamp is now worthless, it was not so at the time when people bought whole sheets as investments. As the stamp is identical to the ordinary 4d World Cup stamp except for the addition of the words England Winners in black type, all someone would have had to do was add those words using any cheap printing method to create the more valuable (then) version. Is this clearer? I think the FDC forgeries are something else all together. I agree it is only one source but why is that source good enough for the others listed but not the England Winners stamp. You can't have it both ways, either it is good for all or none. I am not sure why you take exception to this one stamp? (It is in the stamp article) Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I think you misunderstand me, or maybe I am not making myself clear; sure the basic stamps are not forgeries but, and I am referring to the entry in Philatelic fakes and forgeries, I want to know if there were any actual forgeries made of the stamp. I know the sequence of events whereby you linked to the entry in [[Philatelic fakes and forgeries but there is no evidence to corroborate what Mackay states and unfortunately he is now dead, so we can't ask him. I believe that all the other stamps mentioned by Mackay have additional sources that verify what he claims and is quoted in the article, though I have not checked them all, but we have not yet found any to verify this particular stamp. If it was forged, and I know how easy that might have been, however, I would expect to find at least one other reasonable philatelic source to confirm what he wrote. Mackay's publications are not always entirely error free, so I would like to find some verification. That's all I am asking. ww2censor (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
(2p worth) There is some relevant guidance in WP:Third-party sources, WP:PSTS and WP:QS that may be useful to consider. Though the guidelines ask for multiple sources to support an article, this is not necessary for any particular fact. If Mackay is not an ideal source (or at least it has now been challenged and might be interpreted as a primary source), then I would suggest the a statement about possible forgeries has a caveat to make it clear this is Mackay's opinion or speculation rather than an absolute truth. If there are no obvious alternative sources that discuss forgery, then this might be one to add to a research list to ask the BL philatelic library and if they cannot recommend an alternative published source then I doubt it exists. I have quoted Mackay elsewhere due to some of his publications being the only list of certain BL collections, when he was an assistant keeper at the BL, his publications from that time must be recognised as the best quality source available. As a non-expert I have no opinion either way on the quality of his later works after being dismissed, unless they include some evidence of peer review (such as a statement in the introduction thanking contributors). In general, if Macay is making an interesting claim I would consider it of encyclopaedic interest and worth inclusion even if, in this case, it may be something for further potential improvement and could be highlighted on the article talk page to attract future contributors to do their own sources search. Fæ (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Ww2censor, there is no reason to doubt the Mackay information. It might be wrong but so might all the others. Two people have now checked the book. You say there are other sources but you have not added them. Are there actually other sources for each one? We all know that Mackay had a conviction for theft but I do not believe that anyone has ever accused him of innaccuracy in his writings. He knew more than I, and probably you, will ever know about philately. The reference should be reinstated in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Referenced information should not be removed without good reason and this partial removal, which only happened because of your original misunderstanding of the sequence of edits, is wrong. Please reinstate the information. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No reply after three days so I am reinstating the sourced information. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Crawford Library

Nice work on this article! I've nominated it for Did You Know; see the "Crawford Library" section of T:TDYK. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Task force set-up

I have OCR'd (hence some typos) and wikified the BL rarities list at User:Fæ/Draft/Philatelic task force. I suggest cautious steps to gain a positive consensus on how to go about things:

  1. Once we have something in writing from the BL, add an explanation of the event to WT:STAMPS and give the option of a task force collaboration area working as a sub-page of STAMPS or continuing under GLAM/BL for consensus. The explanation will make it clear that this initiative has wide impact beyond the BL collections encouraging general improvement to philately articles as well as encouraging new contributors.
  2. Establish the task force area (I can sort that out, probably following the same format as GLAM/BL but there might be other successful task forces to model on).
  3. Kick-off discussion about what ought to be in the proposed new article list and prioritize those which are someone's personal favourites (someone has to do the work as a labour of love) and have a chance of becoming good article class in the longer term.
  4. Get some excitement so a few folks are keen to put their names down for a future event as well as joining the task force thereby making a commitment to help.

Note, I'm planning to see Richard at the BL on 22/2 to discuss some more general issues and potential interest from other BL departments, let me know by email if there is anything else that could do with mentioning or raising while I'm there. Cheers, --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Fae. I think your way of proceeding is correct but I do think that the majority of these individual stamps will not merit their own articles. Of those that do, and that may be the subject of considerable debate, some have already got articles, e.g. the Inverted Jenny and the Inverted Swan. The majority are likely to be better dealt with within an existing article, for instance the Penny Black Printing Press in the Penny Black article. There is no problem publishing the list to the project as a list of things the BL would like noted as being within their collections but I would have thought that articles about whole collections would be more encyclopedic. Could you add this list too?
It is not going to help them particularly to publicise that they have a great rarity in their collection. It will probably already have been exhaustively studied, will be well known within the philatelic world and is probably not available for further examination due to its great rarity and value.
On the other hand, articles about important but largely unknown collections will not only probably be inherently more encyclopedic, they are also more likely to attract researchers, which I think is one of the key things they want to see happen.
Despite what the BL say, I remain concerned about whether there is sufficient information available to the average Wikipedia editor in the public domain to actually write a good article. Mostly they use internet resources and any books they have (often very few) and a lot of these items, particularly the BL specialised collections have no coverage at all to refer to. Even the BL have not written up what they are apart from a few sentences! (See this link for example). (I assume you are aware that I have done the Crawford Library) Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree, the rarities list is interesting in its own right and finding where to integrate this sort of information will be a good topic for future workshop discussion and task force collaboration. The list of 50 collections in the BLPC is listed on the BL website so this will be easy to pull in when the collaboration page is set up. My vision for the outcome is that we end up with a core of around 3 or 4 committed enthusiasts with others chipping in from time to time benefiting from the BL philatelic library and curator support to assist with increasing the quality and neutrality of articles to the general benefit of philately on Wikipedia. This falls in line with the goals of the BL but we will have to manage their expectations as to how this works and increased public engagement and awareness may be better achieved with a handful of top-class awesome articles rather than a crowd of un-engaging ones. Fæ (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
O.K. I am going to try to do a bit more on the Crawford Library and then ask DB which collection they feel is the next most important one to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have just spoken to DB who has given me some additional info for this article and who is going to think about what is their next highest priority. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
DB says that the Kaluski Collection is the next one he thinks should be done so I will start a draft in my sandbox. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Leave something for the task force :) - Drafting is handy if you are thinking of putting new articles up for DYK nominations as you would be less worried about getting the article in a good state in time. Fæ (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is any danger of running out of potential articles. There must be 100s of potential subjects among their collections. I have been using my user pages as it protects the articles from the over-eager critics who jump on a new article the second it is live like annoying wasps at a picnic! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Crawford Library

Thanks for this contribution to Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYKing articles

When you create beyond-stub and well-referenced articles like Janusz Kaluski, please don't hesitate to nominate them at T:TDYK. Please let me know if you need any assistance with that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am awaiting some further information to fill it out a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol

Hi. This is just to let you know I have deleted Michael Nitzky which you PRODed. Please note however, that for totally unreferenced biographies, the WP:BLPPROD is the one to use. Please also read WP:NPP, WP:DELETION, and WP:CSD, and if anything is not clear, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Janusz Kaluski & David Beech.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Janusz Kaluski & David Beech.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fritz Billig.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fritz Billig.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The source was clearly stated in the rationale so I have removed the tag. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Creswick

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Phil Creswick, as the article was discussed at AfD in 2005 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; please do not interpret this action as my endorsement for keeping the article. You are welcome to open another AfD on this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC) OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

British Library follow-up

Thank you for participating in the English and Drama Editathon at the British Library on June 4. I hope you enjoyed the day and got something useful out of it.

If you are new to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, I hope you had any questions or problems answered and maybe found being a contributor as addictive as many of the regulars do. If you've got any questions or need help, please feel free to ask any of us on our talk page or by e-mail (Fæ, Tom Morris, Sadads, James F., RHaworth, The Land, AdamBMorgan), ask on the British Library collaboration page or through the Wikipedia Help Desk.

If you are interested in working on Wikipedia, you might want to consider joining one of the WikiProjects. These are places where team work between editors interested in a particular topic can be coordinated. Some suggestions for WikiProjects that may be of interest to you as a participant in the event on Saturday include Literature, Poetry or Science Fiction. A full list of literature and language related WikiProjects can be found here, and a list of all WikiProjects is here. The WikiProjects often have things that need doing, and if you need help you can often ask in their talk page.

But there are other places you can get involved. If you are interested on working on images, such as improving image descriptions, categorisation or uploading new media, consider getting involved in Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource also needs people willing to help make available original source material, and Wikiquote is trying to compile a directory of quotes which you may be able to contribute to.

If you want to continue some of the work we got started on Saturday, here are a few potential things to help with:

  • Following on from work on Ella D'Arcy on Saturday, work has started to make all of The Yellow Book available on Wikisource. If you go to the page on Wikisource and pick a volume then click on 'scan index' you can start helping to proofread pages from the journal - simply click on the page you want to work on, and go through to check that the text on the left reflects the text on the right. If you need any help with getting started, please ask User:Tom Morris.
  • If you created any new articles at the event, you might want to submit them to Did you know?.
  • If you are able to translate into other languages, why not pick one of the articles we worked on, translate it and post it on another language version of Wikipedia: there are now versions in hundreds of languages. On Wikimedia Commons, it is also possible to provide multilingual descriptions of images and categories: this enables editors on the other language versions to better find images and media files they can use in their project.
  • If you need images from the British Library to illustrate articles, please add them to the image requests page. If you would like a British LIbrary curator to help collaborate on an article, please add it to the collaborations page.
  • You might also be interested in attending GLAMcamp London.
  • To explore more articles related to the British Library, visit Portal:British Library.

Whatever you do, please tell us about the positive and negative experiences you have. On behalf of the organisers of the event, thanks again.

—Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolfgang Hellrigl‎

Sorry, he moved to Alto Adige (Italy) in 1945 and, after studying and travelling in 1960-1975, he settled once and for all in Bolzano in 1976 [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. --Michael Romanov (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK but that doesn't make him Italian unless he took Italian nationality and gave up his German one acquired at birth? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
He was born in Germany in 1941. In 1945, he moved with his parents to Italy. So, he entered there a normal Italian school. At age 18, he graduated from an Italian high school and received an appropriate Italian document. This was probably year 1959. Next year, in 1960, he went to Austria to enter the Vienna University. To cross the border, he was issued an Italian passport and he held it all the way till 1976 when he returned to Italy, lived and worked there till his death. Alternatively, he somehow managed to turn his German birth certificate into a German citizen passport and held it all his life while never living in Germany. Nationality means nothing in this case. In the USA, for instance, it does not matter what original nationality is a person. The US passport matters. The same is applicable to any non-native, alien residents who acquire a passport of a country where they live. This can be any other country, UK, Sweden, Australia, whatsoever. So, he was definitely the Italian citizen, holding the Italian passport, lived most of his life in Italy and died there. Why cannot he be considered an Italian philatelist? --Michael Romanov (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to the Hellrigl talk page. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Vincelord

I wrote the page on Mark Sceurman that you nominated for deletion. You said the subject did not appear notable, was that because of what i wrote or because i didn't list enough references, I'd like to know so i can make the article better.Vincelord (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What he has done does not appear to me to meet the notability criteria for authors here: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Making a small name for yourself as an expert on weirdness in New Jersey is hardly a major body of creative work, but feel free to continue to add references to the article and to argue your case in the deletion debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sceurman. The more third party coverage of him you can show the more likely that the article will be retained. In summary, it wasn't what you wrote, it was more that I didn't think the subject was very important, but it's just my opinion. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary de Crypt Church

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Percival Loines Pemberton

Hi. I've nominated Percival Loines Pemberton, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1eetalk 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Rowe (printmaker)

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Library Named Collections

Hello. Congratulations on all your sterling working on this template. I can see that it is possibly related to the recent WP/BL event so please forgive me if this is an unrelated/uneducated question. Should the template also include the Zweig music MS collection which you can see here? No article exists yet for this collection so there perhaps is my answer - if the template is meant to not have redlinks then fair enough. I'd love to create this article myself but, realistically, I may not get round to it or have the resources (broadly interpreted!) for it. Hence my apologizing for this query, which I fear comes over as slightly useless! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BLIMEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was quick. Thank you very very much! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
PS I don't know your template well so won't fiddle (no pun intended) but I think it may need to be in MS, not Sound. It's actual scores, not recordings. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief. I think I'll make a nice cuppa right now! :) DBaK (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Please expand the stub. I won't do anything more on it today. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added a tiny bit, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Philafrenzy, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 03:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ilza Rosario

One of your PRODs was contested by a rather grumpy fellow on my Talk page, and I've restored it upon that implied request, but after a very quick check at Gnews/Gbooks suggests that you made the right call, AfD might be the next step. I'd take a longer look, but I'm on a business trip and won't be able to put in more than 30 seconds here until next weekend. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 12:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have AfD'd it. (Couldn't not after the message Fluoro Ninja left! We don't want to encourage that sort of rudeness.) Philafrenzy (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Beudeker Collection

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Beudeker Collection, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/maps/beudcoll/beudekercols.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems addressed through editing, deletions and ignoring false positives. Tag removed. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Percival Loines Pemberton

The DYK project (nominate) 04:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Parilla

Curious as to why you deleted:

Parilla handstamp cancellation from Cuba designed to prevent the stamp's reuse.

The parilla is an important part of Spanish philately and widely used at the time. It was an attempt on my part to be a little less Anglophil, since almost all other examples are US or UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdatty (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, please put it back if you do. I felt that the cancel was of a similar type to the US fancy cancel already included and the fact that it was on a bisect might be confusing to the reader, but I have absolutely no objection to the image otherwise. By the way, I agree that there are too many US/UK images in that article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Australian Historical Society

Hi. I see we are both working on the Royal Australian Historical Society article. The material I removed was supported by sources which are NOT independent of the organisation. I am adding material which is supported by reliable and independent sources. Maybe we can work together on this? Otherthinker (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably won't have anything else to add as I only looked at it in connection with the article about Andrew Houison which I created. I tried to include the original information and your new information in my last edit but if you think it still needs changes then I will not revert them. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. You are quite right - I shouldn't have deleted the material without offering replacement text. I intended to leave Houison's contribution but move it onto a section on the history of the RAHS and/or ntable RAHS persons.
Good work on Andrew Houison. Here is his obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald (with photo): "DEATH OF DR. HOUISON". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 23 August 1912. p. 5. Retrieved 6 September 2011.. His wife's death was also noticed in the SMH: "THE LATE MRS. HOUISON". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 24 March 1902. p. 8. Retrieved 6 September 2011.. When he was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings in 1899, he gave evidence that a contributing factor was the misappropriation of a large sum realised from the London sale of part of his collection by a London stamp dealer: SMH report "BANKRUPTCY COURT". The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954). NSW: National Library of Australia. 24 March 1899. p. 3. Retrieved 6 September 2011. reprinted in Adelaide "A TRANSACTION IN POSTAGE STAMPS". South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 24 March 1899. p. 5. Retrieved 6 September 2011..
His "History of the post office together with an historical account of the issue of postage stamps in New South Wales compiled chiefly from the records" was republished in Sydney in 1983 in a facsimile edition: ISBN 0908240341. It seems that the comment about the History being withdrawn from sale comes from a Leski auction catalog.
Houison is also a noted early photographer: see works listed at Mitchell Library].
His church histories are also important works, especially the Houison, Andrew; St. Philip's Church of England (Sydney, N.S.W.) (1910), A short history of St. Philip's Church, Sydney : centenary 1810-1910 / by Andrew Houison, St. Philip's Church] available online to view.
Regards Otherthinker (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This is useful. I will have a close look shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Overprint

I don't know why you deleted the key type stamp design from the Overprint article.... Blank key type stamps were normally printed well in advance of their final markings: the application of the prices and names would often come much later, sometimes from a different printing facility. This fits the definition of an overprint as "an additional layer of text or graphics added to the face," does it not? SteveStrummer (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It does, but I humbly assert that the definition in the lead is not specific enough. An overprint changes an already finished or fully printed stamp, whereas adding the final details on a keyplate stamp is actually part of the printing process of the original stamp, even if it takes place later or at a different time. After all, the keyplate stamp without the country or value would be useless. I think you would be hard-pressed to find many philatelists who would support the view that the country and value are "overprints". Philatelic dictionaries I have consulted say that an overprint is printing added "after the stamps have been printed" (Sutton) or "subsequent to the original printing" (Mackay). I support what you have done with the article otherwise. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Thank you for the quick reply. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Philafrenzy too. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:London - Inner Temple.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:London - Inner Temple.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Włodzimierz Rachmanow

Please note I moved the article per my explanation on talk, see also additional sources I added. Also, when you create above-the-stub article with inline references, please consider nominating it for front page exposure at T:TDYK. Let me know if I could be of any further assistance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Detlef Wiedeke

you proded Detlef Wiedeke. I am in two minds about removing the prod without predjudice to redirecting to Systems in Blue. And then take a good good look at the whole notability of that band and its works as a whole. What do you think? Agathoclea (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about that group but a redirect would certainly be in order as a minimum as it will save a deletion debate on Wiedeke. Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for your fixes in Bristol related articles. I would just like to remind you that you should provide edit summaries so that other editors who have pages watchlisted see what is going more clearly. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

John Ratey

See WP:REFUND#John Ratey MD. I was coming to tell you I had dePRODded this, but I see you have already noticed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Deprod Notice

Greetings: I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lich King, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!Please See Talk Page ThereLostinlodos (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how this band is notable so I listed it for a proper debate. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Philafrenzy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Society of Costa Rica Collectors

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Society of Costa Rica Collectors, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://socorico.org/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of

, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Philately of British Guiana and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Airmail collaboration

I see you are making some improvements to the Airmail article but have a suggestion for you. For quite some time, though not much work done on it recently, I have been working on an highly improved and expanded version initially based on a translation of the German wiki's article that I requested. Sequentially I've been working my way through the article adding citations because the German article was very sparse on those. If you would like to collaborate I would be happy to get some assistance. My intention to completely replace the existing article having incorporating most of what is there now though copyedited. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Translation/Airmail and tell me if you are will to assist. The current section I'm working on is the "British Empire" expansion in the 1930s which needs a good bit or work.

This may be time better spent for you than working on the existing as it is rather poor from most aspects. We tried formal WikiProject collaborations in the past but no one takes them up, so working with agreed editors would seem the most productive especially with such a wide ranging topic where different editors have access to different sources and have different areas of knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I only did anything on it because I noticed how poor the article was after I removed some advertising. I will not make any further edits on the page since you have a better version under way and it is not one of my areas of particular interest. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you can contribute anything please do so. You are doing a hell of a lot of philatelic work. Well done. ww2censor (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clive Feigenbaum

This discussion has been moved to the article talk page. Please add further contributions there. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philafrenzy/Archive_1&oldid=1089984259"