Can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- Kerowren(talk • contribs • count) 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Juggs, by Valrith (talk·contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Juggs seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Juggs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts [1], and sorry to bother you with this but Im not sure to understand your position here --Jor70 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, if you don't mind my placing it here, this is what happened with that edit - I removed it, placing a note on Saxstudio's talk page, and logged on to find the entire paragraph back. The editor was one Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, who asked why I had deleted an entire section. I just left a note on his talk explaining pretty much the same thing I left on saxstudio's talk, with an appology for notifying the wrong user, and told him I was going to remove it again, since he seemed able to get it back up rather quickly. I'm just wondering, now, were we reffering to the same article? Thanks for your time, please leave a note on my talk. --Sorcerer of words 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stan. I am preparing an article about the philatelic and postal history of Guam, for the Wikipedia in French. The idea began with a French magazine article about Guam aerophilatelic covers. If you can find this intel easily, please : outside 1899 overprinted US stamps and the Guam Guard Mail stamps, is there US stamp with a topic connected to Guam outside the one issued last 1st of June (Hagåtña Bay) ? Hoping you are spending a nice summer. Sebjarod 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around for other stamps but could not find any though I do not have any major catalogues here. Hopepfully Sebjarod you will also translate this page into English so we can add it here too. Thanks ww2censor 16:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you are ready to correct lots of barbarism :) I'll try (I have a translation of this Machin series article I have to rewrite before. Sebjarod 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there aren't any - the logical choices would have been the Territorial issue of 1937, or a mention in the WWII issues of the early 90s, but I guess Guam was too small or obscure to be chosen for either. And I'm seeing someone new and wonderful, so it's been a very nice summer, although it cuts into WP productivity, ha ha. Stan 07:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I look in my old 2000 Michel and you ar right (just "GUAM" on each central maps of 1991-1995 issues). Continue your summer to come back wikiproductive again :) Sebjarod 08:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stan,
I was amazed to find an article on the venerable Mr. Schade. I am curious how you knew him, which I assume you did as you cite his boys and wife by name.
I grew to know the boys in the late 90s while working on a book. The subject matter surrounded Packy's work while head of the Carrier Desk during WWII, from 1942 through 1944. The boys were extremely helpful.
It might interest you to know that at my urging the boys gathered up all of Packy's papers and I arranged to have them added to the manuscript collection at the United States Naval Academy's Nimitz Library. There they are available for current and future generations to research and learn more about this very interesting man.
I wonder if you'd mind terribly if I augmented your Packy article? Mentioning the repository of his papers might prove useful for students and the anecdotal origin of his nickname interesting, etc.
Thanks for remembering a very important man in our nation's history yet to most is unfamiliar. Feel free to contact me as my username is actually linked to email.
xl_five_lx 03:37 31 July 2007
Just following up on our previous conversation some weeks back. After a recent move, I still hadn't unpacked many of the document boxes I have containing Navy records. I have now sifted through them and finally located the material on Packy Schade. As promised, I will soon try and add what I can to your article regarding same. Thanks very much. Xl five lx 23:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reverting the change from critically endangered to Vulnerable in the taxobox of the Devil's Hole pupfish article. Both IUCN and Fishbase list the species as vulnerable. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise, or are you mistaking the reversion by anonymous editors as vandalism? Neil916 (Talk) 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming vandalism. Astonishing that IUCN can't be bothered to update their listing, considering that with a count of 36 adults remaining in habitat, the pupfish are much rarer than many of the other "critically endangered" species, and just one accidental rockfall away from extinction. Thank you IUCN... Stan 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We found this image on the gallery of photos about shipping which you have posted on Wikipedia.
We would very much like to use it as the cover of a book of one of Joseph Conrad's stories. The book is a commercial production. We are happy to comply with the GNU Licence terms, but wanted you to know what we were doing and also wanted to assure ourselves it was your photograph.
Should you have any questions to put to us, or if there are other obligations we need to fulfil, please let us know.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. D. MurgatroydIsobel Coates 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
PS We enjoyed looking through your photographs.
Thanks for the kind words! It is indeed my photo, got a chance to tour the ship a couple years ago. I just changed it to be dual-licensed with a Creative Commons license too, in case that's more convenient. When do you think the book is coming out? I'm a bit of a Conrad fan, will keep an eye out for it. Stan 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed you initiated the article on prickly pear cactus. I recently uploaded a photograph showing a close up of a prickly pear bloom, not a rare picture, but this example contains a small bee exiting the flower after having likely pollinated the plant. I thought you might be interested.
I'm not sure how to best lead you to the photo so I include the Image: line here but without brackets.
I'm amazed at how many pics you've uploaded there, is there a way to count how many you've uploaded other than manually and are you one of the top Commons uploaders? BTW, I added your USS Hornet pics to the category USS Hornet (CV-12). I visited the ship myself in November 2004 and plan to upload any of my pics that you haven't already covered BrokenSphereMsg me 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Harn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Nucleusboy 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are back, or at least somewhat active. I am just out the door for a few days in London & Ireland and will catch up when I can or after the 17th. Cheers ww2censor 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My editing has gotten episodic, more RL distractions than formerly :-) . Stan 18:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're back, can you give us your comments on this? Although we don't foresee any problems, we wanted to get your thoughts before we went live with the new template. Cheers, Walkerma 07:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I am back now too, so we can disuss how to progress. What do you think Stan? ww2censor 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the project page - idea seemed OK to me. Stan 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walkerma has now implemented the assessment paramaters in the philately project tag. You may want to look at the initial stats here. If you disagree with any of the ratings please change them as appropriate though we really should lay down some basic guidelines that we agree on. Cheers ww2censor 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - a photo has been double-promoted to FP[edit]
Hi Mr. Shebs!
Since you were the original uploader of the Image:USS_Franklin_list-700px.jpg, I'd like to inform you about some things regarding this photo.
I've recently been doing a complete pictures revision on the World War II article, and I found that I mercilessly:) had to replace the USS Franklin photo with a land photo from Okinawa, in order to do more justice to Okinawa. But I felt a little bad about it; I thoroughly scrutinized each of the previous 80 pictures in the WW2 article, and found the Franklin pic to be exquisite. I am not joking - through the years I have seen thousands (god knows how many) of different photos from WW2, and the Franklin pic is IMO a masterpiece.
Therefore, I decided to upload it to Commons as Image:Attack_on_carrier_USS_Franklin_19_March_1945.jpg, do more research on it, write a caption and nominate it for featured picture on both Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia.
It was recently promoted as FP in both instances, and I am not surprised.
Since you were the original uploader, I've taken the liberty of stating this/linking to you in the image summary. I will most likely soon order a reproduction or digital hi-res version from the National Archives, and upload this. If you want me to notify you about this, please tell me so on my talk page.
I just wanted to tell you about this, since if you hadn't uploaded it, I might never have seen it in the first place. I sincerely want to thank you for this!
My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belegaer, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Belegaer satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belegaer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Belegaer during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hersfold(t/a/c) 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juggs, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Juggs satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juggs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Juggs during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !(Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles are good! and hopefully this one has made your day better. Why not smile at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend?
Happy editing!
heloo, what is this?????????????
i do not get it
u r cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.178.72 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi Stan. I think its time the footer templates were filled out with all the different entities and the articles at least stubbed. However as there are around 700 different ones - I think I'm going to create postal history templates by continent e.g Postal history of Europe, Postal history of Asia etc. This would make it more manageable and easier to navigate. I'll work on it in a few days. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes such as French Post offices abroad and British Levant and all that of which there are many. Mmm. I'm thinking it would be best to stick to continents with templates , a British commonwealth one might be a bit dated for instance and has some considerable overlap. I'll see what I can do = I'm certain we can't add all A-Z in one template that would look ridiculous but what could be done is to have the countries of one continent in one box (including past editities/micro states and PO'S etc) and then have links to other continents at the top. This way it connects to the next series of articles from that given area. It might take some time to do, also when I meant stubs I didn't mean one which provides no info - the basics is all that is needed to start with. Keep up the good work anyway, I wish there were more editors that concentrated on this area -I also like the new "rare stamp" info box -looks good . As I said anyway I'll look into it♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 11:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it might actually be a good idea to create another set of templates also for British PO'S etc for those British stamp enthusiasts. The templates can be set at collapsible so it wouldn't look cluttered. I do think it best to stick to geographical area though primarily for an encyclopedia. We'll get there ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just out of question, I was wondering if you collect stamps from Aland Islands see : Here or Alexandretta. I am currently selling off my entire collection as it takes up too much room. Some of the Alexandretta are slightly damaged but the others are fine. I've sold about 6 penny blacks on ebay. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 12:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes don't worry too much about the template at present as it gets larger I'll move it to one of my work pages where I can list the A-Z and then sort by continent into the more organized templates. If you are redirecting see Postage stamps and postal history of British Guiana to direct to the specific section. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I know exactly what you are intending to do because in looking at the template on the Postage stamps and postal history of British Guiana page I don't see any links to philatelic articles. The stamps section should be hived off to its own page. Maybe you are referring to the style of that template. In that case it might work in some fashion, but whatever you do, I suggest that you do not populate the template with lots of redlinks. I really think it is unproductive to do that. Your aspiration to have an article for each stamp issuing entity is commendable but unlikely to happen any time soon, even as stubs, unless you are committed to it on your own as there are too few active philatelists. I would prefer to devote some time to improving some of the main philatelic articles. ww2censor 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Away team, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Away team. Ejfetters 05:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image I uploaded three years ago. I will attempt to find a more suitable free image over the next few weeks. I have no idea exactly why I chose the license based on the current info in the Plants Database. I was either dead wrong or the entry had more copyright info placed on it. If you want to change the license or add a more appropriate photo before I get to it, you are most welcome to do so. Thanks for asking. --Robbie Giles 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, but "bitter" - "root" - California's Marah macrocarpus has one of the all time great roots, it is commonly called "man root". The cucumber fruit is incredibly bitter. And "Marah" means bitter, from a Christian Bible woman who drank bitter water, or something like that. EricDiesel (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan Shebs. While setting up a contributor's page for the Wikibooks gardening manual, your name came up as a top contributor due to the magic of Special:Import (the book is largely based on imported Wikipedia articles). This list (or updated versions of it) will be included in print versions for attribution purposes (since there are of course no "history pages" in print versions).
I'm sending this note to see if (a) you would like your real name used rather than your username, and (b) to make sure you have an account on Wikibooks. If your username is "taken" there and there are no contributions (or if perhaps you just lost your password), please feel free to leave me a note so I can help you fix the problem (I am a b'crat).
We're working on ways to make this attribution work better in the future, so also let me know if you want to be kept up to date on that. Thanks for contributing to the plant, insect, and other articles that have been so helpful in the creation of the garden book!--SB_Johnny | talk 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Stan. I must inform you that I feel rather intimidated by the tone of the recent message that you left on my talk page. But before I elucidate upon your threats, I'll address your claims:
Besides being a failure to assume good faith, accusing me of fraud is an extremely serious issue indeed. I am not representing "your" picture as myself. I have it on my userpage as it is my favourite photograph from the Wikimedia Commons. The "Yours, truly" caption (notice the careful use of comma) is intended as a celebration of the freedom provided by copyleft, a freedom which is being violated by your deletion of the image from my userpage. This deletion is an explicit breach of section two of the GNU Free Documentation License which you yourself have released the image under, and if repeated, can be considered vandalism.
Images in the Wikipedia Commons have unrestricted usage. The part of the GNU Free Documentation License referring to the attribution of copyright holder in modifications of the document is only applicable to use of the document outside of the Wikimedia project - as the image is fully attributed on both its Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons page, to which my Userpage is directly linked. Were this a question of fair use rationale, there might potentially be a case for more explicit labelling in order to justify the image's use on my user page - however, it isn't, and thus there isn't.
There is no question as to the subject matter or copyleft holder of the document in question - and if there were, it would fall on both yourself and the Wikimedia Foundation to rectify it, on the document's respective information pages.
I might also point out that "Look you" is an extremely impolite way of addressing someone - especially as I've never spoken to or about you before, and this is the first message you have left on my talk page. Your assertion that "no way am I going to tolerate it" would appear to imply that you will continue to delete the image from my page, regardless of the cited rules which demonstrate my freedom to use it. If I've misinterpreted your meaning here I hope you'll forgive me, but I feel it is understandable given the context of the quote.
Furthermore, your threatening me with "trouble" (which is defined by Princeton University's Wordnet as "an event causing distress or pain") unless I comply with your wishes, has deeply disturbed me and can be considered a personal attack (specifically 1. a threat of violence and 2. A threat of vandalism to userpages or talk pages). Your edit summary "last chance" can be considered an extension of this, and is all the more chilling considering, as mentioned above, that this is the first time you have contacted me.
Having been rather shaken by the tone and content of your message, I would appreciate it if you avoided contacting me in future unless absolutely necessary - and if so, I would ask that you employ common courtesy and refrain from issuing unsubstantiated demands and threats, implicit or otherwise.
I'm sure you understand my concern. Thanks for your time, and have an enjoyable festive season. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your courteous reply - I certainly understand that one can put across the wrong idea in the heat of the moment. I thank you for engaging in a constructive dialogue in order to resolve this dispute. I've taken on board your points and have thus labelled the image on my talk page as being of yourself. My intention was certainly not to defraud you in any way, or to lead others to believe that my account was in any way controlled by you. I've reinforced that point by including an excerpt from this dialogue alongside the image attribution.
I hope that my selection of the photograph as my user page image of choice can be taken as a compliment. Off the record, I feel that your wizened, kindly eyes command a respectability not so easily attained through words alone.
I am also satisfied, as described in the opening paragraph of this message, that you pose no direct threat to my physical well-being, and thus welcome any further queries or comments from you on my talk page.
In the past you took part in a discussion about the name of the emperors of Japan. This discussion has just opened again (once again!). You are free to express your opinion here. ThanksŠvitrigaila (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Yes, I figured it out pretty quick; I undid my CSD tag almost immediately. Because I was using Twinkle, it left this message on your page automatically. I suppose it's a good thing I found it, because the page had been completely vandalized for over a month. But, you are correct, I should look a little closer. I get into the groove of reverting vandalism and make some hasty moves occasionally. Thanks for the reminder! Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp Cameroons 2d-600px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp Cameroons 3d-250px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 19:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp Cameroons 1sh-250px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Stan, I just found your pic Image:Bridge_of_the_Americas.jpg and added approximate geocoding. Do you recall from wher you took it? Were you on boat? --Dschwen 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was on a cruise ship. We were in the middle of the channel, at or past the marina, and approaching it on a course that seemed close to perpendicular to the bridge. I should upload my pics from beneath the bridge, looking up at the traffic... Stan (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp Indoch Garnier-300px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp AT 1945 5pf a-150px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 09:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stamp IS 1948 25a-400px.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us† 09:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:STS-8 flight cover 8912 back.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:STS-8 flight cover 8912 back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp AN 1950 6c.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp AN 1950 6c.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp AN 1958 15c.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp AN 1958 15c.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp AN 1989 70c.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp AN 1989 70c.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp AT 1968 2s arms.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp AT 1968 2s arms.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp Abu 1967 40f-170px.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp Abu 1967 40f-170px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp BAT 1963 0.5p.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp BAT 1963 0.5p.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp CA 1967 8c.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp CA 1967 8c.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp CA 1981 17c Acadia.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp CA 1981 17c Acadia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp CA 1989 39c flag.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp CA 1989 39c flag.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp DK 1940 35o.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp DK 1940 35o.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp DK 1969 flag.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp DK 1969 flag.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp DK 1975 130o.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp DK 1975 130o.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp DK 1983 200o.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp DK 1983 200o.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp IQ 1958 20f ovpt.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp IQ 1958 20f ovpt.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp IQ 1960 30f Army Day.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp IQ 1960 30f Army Day.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp Kuwait 1957 15np.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp Kuwait 1957 15np.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp Kuwait 1961 30f.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp Kuwait 1961 30f.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp Kuwait 1964 45f.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp Kuwait 1964 45f.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp TZ 1965 10c-120px.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp TZ 1965 10c-120px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp TZ 1965 1sh-500px.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp TZ 1965 1sh-500px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stamp TZ 1980 5sh-500px.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stamp TZ 1980 5sh-500px.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Greetings. I am proposing a change to an article that you launched a long time ago on Marine park. Please see Talk:Marine park for my recommendation & would very much like to hear your thoughts. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I have no problem in you removing Category:Celebrate the Century stamps. I too saw many of the notices saying the FU rationale was misused on some of the stamps, when in fact it is misused on all of them. Regarding the CTC sheets, I have uploaded all of them and placed them in the gallery, since each of the sheet is briefly described. Hopefully that will not irk anyone, each sheet has its own unique images which is why I have uploaded all.--PremKudvaTalk 04:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will irk someone. Seems to me that FU would be appropriate for one or two images in the Celebrate the Century article but not all sheets. Imho, that will not fly, so possibly it should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to see what the experts think. ww2censor (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to go looking for trouble - the "experts", such as they are, are still fighting it out. Might as well wait until the general rules are better sorted out. Stan (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right to leave it alone for now, but the using ALL the sheetlets is not fair use. It would be fair to use one or two. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the white frame. No information is lost since only removed the pure white chroma at #FFFFFF. User:Dorftrottel 14:19, February 8, 2008
Ah, that makes sense. I like to have a bit of border, in case the image gets packed in with others, but a white border doesn't work as well as the black that I use now. Stan (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not collage so much as general layout. Sounds a little silly when I write it down here, in practice everybody arranges for some space in between. My usual problem with covers is that they're not quite rectangular, I end up needing a border just to compensate. Stan (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. I for one do not like frames e.g. because for output-related purposes they have to be cropped anyway. There are two options, one of which I took here. The other would be to remove the white completely and save the image as a PNG with transparent background. If you prefer your original framed version, go ahead restore it, I will occasionally upload a cropped PNG version. (I decided to upload a cropped JPG because it's the easier option, and because there's still no valid PD rationale). User:Dorftrottel 14:50, February 8, 2008
As the most senior philatelist on the philately project, you might want to weigh in on the discussion about the Israel and Palestine articles on a number of fronts. By way of background, initially HG started Postage stamps and postal history of Israel and Palestine and I started a talk page discussion suggesting this was an incorrect title and that there should be 2 individual country articles with some historical information in each, as is the usual way. Tiamut supports this position. I then started to pad out the Israeli article and this has been worked on mainly by HG who has also being working on the combined article he still insists is needed. In turn Tiamut has been the main editor working on the Palestine article and, in my opinion, rather well on the historical section. Now HG has expressed his concern about the scope of the Palestine article per this talk page posting. Hope you can get involved and give some clarity to this situation. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Tiamut and I both responded there. She made a compromise proposal. Let us know what you think. Ever insistently yours, HG | Talk 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on that the both of you. I really think its important that we get these articles up and running even if they are stubs. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000? 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan. I noticed your change at Image:HolyLand Austrian Post 1899 envelope stamp.jpg. Are you sure PD:stamp applies to a private envelope, and not just the stamp itself? Do you have precedents for this kind of thing? Also, what about proofs/essays for a stamp design that belong to the artist (but now sold in auction)? thanks muchly, pls reply to my talk if you don't mind, HG | Talk 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks about the Austrian cover. On the Category:Stamps of Israel, I looked at the Commons discussion and the Hebrew version of the law, which states that it's all free use, unconditionally. In any case, all the stamps have the same copyright status, so there's no need to create separate categories qualified by type of status. Catch my drift? Any info about my q above about the designer's prepatory artwork? Thanks HG | Talk 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing the envelope q. If I see other historically noteworthy envelopes, either at auction or web-history sites, up to what date may we claim PD-stamp do you think? I'm esp thinking about 1948 envelopes, postmarks, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this discussion and see what we need to do to progress this, if we even can. I am not versed well enough to say this is ok or not. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Erba requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Chain Reaction Records, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated David Starr Jordan, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Starr Jordan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, did you comments on the rename indicate you will rename it or have you just been too busy to do it yet? ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been "busy" (all day today in Death Valley admiring the spring bloom), and I would like to get at least partial buyin from HG if possible. Not a big hurry to rename, right? Stan (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Never been to Death Valley but would love to go. No hurry to the rename but HG had replies with the same reasoning as previously just before I asked you to rename, so whenever will do. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he just replied with basically the same old arguments he has used before. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I tried to write with as much sparkle as I could muster. If you (ww2) feel my arguments are old, you might want to consider how I might feel about yours. You are a fabulous editor and these put-downs are not becoming. Anyway, rather than discuss my reasons in a disparaging way, it would be more constructive to deal with the logic and policy factors. While I'd prefer to carry on the discussion there, let me briefly reiterate the logic: (a) if we want a Postage stamps and postal history of X title, then it would be unduly misleading and pov-imbalanced to have X = Palestine alone, (b) if we want a "Palestine" title (which I've been willing to concede for now, though it's my no means my first choice), then we should forgo the Postage stamps and postal history of X format,and I've tried to be flexible in offering various suggestions along those lines. While Ww2 may not like this reasoning and the associated options, it's not constructive or collaborative to keep insisting that the only possible title be PSPH of Palestine. (Incidentally, it's probably better procedure to ask for a Requested Move rather than ask Stan to use his admin authority to settle this. Still, I'm hoping we can work this out in a less contested way.) Thanks very much. HG | Talk 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the "'Palestine' not NPOV" argument myself, but I don't tend to get involved in the prolonged fights over the hidden meaning of every comma that seem to characterize Mideast-related articles, and I don't get why we have to forgo the most obvious titling - the logic just seems really tortured, and bears no resemblance to what I had in mind when I proposed the title standard in the first place. Stan (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion about the size this templatehere, so I have done some work on a draft replacement (and removed most of the redlinks for now) on this sandbox page. Please tell me what you think. I have some issues that need fixing; the subgroup title boxes runs too wide in some subgroups. Are the subgroups even needed? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent the past few days moving all the California photo requests into County categories to make it easier for photographers to locate requests in the locations where they take photos. Please consider monitoring and adding your name to the list at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Riverside County, California and the other South East California counties. GregManninLB (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While going through the assessment log recently I noticed a mass deletion of 30+ philatelic topical lists. I would appreciate if you would express your opinion on the deleting admins talk page. All appropriate and necessary related links are there. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a more complete explanation of your rationale for removing of the stamp image Image:Stamp-ctc-polio-vaccine.jpg from Polio vaccine. You had indicated "pointless stamp image used decoratively" as your rationale. You are obviously knowledgeable about stamp collecting. You have also demonstrated care and thoughtfulness in your edits. In the spirit of improving the article, I am seeking a better understanding of how you believe this improves the article rather than a defense of your edit.
I am disinclined to revert your edit, since it is clear you intended the edit to improve the article. I generally only remove vandalism or make minor corrections to polio related articles, since I contracted polio at the age of eight months and may have a conflict of interest.
I believe the image is appropriate since it shows the use of the killed virus Jonas Salk developed vaccine. Further down in the article, there is another image showing the use of the oral Albert Sabin developed vaccine. The stamp image has the caption "polio medicine developed" which I believe makes it germane.
The use of stamps that are not public domain may only be used under the fair-use principles if the stamp itself is the topic of the article and not the subject of the stamp, which would be the case with this stamp in the Polio vaccine article. You are trying to use the subject of a non-PD stamp by way of illustrating the article and that is not allowed. Read these guidelines. Besides which this image does not even have a fair-use rationale right now and it likely be deleted soon. Hope that helps. Maybe Stan will add more later. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already added a comment to his talk page. There's gotta be a hundred contemporaneous photos taken by the US govt that would be better illustrations, plus there's the 1957 polio stamp if one wants a PD stamp image. Stan (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, thank you for your thoughful comments at User_talk:Dan_Dassow#Polio_vaccine_stamp concerning this issue. I now have a much better understanding why the image is inappropriate. I was also under the mistaken impression that the removed stamp depicted Jonas Salk administering the vaccine, not a random doctor with a random child. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information about my changes to the Federal Duck Stamps article. My father is the owner of Sam Houston Duck Company, where I am an employee. He asked that we reproduce his written article to replace and expand on the previous Wikipedia article. I have updated my user page as you instructed. Please let me know if I need to add more information.
I know that it's already expired at this point, but I wanted to express a concern about your block of TheEditrix2 (talk·contribs) earlier today. As near as I can tell, there was no warning to her talkpage. The last comment to her page was on April 17, and then the next note was today, when you told her that she'd been blocked for 3 hours.[2] Per WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings, a cautionary note is recommended unless there's an urgent problem. I'm also a bit concerned about your "uninvolved" status, since you're a member of WP:PLANTS. Then again, WP:UNINVOLVED only goes so far, especially for an editor such as yourself who is involved in so many topics! :) Now, I do agree that there are things to be concerned about as regards TheEditrix2's editing, especially the note on her userpage. But she's been a longtime editor with over a thousand edits, who routinely does rapid-fire work without much complaint. Surely a caution would have been more appropriate than a block? Or are there other circumstances or communications that I am unaware of? --Elonka 07:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that my first impression of TheEditrix2 was negative, based on that userpage message. In fact, without even knowing about the Plants controversy (my attention was drawn to the page for another reason), I was all ready to write out a big civility warning, I had it previewed and everything, and then I stopped right before I hit "Save", and decided to check if there had been other warnings before mine. It was then that I saw the recent chatter, and started digging. The more I dug, the more I realized that TheEditrix2 was a longrunning gnome who, though not the most friendly and welcoming in the project, was overall a good editor who had been misjudged.
If I were in your shoes, I probably would have checked recent talkpage activity, seen that there hadn't been anything for a week, and then posted a short "warning shot across the bow" message, like, "Please stop with your current page moves, there are concerns (I'm typing a longer message, please stand by)", and then I would have saved that so she got the "new message" banner, and then I'd work on my longer message in a text editor. By the time my new message was ready, I'd check to see if she'd stopped or not. If yes, then we continue talking like adults. If not, I'd throw in a 15-minute block and then proceed with my longer message. :)
As for her userpage threat, I've actually dealt with users like that before. The rule of thumb is, "Ignore it." Talkpages belong to the community, not to the editor. If someone needs to communicate in a good faith fashion with the editor, they have the right to post to that editor's talkpage, even if the disruptive editor has "forbidden" anyone to post there. ;) I see it sort of like a teenager who's posted a big DO NOT ENTER sign on their bedroom door. They can definitely put the sign up, but that's not going to keep the parents out. ;)
My reason for spotting the page, was that I'm a member of the ArbCom-appointed working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and have been examining many of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures lately. I rewrote a good chunk of WP:DE, and am running an experiment at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment to try and deal with a lot of disruption there (check the talkpage for a list of literally dozens of recent ANI threads). It was through the experiment page that I learned about TheEditrix2... I was routinely scanning the contribs of one of "my" slavic/slovak editors, Svetovid (talk·contribs), who just came off his own disruption block, so I was checking to see if he was behaving. I saw that he had posted on TheEditrix2's talkpage, went in to investigate, and well, you know the rest! :) --Elonka 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"There's simply no excuse for someone with thousands of edits not to know about page moves, article history, multiple redirects, project standards, etc. Not only am I not apologetic, I'm troubled to find anyone defending the bad behavior."[3] Um, wow, I'm troubled to hear you say that. Are you sure you want to take this stand? Based on my view, you're coming down on an editor now, for a leftover message on their talkpage from 2006. Why are you seeing her as so disruptive? I'm not seeing the same thing in her contribs as you are? What "bad behavior"?? --Elonka 12:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not asking you to resign over this, I'm asking you to acknowledge the concerns, and possibly apologize. Or let me put it this way: If the same thing happened again, would you handle it the same way? Or would you warn first? --Elonka 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that you say that DDR stamps are PD. Do you have a source for this? What's more, the image itself comes from a website that has edited the picture (see the little label in the corner); doesn't this make it copyrighted? I don't know a ton about this, so feel free to think me ignorant :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! Are you an APS member? If not (or if so, I suppose :-), check out their StampStore; most listings come with decently good pictures. A random example, here, is Scott 1224a, which I can't find on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually got the idea because I've assembled a significant "collection" of US stamp scans, in large part because of the StampStore. An even better source for US material is 1847USA, which has high-resolution scans of almost every design issued until 1970; many (but not all) are unused. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I am looking at some of the stuff about Cheiranthus and I can foresee a time in which if I decide to try to clean that up that I might want to move Wallflower back to Erysimum which will undo something that you did in 2003. I would like to know (before I become involved with all of that) what you might or will think about such a move. Thank you for your time. -- carol (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2003 was a long while ago -- perhaps there are many other similar (for lack of a different word that works as well) 'things' that were good to get started but experience has shown to be more advantageous done a different way. Enough with the musing, I left this in answer to your polite and reasonably timely reply on my talk page:
The way I know to do this is to delete the page Erysimum and then move Wallflower there and then send the redirection of Wallflower to Wallflower (disambiguation). If you put the delete template on Erysimum there is a good possibility that it will be deleted quickly (something about a request by the person who made the article....) Or, there might be another way.... -- carol (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the Rare 2d Coil stamp draft before I put it into the mainspace. Any comments welcome. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a chance to look at this yet? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For over five years of work on the encyclopedia, I award you this barnstar in recognition of your service. Thank you. Acalamari 22:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recognition! Stan (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! You're very welcome. :) Acalamari 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You created this redirect. I was looking at Anadyr River, which included a reference from Encyclopedia Britannica to the "Stanavoi mountains". But looking at the map and location of the river, it seems that this must be a different set of mountains. Would you be able to say what has happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stan- I have been working on a draft page called list of stamp images needed, but I'm not sure I've done this very well. Can you take a look? Maybe this can be done more simply - would a bullet list do as well? Any help would be appreciated. Also, if this isn't a good idea for any reason, let me know and I'll can it. (After this gets finalized, I'll run it by ww2censor). If posted, this could be linked from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately page. Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science[edit]
I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- TinuCherian - 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments regarding the copyright status of US Postage stamps. Actually, I dont disagree that many of the various stamps at issue are public domain and I understand the pre-1979 criteria. The issue is where use of the wikidedia PD-USGov tag may or may not be appropriate. I found several stamps where the date is not provided in the description or the stamp (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pumpkinseedsunfish.JPG and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_eisenhower.JPG) which used PD-USGov and I also found the use of the Post Office logo covered under tag. I changed several older stamps to simply use PD-Old which covers any published material before 1923. I noticed that when the images of many of these stamps where orignally uploaded to wikipedia, they where done so using the wikipedia PD-STAMP tag, which is appropriate. When they were moved over to commons, they were converted to the PD-USGov tag presuably since there is no PD-STAMP tag on commons. While PD-USGov is probably ok in these cases, due to the date, there was no explaination in description providing these reasons. I was involved in discussion with at one admin who suggested that any images which are mis-tagged or lack appropriate rationale should be marked for speedy deletion. Personally, I'm not a big fan of speedy deletion, but I can understand that arguement.
Anyway, it seems to me that the PD-OLD tag is the safest approach for the pre-1923 stamps. If you think PD-USGov is more appropriate, I'm fine changing them back. I will also request that the 1979 date be specifically added to the PD-USGov tag. It is also ok to incude both tags. Finally, a proposal could be made for porting PD-Stamp over to commons. Please let me know your preference. Thanks again... Dspark76 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response and also for taking care of the Sunfish stamp. I do have two more questions that hopefully you could help with. Do you know of a reference describing the copyright status for the transistion period between the founding of the USPS in 1971 and "getting its own copy rights in 1979"? So far the only references I found cited on wikipedia (for example Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works and United_States_Postal_Service#Copyright_and_reproduction) are from the USPS.gov website and the Compendium_II:_Copyright_Office_Practices. Both of these basically say that, yes the USPS holds copyrights, but they do not explicitely discuss a 'starting' date or the copyright status of earlier stamps. I have attempted to clarify the above wikipedia pages to better explain the 1979 date and rationale, but I think it really needs a reference for the transistion period.
Also, are there any examples where the images used for the stamps were not expressly made by the USPostal Department employees but were instead sold or licensed to the governement by another orginal artist, such as with the Image:SacDollar.jpeg (see also [4])? Thanks again, Dspark76 (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (If you prefer, please feel free to respond here on your talk page in order to keep both sides of the conversation together. I'll check back later...)[reply]
[5] mentions that the specific exemption for the USPS comes from the 1976 Copyright Act, which went into effect on 1 January 1978. So I'm guessing that you'd have to dig into the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (which I haven't found a good online copy of). My guess is that the Act didn't actually transfer copyright ownership to USPS, the act being focussed on transferring employees and operations, so it stayed with US govt by default. (It must have been enough of a burning issue that somebody went to the trouble of writing it into the 1976 act.) I still don't know where the 1 January 1979 comes from, vs 1 January 1978.
On sources of images, I have Sol Glass' book on US stamps of 1945-1952 that gives all the details of artwork and sources, and the originals come from all over - amateur artists, historical societies, you name it. The book reproduces many of those, so you can see how the BEP engravers rework the images. If my experience is any guide (a USDA guy asked me to make one of my Commons photos PD so he could use it in a publication), the Post Office would have secured a release from the contributors. Stan (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the act itself, but [6] is Title 39 of the US code, which covers the Postal Service. Didn't see any mention of copyright in it. Stan (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement #9 on page S-16 (found on page 138 of the pdf) provides this description:
I. Basic Rule. Publications of the United States Government are not copyrightable (17 U.S.C. §8).
...
Exceptions:
(1) Under Section 8, Title 17, U.S.C. the Postmaster General is authorized to secure copyright on behalf of the United States in black and white illustrations of U.S. postage stamps, together with such descriptive, historical, and philatelic information with regard to the stamps as the Postmaster General deems suitable.
Where a work of private authorship was first published with notice of copyright in the name of a private person and later aquired by the Government, registration may be considered in the name of the original claimant and we will suggest recordation of the assignment to the Government.
I'm not sure how to interpret that or if it helps any, but I thought I would share... Dspark76 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Jan. 1, 1978 is the correct date for USPS copyright to commence. The 1976 Copyright Act enacted 17 USC Section 105, which provides that US Government works are not copyrightable. (Your reference to 17 USC 8 is to a prior statute which has been replaced by 17 USC 105. See, e.g, here.) The 1976 Act was effective Jan. 1, 1978. The legislative history to that act, however, provides that "this section does not apply to works created by employees of the United States Postal Service." H. Rep. No. 94-1476, available here. It goes on to state that the USPS "could, if it chooses, use the copyright law to prevent the reproduction of postage stamp designs for private or commercial non-postal services (for example, in philatelic publications and catalogs, in general advertising, in art reproductions, in textile designs, and so forth)."
A USPS site states that "The USPS secures copyrights in its philatelic designs and certain publications. The designs of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, stamped cards, aerogrammes, souvenir cards, and other philatelic items issued on or after January 1, 1978, are copyrighted by the USPS under title 17 USC." See here. Answers.com states "According to Linn's Stamp Almanac, the U.S. Postal Service did not claim copyright protection on postage stamps and other philatelic products until January 1, 1978. (U.S. Postal Regulation §§ 166.1 through 166.4.) The U.S. Philatelic catalog states that the first stamp to include a copyright notice was the Captain Cook stamps issued in 1978. " Ecphora (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan and Ecphora. Thank you both for providing these references. I want to try and use the information that has been discussed here to clean up the text and missing citations in Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works and Usps#Copyright_and_reproduction. I probably won't be able to find time until sometime next week, but I wanted to thank you both for your quick responses. Thanks again, Dspark76 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - so there's a few major changes going on to Job Charnock, some of which I'm finding slightly questionable, as the user making them has been reverted multiple times, and sometimes the user is just removing information seemingly randomly. As you were the original writer, I assume you have something I lack, which is knowledge of the subject: would you mind taking a look for me? It's User:59.93.178.151 who's making most the edits - I've tried to revert/amend when I can, but the user is editing at a pretty ferocious pace, and I can't keep up without violating WP:3RR. Thanks!--danielfolsom 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, I found out that you are right about banners in main articles. I confused with stubs. Sorry about the disturbance. I'll be more careful. Jean Fex (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Santa Cruz mtns? I'm new here at WIki and I just got directed to your user page by a greeter. The Agave chiapensis looks alien, but I am from the SF Bay Area, and recently owned about forty three Santa Cruz mountain top properties totalling 1,000 acres, from Hwy 152 and Summit Rd. to where I lived at Page Mill Rd and Skyline. I am guessing, from the color of the non native grasses, other canopy color, air quality, and other distan coloration, that your self portrait on your user page was taken between April 15 and May 10, in the Santa Cruz Mountains, between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, and the time of day is... EricDiesel (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, so much for just looking at the pictures. I told you I was new at Wiki. Las Vegas is near my third home, Death Valley, and I was partners with Heidi Fleiss, who lives in Pahrump, in between. The Journal of the Cactus and Succulent Society is also published in Pahrump. Were you in LA for the annual society meeting at Huntington Gardens a couple of weeks ago? I was told you were the Wiki desert plant person. I am a simple desert mathematician, whatever that means. EricDiesel (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, you mentioned before that Xconq was discussed in a few books. Are you yet able to provide any citations? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain a bit why the data is tied to months, and how it's compared... hope that clears it up a bit for you. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pacific blockade, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
article is written in essay format with no verifiable material and with only one reference, and is more of a detailed list of different blockades. Article has not been fixed since 2007
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your source for the Naknek, Alaska librarians being "friendly and knowledgable"? Can you cite a verifiable authority, or is it just a personal opinion? What if I go back to Naknek and find one of the librarians to be rude and ignorant, should I change the article to say that too? Let's just stick to working from authoritative sources.
My Response:
My source for the librarians being "friendly and knowledgable" are my personal experience, and the personal experiences of my family and friends who have used the library for many years. And, yes, if you go to Naknek (and I hope you do!) and find that the staff is ignorant and rude, please feel free to update the page. That is the theory behind user-edited content, is it not?
I need help. My account is blocked, and I can not even edit my own talk page.
Ever since I created the articles on Sarah Palin's churches and pastors, people have been trying to have me blocked. They have deleted my edits, citing "unreliable sources". Examples of the "unreliable sources are CBS News and Times of London, and the content of these sources were deleted.
I was accused of canvassing, but it was a person I never contacted, so that accusation was changed. Then I was accused of sockpuppetry, that I was pretending to be someone else (Witchieanna). The entire contents of my computer was wiped out at exactly the same time as I was blocked for editing for sockpuppetry (I have receipts for trying to recover my data, etc., which failed). I was told that this was impossible to be connected to Wikipedia, and was just a coincidence , since I never gave my email address. But I had my email enabled, so that was not true, either. When witchieanna, who was supposedly my meatpuppet, threatened some legal action, and I agreed not to fight a subpoena and not to lie under oath, and I wrote to the person who was doing all of this to me that I would help and see them in the court that they were getting me dragged into. Then the sockpuppetry thing was blocked, since it was discovered that I was not witchieanna. Then I was accused of making legal threats, because I agreed to help by not fighting a subpoena and by not lying under oath. I was blocked for this being a legal threat. After it became clear that I was not making a legal threat, but was asking to be kept out of whatever was going on, I was accused of being a meatpuppet of Anna, and blocked again. When my contribution history was looked at, the reason for the indefinite block was changed to "Obvious puppetry of some kind", and my talk page was blocked so I could not even respond to what was said about me. Anna's pages were blocked so she could not respond either.
How do I find an admin who will respond, and explain why I am "obviously" involved in "puppetry of some kind". I am now being told that I am involved in "puppetry" because I sometimes go to the same internet cafe as anna, and because I know her. Is there a reasonable admin who can stop all of this from happening to me, and leave me out of whatever legal stuff is going on, which I have no direct knowledge of, and do not want to be a part of? User:Tautologist76.167.114.126 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since my talk page is blocked, if you could leave a message here, since I can not respond there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.114.126 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm even more of a hard*ss on this sort of thing than the people you've been dealing with. I used to be involved with some of WP's drama, in the end it was a huge waste of time. There are thousands of editors who manage to be quietly productive, so apparently it's possible. Stan (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I am heading for Death Valley and Red Rock Canyon. I am blocked because I personally knew an editor who is also a lawyer, so I am afraid to physically contact anyone else at Wikipedia, like you, or I will be accused of being their "meatpuppet", and permanently blocked.
2. Re your other hobby, Model Ships: I was in the Extra Action Marching Band, and helped build La Contessa, a full scale ship based on the Aroura Model of a huanted spanish Galleon. It is a full size ship that sails across the Black Rock desert, and can hold about a hundred people and still "sail". User:Tautologist76.167.114.126 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorlytalk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Wines, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Wines has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Wines, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the non-free stamps and see that most are them, about 400, are being used inappropriately in articles about the subject and not the stamp itself. To this end, I was going to start removing them for the articles and nominating for deletion the ones that are orphans not being used in stamp articles. To this end I started to construct a notice that could be posted on the article talk page to notify editors why a stamp image was removed. My initial working is here though I don't know how to reference the article name within the notice as you will see from the redlink. Do you agree with this proposal? Should it remain a userpage or become a Philately project template? Cheers TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the template mechanics, but it seems like a plausible idea, and has a philately project template, since articles with valid usages will have small bits of philatelic info and thus be of interest to the project. Rather than just summary removal, I wonder if a prod-type notice makes sense - nobody responds to the prod, then you know the image use is not being managed by anyone. Somewhere, maybe on philately project page, it would be good to have pointers to valid uses in subject articles, so people can see what's expected and maybe be dissuaded from editwarring. Stan (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intended that the stamp image should be removed without warning and this notice would be put on the article talk page at that time. Maybe a notice could be put on the uploading editor's talk page too. I am sure a script could do that but as there are only about 400, I am sure it would be too much effort for too little return. I must try to find some examples of proper article uses of non-free stamps. If you know of any, please post them here and we can start an example page. I will try to find some prod-knowledgeable editors and see what they suggest. Cheers for now. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this is about the botanical naming guideline, given the section you have appended your comment to; I have made exactly two edits on WP:Flora in the last several days, and to the best of my knowledge, neither is a revert. Please explain further. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [8]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this endless debate, I'd like to ask your opinion on something. I think it could be reasoned that, since they have long run out of any new arguments, PBS and B2c are continuing their attack more out of spite than anything else. In short, they have become trolls. As I see it, there are basically two options available to resolve this matter: either take it to the arbitration committee, or simply continue the debate for as long as they want in the hope that they will eventually get tired and go away. Either choice includes a degree of risk: ArbCom could conceivably rule against us, or we could possibly lose another editor. On the other hand, an ArbCom ruling in our favor would not only bring this dispute to a sudden conclusion, but I'm sure it would also serve as a deterrent to any future attacks. What do you think? --Jwinius (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is good faith, it's just misguided. Contribution histories show that plant names are not the first windmills they've tangled with. :-) I don't think the ArbCom would feel the need to intervene unless editors were quitting, or if large numbers of articles were being moved around, or the debate got nasty. ArbCom rulings aren't necessarily a deterrent to the stubborn either, ha ha. More effective strategy would be to develop the common name indexes, it would be a lot tougher to argue that the factual information in them should be discarded so as to put an article at some regional name or another. Stan (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only misguided? ArbCom only if things get a lot worse? So, there's no choice except to keep countering their accusations until they decide when to quit? If you say so, but this all sounds pretty depressing. --Jwinius (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to respond. :-) At this point no one could claim that lack of further response constitutes acquiescence. I had to restrain myself and throw away a half-written paragraph so that I could get back to work... Stan (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to get to work on the Salvias native to California and the U.S., after working through the more horticulturally used plants. They do need improving, as you point out with Salvia mohavensis. If you can recommend a good book that covers native salvias, I would use it at some point. First Light (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stan, I'm spamming all the flora editors discussing the issue, and will try to spam animal, bird, and other editors as time permits, for more time wasting discussions. I do apologize.
I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is User:Tautologist blocked? It makes no sense and is Censorship. See his talk page for more. RohdeScholar (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I'm posting to inform you of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal, which is of relevance to you as an en.wiki bureaucrat. The discussion centres around whether bureaucrat status should be considered a 'lifetime' appointment like administrators, or whether bureaucrats should be subject to periodic reconfirmation in a manner more like the stewards. There is also consideration for a separate re-evaluation of the status of those bureaucrats who were promoted in the early days of wikipedia, when the standards at RfB were significantly lower than they are currently, and whether such users still retain the explicit trust of the community.
As an "inactive bureaucrat" (one who has not performed a 'crat action in the past year), we're particularly keen to hear your thoughts on these issues; in particular the following:
Do you consider yourself to still be a wikipedia bureaucrat in spirit, or is the flag essentially just a legacy? Do you have any intention of ever returning to being an 'active' bureaucrat?
What do you consider your position to be in terms of your 'mandate' from the community, in comparison to more recently-promoted bureaucrats?
Would you be amenable to surrendering the bureaucrat flag, or participating in a reconfirmation RfB, if asked to do so? In what circumstances would you consider such an action?
Your thoughts on these, and any other comments you may have, would be very much appreciated. We have set up a section on the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrat removal#'Crat comments, for such responses.
Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it is possible to transfer this image from Romanian wiki to Commons? I tried to do it with my TUSC account through tool server (the link you gave me) and it says the license is unverifiable...which is impossible: [9] There is a clear PD license and legitimate metadata. The precise message I get is This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool.
If not, could you manually transfer it to Commons? I would categorise it under "Iaşi Palace of Culture" There are very few Commons images of this building. Please help...if you can. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done any transfers in a long time, maybe there's now a whitelist of known legitimate licenses and the Romanian one is not on it. I think you'd have to discuss with Romanians and/or commons to see what's going on, might be as simple as getting the license added to the list. Stan (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to contact Admin Lupo on commons to see if he knows anyone who can speak Romanian...and understand what the problem is. I succesfully transferred another image from 'Ro' to Commons using tool server...but not this one. But that image only showed a small part of the building unlike this superb picture. Thanks anyway, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for Mountaineering and Climbing Project[edit]
Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having analysed all the fair use stamp images (there are a lot), I started a sweep and in some cases meet resistance, so made some formal nominations today at: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 5. You might want to add your 2¢ worth, one way or another on these as I know you have commented before on such issues. Some have already been deleted after simple removal from the articles, just pointing out the improper use per WP:NFC#Images #3 or disputing the rationale. Much more needs to be done but based on previous admin noticeboard discussions this seems to be a never ending saga. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated List of video games: A-C, 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/List of video games: A-C. 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. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they like the pretty pictures? Can you give a specific example of the "understanding" that is "increased" by this image? I can give you specific points for many other stamps - they depict elements from a particular school of art, the Postal Service made specific changes from the original photos (like airbrushing out a ciggie), etc. What does this stamp have? Stan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT:
In fact they did remove the "ciggie" for the postage stamp, even though Steinbeck obviously thought it enough of his character to want it in the original 1940 portrait from the Philippe Halsman photo session that the stamp drawing is based on:
Of course, this may not increase your understanding of anything. People who aren't interested in some part of the world, simply aren't interested. You can't get them to be interested by saying: "Look."
The Steinbeck stamp deletion discussion is a perfect example of how Wikipedia sucks. SBHarris 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The John Steinbeck page history shows that Sbharris himself placed the stamp in the article about 2 years ago but unfortunately did not add anything about the cigarette removal from the photo. Even after 8 days of deletion discussion, in which he participated, he did not mention this and now posts the above after the discussion was closed. While he may consider me a deletionist, all I am doing is cleaning up improper uses of non-free stamps which is a recurring problem. If he can provide some verifiable sources for the above claim, imho, this would certainly seem to be an acceptable critical commentary which could even rival the baseball card use in Billy Ripken#1989 baseball card, being an example of acceptable non-free image use. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I put the stamp image there originally-- I never said or implied otherwise (I thought it was understood). The reason I didn't mention the cigarette removal and image modification is that I had no idea that they might figure more highly in somebody's rationale for "fair use" than obviously-more-important image of Steinbeck himself, which manages to convey the worldliness and intelligence of the Halsman photo, and which is not found in any other image in the article. One day as things fall out of copyright or some donor shows up, perhaps the visual quality of this article will improve. As for the image-mod, Mr. Shebs brought the subject up, and I myself only found out about this weird argument for image-keep it by reading it in an already-closed deletion debate box! Okay, fine. Congratulations, all of you. Wikipedia may vandalize and defame some fraction of its 200,000 BLP subjects every day but you've managed to protect it from the terrible danger that the US post office might sue WMF for reproducing, out-of-context the image of a stamp and a face which graced untold thousands of pieces of first-class mail 30 years ago. Wow! Good job! Like I said, this is the kind of thing which makes this place suck. It's a sort of complete lack of perspective which is hard to find in too many other venues. In any case, I'm not going to fight it any more. I'm sorry I wasted this much time on it. SBHarris 05:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a "weird argument" if you like, but I only brought it up to help you, as empirically I've found that to be a stronger class of fair use rationale than subjective claims about "importance" or whatever - one person's "important" is another's "trivial". But it's certainly not the first time that my reward for trying to help someone is to be urinated upon. Stan (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious why you removed my photograph of the rose garden.. i thought it was rather nice and showed the garden as a whole.
Grey3k (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I have nominated Clash of Arms, 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/Clash of Arms. 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. — DædαlusContribs 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Harkness Roses, 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.
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. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't have any citations to RS and did start with the unsourced claim leading rosegrower. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stan-
Since you are an administrator, I was hoping you might be able to help me with a basic question, which I'm afraid shows how inept at this I am. I want to move the article Quarto (text), which is about books of a particular size/format, to Quarto which currently is a mini disambig page. (This is non-controversial. See Talk:Quarto (text)). The primary meaning of "Quarto" is the book size/format, and the only two other uses of the term (a board game and a town in Italy) can be mentioned and linked either at the top of the new Quarto article or on a separate Quarto (disambiguation) page. My problem is I want to move the history of the Quarto (text) to the Quarto article. (All or virtually of the existing links to Quarto are to the book size/format.) I don't know how to do this; do I have to get Quarto deleted first? Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the steps are to move Quarto to Quarto (disambiguation) (or to glue it to the top of the new Quarto, but it seems a little too big for that now), delete the now-redir Quarto, then move Quarto (text). I think there are more sophisticated ways to do it these days, but this'll work. I'll do it myself later if you like, gotta go shopping right now. Stan (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stan. I started the process. I put a speedy delete tag on Quarto after I moved the content, which I think is what I needed to do. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it done. Thanks again. Ecphora (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You created this in 2005. I found another person named 'Postl' so I changed it into a disambig, I hope you don't mind. Like the guy you redirected to, it's a person's real name even though both go by other names. I would like to know your opinion about something. If someone used the argument that since there are other people named Postl that your redirect should be speedily deleted, what would you think about that? I have encountered some editors who believe that since a family name can refer to more than one person with that name, that family names should not be redirected to a single person. I believe that disambigs are preferable in that situation, but that should only mean a redirect should be upgraded into one as people learn of more with the name, not deleted until a disambig is created from scratch. What are your opinions on this matter? Tyciol (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anyone wanting to delete redirects of that sort. I could see it for rare misspellings, but in general I think "XYZ" should connect the reader to all things that have XYZ as a significant part of the term, without needing to resort to searching. Over time, as our coverage expands, redirects will tend to become disambigs. Stan (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi,i'm Kuailong from Chinese Wikipedia. When i tried to finish my SUL, i found out that there is a user under the same name in enwiki, but this account has no editing history. Could I usurp this account?Thanks for your help.--124.240.129.23 (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you offer your thought on the template talk page of having a pointless map in a navigation template such as Template:Postalhistorybycountry. It bloats an already oversized navigation templates and really has no purpose. If people are so dumb that they don't know where Asia is they can look... I propose we split the template into seperate ones by continentHimalayan 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just move it to commons and apply its version of PD-China? The reasoning in en's PD-China seems tortured, and people on commons don't seem to be as worked up about the issue. This particular stamp isn't so valuable anyway, probably wouldn't survive a fair-use challenge - at commons we don't have to think about it anymore. :-) Stan (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Constant harassment against me by a small group of editors[edit]
Can you please do something about this? There are a small group of editors that keep harassing me by constantly insulting me and then requesting that I be banned. It has gotten well out of hand and I feel that the bureaucrats as a whole need to step and tell them to stop it. Here is an attempt by them to get me banned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wiki Greek Basketball. I am 100% confident that there must be some kind of site policy that is against trying to wrongly get people banned and doing it simply out of some sort of hatred or personal issues. I don't know what exactly to do about this other than to report it directly to a general group of people. That is why I am telling you and all the others directly about it. Because reporting it on the noticeboard is not working and does not work. As long as only a small group of people are involved they are able to harass you and get away with it. Please kindly tell these editors to stop harassing me and to not bring any false abuse reports against me again and please tell them to not attempt to wrongly ban me again. I thank you very, very much if you will help me with this. Thank you sincerely for any help as it will be greatly appreciated.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question(in question) 01:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It’s good to see another open-source developer here on the Wikipedia. I’ve been a long-time fan of your excellent (albeit, IMHO, unfinished) game Xconq, and I have noticed that there haven’t been any CVS updates since 2007. Is this something you plan on eventually finishing up, or is this something you’ve retired? I just added a note to the Xconq page that the last CVS commit was done nearly three years ago.
Anyway, It’s good to see you on the Wikipedia and I appreciate all of your contributions to open source! Take care, Samboy (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the bar’s higher for the “mainstream” market, but there’s still a pretty big market for tile-based turn-based strategy games; see Matrix Games. Anyway, it’s open-source so there’s no need to make it cutting edge.
But, yeah, after a couple of decades I can understand why you got burnt out over the project. One of my goals is to finish up my DNS server this year, which I have been working on for nine years. I feel a given open source project shouldn’t be worked on for more than a decade. One idea I have is to make a Xconq-type game using SDL and Lua. I have read this old posting about Xconq’s future, and will concentrate on only one game, while making the engine something that can easily do other games. My goal is a compelling and extensible turn-based game that can fit on one-floppy 7-Zip compressed. C-evo shows a compelling game can be done this way.
Thanks for your kind words, the photographs submitted to Wikipedia, and good luck on your future ventures. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stan Shebs! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.
Hello Stan Shebs! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Stan - While doing some new page patrol, I came across the above recently created article and tagged it as unreferenced. Lists such as these are clearly verifiable and sources such as Scott, Gibbons or Michel catalogs would make this type of list much more compliant with WP:Verify policies.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan - not to belabor this but using the Template:Cite book or other appropriate cite template to identify the specific catalog--year, volume, pages, etc. would significantly improve these lists vice just linking to the WP article on the catalog which doesn't actually support the content.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, I notice that you have supplied an image of the Canadian beaver stamp, but that it is the decimal 5 cents version. I'm trying to get an image of the 3d (threepenny) version for the article on the Canadian pound. Do you know how I could get such an image?David Tombe (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Is this File:3 pence beaver stamp.jpg what you are looking for or maybe ons of the images on one of these websites: sandafayre or search on the canadianhistory (dot) suite101 (dot) com (a spam blocked site). Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A 3p is on my wishlist, so gotta rely on others' scans... Stan (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to figure out what the tall building is in the background of your Bullhead City photo. Any help is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.194.187 (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also faintly visible in the middle of File:Bullhead City Arizona from Spirit Mountain 1.jpg, which shows that's actually in Nevada. Looks like some sort of abandoned project just across the river from Riverfront and Trane Rd, check out [10]Stan (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, a little Googling for unfinished projects in Laughlin shows it is called "Emerald River" - [11] has history. Stan (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stan Shebs! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently seeing very little activity. We are trying to revive the project and your help would be appreciated. To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. Hope to see you in the "active" column! For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stan Shebs! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently being revived. Your help would be appreciated! To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. The role call will end May 31; please move your name now if you are still interested. For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · MonoBot04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You deleted a file that was moved to Commons, File:Bartolomeu dia cape of good hope.jpg, but the Commons version has no source for the image save the English image description page (which you deleted), so it's now source-less. Could you perhaps check the deleted page to see if any source is mentioned and, if it is, add it to the Commons page?
In the future, please check that all the necessary information is on the Commons description page before deleting the corresponding image. Kind regards, Anrie (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
If you'd looked a little closer, you might have noticed that I've processed thousands of images on en: since I started working on WP in 2003, and I certainly know to "check that all the necessary information is on the Commons description page". In this particular case, en:'s description page had already been copied to the commons version by other people. The PD claim is possibly mistaken; if so, it's still better to clear en:'s redundant copy, and let the commons process address any sourcing issues. Stan (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, a short while back you droped into the Postage stamps and postal history of the United States page and left some comments on my user page about the List of ships on stamps page you were trying to get off the ground. U.S. Stamps and U.S. Postal history are my main philatelic endeavors, but as topics go, 'Ships' are indeed one of my favorites. I was in the process of including images of ships on stamps on the Postage stamps' page when Mr. Ww2censor came in with his editing hatchet and put an end to that effort. This is part of what prompted me to start a page that features U.S. History on U.S. Postage stamps.
For the past couple of months I have been drafting a page in a sub page in my user space and have been doing exhaustive research about U.S. History on U.S. Postage stamps and the history 'of' stamps, regarding artists, engravers and some of the politics and such behind a given stamp's production. Soon I hope to launch the page and link it up with the various history pages, but before I do I am trying to get some solid input from a few seasoned editors and administrators who are also of the Philatelic persuasion. If you have the time I would certainly value some of your input. Bear in mind that some sections are still in the draft stage.
I have been an avid reader of Wiki's history pages for many years, and am new to editing, with only three months and some 1200+ edits to my credit. I have made major contributions to the Pony express and Postage stamps and postal history of the United States pages with numerous contributions to the various pages of U.S. history. Hope to hear from you. All the best. GWillHickers (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This botany barnstar is offered in profound gratitude for over 5 years of contributing to plants. Your first edit on the parent Tree of Life project was on December 14, 2004. I peeked at you recent contributions and I am delighted that you still actively contribute to plant articles! Also I have warm memories of your kind and thoughtfull contributions to the discussions on the talk pages of the project. TeunSpaans (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps[edit]
Hi Stan,
I followed some of your advice and started up a smaller page. Actually this page, U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps is from a (now cut) section from the American History on US Postage Stamps draft page. Five minutes after I launched the page I received two messages complimenting my effort, which I find sort of amazing. Is there some sort of 'Wiki-radar' that alerts one to the issuance of new pages? (Obviously I still don't know all the ropes on this ship yet.) In any event, if you get the time, check in and give it a look. GWillHickers (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, I searched around and couldn't find a thing about the secrecy surrounding the P.M. stamp design. Any ideas where to look for citations? Of course if you like and have the time you can always edit them into the P.M. section on the page if and when you find any. GWillHickers (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[12] has some of the details. Stan (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've incorporated the info into the Project Mercury section. I thought the Smithsonian' didn't have this info' as I used their search engine at this address [13] and came up empty. Google wasn't any help either. Again, many thanks. GWillHickers (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stan,
Not too long ago someone 'moved' the title (changed upper case letters to lower case) on the U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps page. When this occurred, the page (w/ lower case letters) came up as redirected from the original title/format so I changed it back to its original format, w/ cap's. Ww2censor pointed out that only proper names should be capitalized in page titles and requested that I have an administrator 'fix' the problem. A few days ago when I changed the format back to its original (w/ caps) the page came up with no redirection required, so I am not sure what has to be 'fixed' other than removing cap's. As I want to comply with wiki' rules I want to have the page title rendered correctly but am not sure if doing so, again, will cause any problems. Can the page title be rendered at this point without it being redirected, as I have linked to the page several times before it was changed to lower-case. GWillHickers (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, First came to your talk page via issue with an editor that you had also posted about on their User talk:71.219.172.174 page. User:Vsmith & I (User:Look2See1]]) have each been having problems also (@ Salton Sink, & beyond now). How does one do respectful 'editor weeding?' The editor-weed may be using a new IP to get around being blocked, & also actually locked the Owens River article themselves (with Talk:Owens River reports by editors of possible other IPs being used). So just a FYI paste follows here, from my post to his (the weed's) User talk:71.219.172.174 today:
Thank you Stan and User:Vsmith for reporting issues here (at User talk:71.219.172.174) and filing reports on User:71.219.172.174 edit warring. I have also been having repetitive revert problems with User:71.219.172.174. Today they were done on some similar subject--topic type articles, but by editor using address of User:71.219.169.105. However others were done on articles only related by my 'editor activity pages' and not by topic or geographic proximity. Possibly not 'good faith edits' but 'edit warring' by 'history ledger stalking'? - may be same editor as here (or not) ? No talk page enabled at that 'new' address. User:71.219.172.174 &/or User:71.219.169.105 concerns continue.----Look2See1 t a l k → 15:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, & much more interesting; when scrolling down your talk page saw your "Plant Star" award, congratulations!. How does one become involved? I'm a landscape arch. grad, designer, Calif. native plants-habitats restorationist, etc. of 4 decades plus and have been trying to get Category:Horticulture and gardening more inclusive, with plant info more linked in there & easily findable-relevant-usable, & with new Category:Landscape design history tie ins. How does one "apply" to help Plants? thank you----Look2See1t a l k → 18:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that this list is hopelessly outdated, the contents appear to be a ramshackle lot of questionable and sometimes dubious info. This article takes the whole of Wikipedia to a low level. It's Wiki-unworthy.
Hi Stan. Recently I added a number of links to the 'See also' section of the Definitive stamp page.
A couple of subjects I included were already linked in the introduction, so another user (Philatelic project member 'Ecphora') elected to remove them. My thinking was that links in the very beginning of the intro' are often over looked as the average reader is usually still trying to digest the general theme of the page at that point, so another link for certain topics in 'See also' would do well. But if one link per topic is the rule I can live with that, but I don't know of one that outlines this. In any event, the Definitive stamp topic is one of philately's very basic topics, and as such I felt that the page should be allowed to branch out to other related less generalized philatelic pages. Not all of them of course, but a few of the basic ones. The problem now is that the user removed all of the links and went so far as to remove the 'See also' section entirely. He feels to allow one link on the page would entitle it to be included on all philatelic pages, which is not true. Many philatelic pages have links that don't occur in other philatelic pages. I was hoping as one of the Philatelic project's senior members you could come to the discussion page and weigh in on this matter. I feel that a big part of why most of the philatelic pages get very few views per day is because there are very few pages that link to them. GWillHickers (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I seem to be having some difficulty, again, with image uploads. First, when I am not working on one of the pages I created I go through the various philatelic pages and when I encounter a page that is tagged for lack of citations, if it is within my capability, I provide the references that support a given (tagged) passage. Recently I cleaned up the Admirals (philately) page and also uploaded three stamp images of King George V (Admirals) to that page, all of which are well over 50 years old and are PD. When I describe a stamp, I do so without catalog numbers. For example: Canada postage stamp, King George V, 1925 issue, 50c. The copyright tag I provided for this file is: PD-Canada-stamp and the category is Canadian stamps. The three images have been tagged for not having the correct copyright tags and/or categories. I look to other examples of stamps from similar countries (Canada, Rhodesia and New Zealand) to see what they have used in the file summary/description page and went from there, but the image files were tagged nonetheless. In any event, I am almost at wits end as to what to provide now. When I asked for clarification and help the user who provided the tags was not much help, as he did little more than chide me for past mistakes with categories, etc. I was hoping you could check out the images on the KGV (Admirals) page and see if indeed they are in error of sorts and if they are could inform me of or provide the correct copyright tags, etc. I have made two attempts but seem to be digging myself a deeper hole in the process. Any and all help at this point would be greatly appreciated. GWillHickers (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stan, could you take a look at a message I posted to Michael Romanov. It's about commercial image sources, like Ebay, and whether or not (PD) images from these places are allowed in commons. GWillHickers (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Deloney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, you're a commons admin right? Please can you remove the redirect from my name to Dr. Blofeld in the commons here asap. My original account contains some local photos which I don't want connected to my Dr. Blofeld account and I want to protect my identity. Please just blank the page. I can't remember the original password, this is why I can't do it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I'm still a little unclear on the value of it. :-) Stan (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, please see my question here. Could you check it as the original author of the article? --Л.П. Джепко (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize[edit]
Hi,
I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job.
Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there.
Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by
reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner
of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism.
All correct RS sources, like:
clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical
point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]).
Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking
about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia.
There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman.
By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that
several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his
grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish.
Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their
wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he
never used word “ethnic” there.
Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text
of the article in a wrong position.
In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits
there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on AX, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shenhemu (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stan! Would you do me a great favor and remove on my user history page all its versions before 27 January 2009? There was some info I don't need to be present there. Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (not having done this before), I can delete revisions, but they can still be viewed by any admin. Is that sufficient? The more thorough version is Wikipedia:Oversight, for which I don't have the permission. Stan (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to do this would be to delete completely my current user page. I already saved its content elsewhere and will re-establish the page after your removing it. Either way would work for me. So, please go ahead and choose what would be more convenient to you. Thank you! --Michael Romanov (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the old revs. Stan (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?[edit]
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reclassifying my uploads (US stamps) as public domain. I did not see that as a choice when you go to "Upload File" and select "Picture of a stamp" you only get choices under "Uploading a work that is not free content, under a fair use rationale". So what should I do if it is under public domain? Sorry. I'm a newbee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdatty (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Third Reich box cover.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Third Reich box cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Stamp IQ 1976 50f defin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I have removed at least seven of the NFC images on the US Presidents on US postage stamps page and have tended to the various fair-use rationals of the remaining images. (Just recently someone added a new NFC image of Reagan's latest stamp). When you get a chance could you check in and leave any additional input? I removed the NFC tag from the page, hopefully this was not premature. I have also asked user:Hammersoft for his input. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Color tweaks on File:Container_ship_loading-700px.jpg[edit]
Hi Stan. While working on the container ship article, it occurred to me that the contrast on your file File:Container_ship_loading-700px.jpg could maybe be boosted a bit, so I went ahead and did that. I'm not married to the change, so if it presents a problem, feel free to revert it. Cheers. HausTalk 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Limb (The Venture Bros.) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 (Talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stand it anymore, I must award User:Stan Shebs with this honor for his consistently fantastic photographs of plants. It is more fun to write plant articles when you can place a stunning picture of a flower in that taxobox! My favorite might be File:Astragalus phoenix 2.jpg. Beautiful! So wonderful and rare! Thank you! IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lexico programming language. Since you had some involvement with the Lexico programming language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cybercobra(talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactician until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Chzz ► 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I noted the date change you made in the captions of the 1st Jefferson stamps, changing them from 1856 to 1857. I double checked my US Scotts and it gives no exact date of first issue -- but it does say that the earliest known use was on March 24, 1856. The Smithsonian' also places the year of first issue at 1856. Where are you getting the 1857 from? In any case, there is another issue. The Jefferson stamp pictured is actually the second printing, Type II, with top and bottom projections of the design cut away, issued in 1861. I will have to replace that image with a Type I, but again, just curious where you got the 1857 date from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan! That is a great project you created. Did you try to involve more collectors to develop this wonderful resource? I would suggest you contacting the American Philatelic Society and asking them to patronize and curate the resource. It's definitely not a task for one man. Or even few. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was kind of hoping you'd be one of the collectors helping to develop it... You can go and create yourself an account right now and start adding data, it's all ready for that. I'm still figuring out how best to publicize it - certainly the APS figures into the plan, although they're kind of conservative and may not be interested until the site is bigger (sort of a chicken and egg problem :-) ). I do want this to become a public resource a la Wikipedia itself, and plan to add ways for people to both download all the catalog data, and the private details of their own collections. That's also why I've been careful to avoid using any copyrighted data such as catalog numbers, and have designed the database to not be too dependent on textual detail, so it will be possible to make it multilingual. Stan (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Does it mean that you will avoid any copyrighted images, too? If some stamps (say, UN stamps) are not allowed for keeping on Wikimedia Commons, will you keep them on StampData? Thank you. --Michael Romanov (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do allow copyrighted images. Since StampData is just a catalog, then any stamp image is allowable under fair use, unlike Commons, whose images can be used by different projects for different purposes. I spent some time trying to figure out a way to do an fully-illustrated world catalog within the Wikimedia Foundation's rules, decided it wasn't possible, and that was one of the motivations for a separate project. Stan (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice cite, Stan. When I get a chance, I'll have to check in and get my feet wet. Was this cite/idea by any chance inspired by the efforts of Stuart Rossiter and his Stamp Atlas? What an effort! Also, I tried to include a link to your cite in External links on the Stamp Collecting page, but it was removed by Philafrenzy with a note in edit history that it was an inappropriate link. Is there something I'm missing? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please give it a try! It all started out as my own inventory system, but as I'm a world collector who could never remember what was already in my collection, it sort of got - big. :-) I think eventually the site could be a good reference and additional info site for WP articles; so a WP article on a particular issue could link to StampData's page on the issue, with all the images, type properties, dates, etc that might be considered excessive for WP. Once StampData clearly has significant quality material beyond WP, it will be easy to justify adding links to it. Stan (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chain Reaction (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MobileSnail 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new article ("Flow Science, Inc.") to the mainspace and was wondering if you might be able to review it. If you can possibly look it over and let me know what you think, that would be great. Following that, would you or would I be the one to remove the "unreviewed" tag from the top of the page? (I don't know the protocol.) Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was researching about S. liebmannianum and came across your three pictures in Commons. I think they should be reidentified as this is not S. liebmannianum. I noticed that those pictures were taken at the University of California Botanical Garden, but then they have it misidentified too.
S. liebmannianum bears typically white dried leaves around the old stems, which gives the whole plant a whitish appearance. Flowers are also white and not yellow.
Myself I had a specimen which I believed to be Villadia batesii, but then it was properly identified by Dr. Jorge Meyrán as S. liebmannianum. You can look at the pictures here:
Unfortunately I don't know which species your Sedum is, but if you live close to the Botanical Garden, you could try telling them about this issue and they could check it against the literature.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Stamp DK 1969 flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Panzerblitz box cover.jpg[edit]
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The article Richard Alleine has been blanked as a possible copyright violation of this source. When you created the article in 2005 you said in an edit summary "another Puritan preacher from 1911EB", suggesting the article might have been from the public domain 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. If you have any comments about the article, please leave them at Talk:Richard Alleine. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am brazilian (so I do not have good english talk and I apologize for my english mistakes) and I am writing the portuguese translation of the article "Jim Dunnigan". I found some references (I have some books on wargames) and put in both articles (english and portuguese). But once I had the same book and chapter in two references, I choose to put one as reference and the other as a note. I don´t know if you will agree with that and, for this reason, I am asking you, please, to see if you agree. Feel free to modify the article if you think I did something wrong. Hugs, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Stan has not been very active here, or on the commons, for several months, so you may be better off asking someone more active who knows this topic. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - I have been preoccupied with developing my website, but check in here on a daily basis. (And have been energetically scraping all the stamp images out of commons - Germany completeness/quality very impressive!) Anyway, on Dunnigan, I don't have much opinion on "reference" vs "note", anybody looking for sources will find them just as easily in either section. Stan (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stan, I assumed you were busy because I did not see many contributions. Hope all is well and you will be active at some level here soon. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stan Shebs! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
![[9]](https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C5%9Fier:Palatul_Culturii_Iasi_-_Aerial.jpg){kind=link}
