User talk:Ww2censor/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ww2censor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Ww2censor/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was in violation of Wikipedia copywrite policies and that si why I deleted it. You can recreate the article under the same name if you also do a complete rewording of the article. Aside from a very limited number of web based articles, all images and text must be within the public domain and there was no proof that this was the case in this particular article. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance.--MONGO 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiya, it would have been fine to leave a message on my talk page rather than emailing me. :) Thanks for the informative comment about the various meanings of the two words. It was not actually my comment, it was Aughavey's, and it was made back in July of this year[1]. You are quite right in saying his/her usage is inaccurate, and if it was on an article I would be perfectly fine in you correcting it. However, on talk pages, comments should typically be left how the author of them wrote them, incorrect spellings, grammar and all - see the talk page guidelines. I'm of course not saying that you are completely changing the meaning of sentences. It's just something to keep in mind since some people get quite offended when other people edit their comments - I just wanted to let you know! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for education re corrections in articles as opposed to comments/discussions. I get it. So for me I would want to correct the 2 Eire instances in the Eamon de Valera article. A similar issue comes up concerning the use of United Kingdom as opposed to the correct trem United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when referring to the pre-1922 period and Ireland's membership of same.

BTW, I started to add this to your Discussion page but hope I reverted to your correct last version, If not sorry. Then I posted on your talk page and now I see that you prefer to see it here. I'm just getting used to this, so please bear with me.

(ww2censor 03:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

I'll take a look, it'd be nice, but tables are notoriously tricky when you want to fiddle with them. karmafist 18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, with the first list, it appears the only way to fix the formatting is manually. You might want to talk to Extreme Unction on that one.

The second looks very good. If you need more ideas, you can head over to WP:3O or WP:PR. karmafist 02:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Look a little more closely - what I removed was a {{Category:...}} which is nonsensical, because the double curly braces are for a template. In fact, the wiki parser was so confused the construct entirely disappeared from the rendered page, when usually non-existent templates show up as red links. The square-bracket category construct is still there, and as you can see the stamp is in the category. Incidentally, you might to consider creating a dedicated template for all the Irish stamp images, along the lines of {{USPSstamp}}, which is a handy way to both insert into the dedicated subcategory, plus include standard verbiage about the images' legal status. Stan 16:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanation ww2censor 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add the following inquiry to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"See also" sections. Your edit happens to be the example, but please be assured it's nothing personal. If you can point to an existing policy or otherwise convince me, I will be grateful and withdraw my inquiry.

Paul McGrath is an article where "See also" includes a link to List of people on stamps of Ireland. This kind of thing is common workaround for adding a non-existent category like Category:People on stamps of Ireland to an article. I find this practice inelegant and the information is often of marginal relevance. Is there any policy on this?

Thanks. Joestynes 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

HI Joe, I see the "See Also" sections added to several articles, so I presumed this is the best way to do it. As you see I have brought the List of people on stamps of Ireland up to date and thought it best to add the 'See Also" to the appropriate articles as several articles are illustrated with stamps, though in that case it seems quite obvious the person IS on an Irish stamp. I don't know about the policy on this one nor can I convince you that my approach is more correct than any other. What do you suggest doing instead? Creating a category? ww2censor 06:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't like it much either way, but maybe that's just me. I've added it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#back-links to lists now, so others may comment there. Joestynes 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there ww2censor, thanks for the comment on my user page, I see what you mean about the stamps. Although I am guilty of uploading used stamps myself, I try to make sure the cancelling and postmarks don't detract from the beauty of the stamp too mcuh like this File:Wiki audreyhepburn.JPG (uploaded by me) rather than something like File:Irish Stamp James Hoban.jpg which is quite bad cancelling and also the colour of the stamp changes shade in the middle of the stamp! So I see what you mean, and will definitely try to scan only mint stamps from now on. Swollib 09:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

as the contributor of this stamp image, I agree - considering that I don't collect stamps and got these images from a 500 pack of cancelled stamps that cost me $20, i decided that at the time the 40 or so images that I pulled from the pack did add value to wikipedia, if a stamp collector has mint or lightly cancelled stamps I would competely approve them uploading a new image as a new revision of all the images that I have uploaded to improve the quality/asthetics of the images, this was my first attempt to scan stamps and yes the end result is pretty poor but I am an 'incrementalist' at heart. good work on the Irish Stamps article by the way, as articles like this from people with knowledge in the specific area adds significantly to wikipedia. Kglavin 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See this. I know the stamp isn't mint (I don't own any mint versions - maybe you do - but it looks like an annoying self adhesive anyway) but it doesn't have too much postmarking. I followed your advice about the naming too. What do you think? Thanks, leon Swollib 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leon, you might like to use this one instead [2]. That bird stamp is self-adhesive as many Irish stamps are nowadays, though Ireland does not porduce as many as the US does where everything seems to be going self-adhesive. I always thought the term self adhesive is so inaccurate because we don't want things to stick to themselves. I would prefer the term auto-adhesive as being accurate but it is too late to change that one.

As I mentioned I actually don't collect stamps anymore but will be happy to ask fellow collectors who might oblige us. Your bird stamp certainly does not have too bad a cancellation but I still feel that mint is better. Try the site I link to above for all your European stamps needs. I am not familiar with a similar US source. Just ask me for any other philatelic assistance and I will try to help you out as best I can.

Let's continue this, if you want, on my talk page. ww2censor 14:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I know what you mean about the mint stamps, they do look nicer. The only problem for me uploading was that I don't have very many mint stamps, and I couldn't seem to find their images anywhere on the internet (or any with a big enough size that's suitable for wikipedia), so I thank you for the site you provided. I'll try and hunt out some site for American stamps, hopefully with clear, large scans. Thanks Swollib 05:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that if you are not an active collector and don't have many stamps you work with what you have. Do try the site I mentioned though their scan are a little small I think they are still quite suitable. If you do find a source for US, please let me know. ww2censor 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I note you added and removed a picture of Busarus from this article, the point is Michael Scott was the architect not Patrick, but interestingly Patrick Scott did work on the building, he designed much of the mosaic work. Notjim 12:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After I added the pic, I was trying to figure out the appropriate place, Michael or Patrick, so reverted for the moment. Maybe both could use the stamp. What do you think? It is at [:Image:Irl 1982 £5busaras.jpg]. ww2censor 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, one of the general principles we have is that articles should not normally belong to both a category and one of its supercategories. So for instance lists of people on stamps has its own category, which is a subcategory of philately already, so you don't need to add the supercat. Otherwise you'd have every article effectively embedding the entire category structure in it, would make it very hard to reorganize anything without touching every article. Wikipedia:Categorization has extensive verbiage about all this. Stan 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Got ya! 06:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks better. Thanks. The picture was taken on a very cloudy day...In fact, 5 minutes later, we were running to a nearby pub for shelter. Joyous | Talk 16:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a bunch. That's exactly what I wanted. Thanks, again. Lukasa 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That does look better, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged this image, which you uploaded, as orphan fair use. It was only used in an article about Samuel Beckett, which is not covered in the {{stamp}} license - the use of an image of a stamp is only a fair use if the article is about the stamp. If you know differently (for instance, are Irish stamps in the public domain?) and are able to provide a more comprehensive copyright tag please do so.

It is likely that the image will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't fully understand the copyright issues, I'm only reiterating what is on the {{stamp}} template. It seems to me that the uploading of copyrighted images to Wikipedia without permission is a copyright infringement, unless you can write a detailed fair-use rationale for each article on which it is used: this should ideally show that it is for educational purposes in the absence of a free alternative, that it illustrates the item in question (not the subject), and that it does not detract from the commercial value of the item. I wouldn't myself be in favour of writing an article simply to fairly use the image, much as I appreciate the work that went into uploading it! As you say, the stamp itself isn't notable. Writing a bit in the "Waiting for Godot" article about its commemmoration by a stamp issue would, I suppose, be more likely fair use; or is there another article that would be suitable - what about an article on stamp issues of the Irish post? How about an article about the stamp's designer? Does the stamp exhibit any notable features of Irish stamp design? I have a collection of Czech stamps many of which would be illustrative of encyclopedic topics, but I have not uploaded images of them precisely because I can think of no use whatever of the images that would not be a copyright infringement! There are only three categories of stamps that are public domain of which I am aware: namely Faroe Islands all issues, US stamps before 1978, and Soviet stamps before 1973. Is there another possible approach - such as contacting the Irish Post Office and asking for written permission to publish images of Irish stamps under public domain or GFDL? You may get a positive response (although frankly I doubt it), because the commercial value of pre-Euro European stamps to their postal administrations is not clear. Best wishes, --RobertG ♬ talk 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Stub" refers to articles that are very short, rather than incomplete articles (which in Wikipedia is almost all of them, even the featured ones). My (conservative) criteria for removing stub notices is that the article is more than 2000 characters long and have three or more paragraphs. Pillar box is definitely not a stub. Joe D (t) 03:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the position on the map! Deadstar 07:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my discussion page. I actually am a user (user:Stepheno) but wasn't logged in, and I'm writing this without being logged in for clarity.

My use of the term 'vandalism' was more due to the frequency of the offending edits than their content: the same content is being copied and pasted over the article without any reason. Before the section about the controversy was removed, I had (I think) represented both sides fairly. I'm actually undecided on the issue personally, and don't favour either side.

You're probably right though--vandalism is a harsh term for the offences, but I do find the near daily abuse frustrating.

-Stephen O'Brien --83.70.35.146 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(Oh and thanks very much for correcting the location on the map and elevation statistics, much appreciated!)

When you tag something copy vio, as you just did with The Whiteroom, Please include the url for the site of the alleged copy vio. It should come up where you see The letters url. Please could you amend it to include where the material might have come form, or message me to tell me where you think it came from.Dolive21 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article Lindsay Robins, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article contains a claim of notability, namely that a song she co-wrote was featured in the Much Music VJ Search. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch on the Michael Crow copyvio. I guess now we know why, as somebody commented, it reads like something from ASU public relations. Kazrak

I actually didn't remove or write anything on the Chicago College for Performing Arts page. The guy that wrote the original article pulled the copyright tag because he wrote the website the the information comes from. I think the bigger problem is that it reads like an advertisement for the college. It needs to be cleaned up in POV sense.

Good job pouncing indeed, the Newpage patrol is a dirty slog but someone has to do it. I am in fact translating Tlatilco as we speak; it should be done in a few minutes and I doubt it'll get db'ed. Keep up the good work, - Draeco 17:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a little Googling on the company and rewrote the whole coypvio from scratch so its now a sort of encyclopedic stub. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Kimchi.sg 05:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

these pages are not in violation as there are no notices of copyright on the webpage, surely after an amount of time the pages will be expanded to the point that they no longer resemble cut and pastes of the website NeoVampTrunks 04:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

it was much easier to condense the articles into original content when the violating article was left below the notice instead of having to attempt to draw it from the revision pages. Also, not that it matters, but you assume that I copied and pasted the content, I actually created those four pages as a re-org from the Wicked Tinkers page which had been expanded by another member.NeoVampTrunks 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

lol that was me, but it's all good NeoVampTrunks 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking a picture would be worth a 1000 words while adding my second edit to Fairlead. I figured could get a friend to take a picture of a portion of her boat that has both a ring and a hook fairlead. Imagine my surprise when I got an edit conflict because you had added the photo req tag. Great minds, etc. I see you have an interest in Irish Post Offices, so perhaps you could contribute to fairlead. Don't see the connection? The building flagstaff example I put in Fairlead was from something I saw on US Post offices of a certain age. I didn't want to make it POV, so omitted that. However it's possible that that design was used internationally on post offices. If you know of a similar flagstaff style on Irish POs, feel free to add the a PO reference.--J Clear 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For your comments on NZ Words. Truth to tell I dislike the whole idea of lists like that! and created the article to get them off the NZ English page! I will take the ones off that you mention. If you see any more, feel free to zap'em. I will move your comments to the talk page of NZ w. Kahuroa 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- saw your note on merging the Campbell biblio; I just separated it out as a result of a Good Article review discussion. I left a note on the article's talk page; let me know what you think. And if you agree, would you remove the merge tag? Thanks. Mike Christie 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I added it before I removed it from the main article; I forgot how fast the recent articles reviewers move! Thanks for dropping the tag. Mike Christie 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I failed to notice that article. I was on a stub-creation spree for the Ladakh article. I've redirected Nun-Kun. deeptrivia (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

"Neither" is a substitute for "and not" (rather than "or not") and is used very commonly in (e.g.) "he didn't do this, nor did he do that" but I agree "either" is a good clarifier if you don't like the construction. Anyway, glad it's sorted. Best --Lo2u 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was wrong - not in the way that "neither" to follow a negative (where "nor" was what was actually meant) was wrong before. Some people don't like "and", "but", "nor" etc. at the beginning of a sentence and I accept that - but there's nothing preventing it, as long as it continues a first negative. My construction ("...it could not aid Britain... Nor could it...") was, for these purposes, identical to (for example) Evelyn Waugh's from Brideshead Revisited:

"I knew they could not be assuaged by words. Nor could I have spoken, for the answer to her question was still unformed..."

And I can give many more examples of its use. I don't mind the change but there was nothing incorrect in what I wrote. "Nor" certainly doesn't need to be paired with "neither" any more than "or" needs to be paired with "either".--Lo2u 18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I should have said, your change (with "either") was definitely better and clearer than mine and I'm glad you made it. Best.--Lo2u 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You seriously need to calm down, I removed that thing from my talk page because I got the message, understood what it meant, and felt no need to carry a cross for something that is over and done. Now you are being extremely anal retentive about it. What is the point of having that as vandalism as far as removing things from your own talk page? I understand rules are rules but think like a human for god's sake. Adrak 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

You can't remove it, follow your own rules. Pwned via Adrak 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I can remove this blatant vandalism tag left in revenge by User:Adrak for my pointing out his vandalism of pages that were deleted anyway even though he had removed deletion tags. Reverting vandalism is a totally normal and proper thing to do in correct circumstances, however I choose to leave it to show how infantile and foolish he is. Maybe one of these days he will grow up; we are still waiting for him to do something constructive for Wikipedia. And what's this about my own rules. I think he means Wikipedia policy. ww2censor 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no standard policy on how to handle talk pages; some people treat them as append-only, archiving to subpages when they get long, while others delete, with the expectation that history suffices to find old stuff (see User talk:Eloquence for an elaborate example). Only a handful of the clueless actually think that clearing their talk pages somehow conceals their activities, in fact it takes a bit of savvy to remove stuff from a talk page in a way that doesn't raise admin red flags. I eagerly anticipate Adrak making a first genuinely useful contribution... Stan 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"is he justified in being annoyed at my criticism of his removing tags from his talk page?" I suppose so. Adding something to your page in retaliation is addressed by WP:POINT, and is an immature (but alas not uncommon) act. At this point I'd put it down to misunderstanding combined with youthful hotheadedness (his, not yours :-) ), only take action if Adrak does not now let it go. Stan 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Much as it puzzles us all, and especially thanks to government incompetence, people are generally confused as to the amount of counties in Ireland. There are however, without any shred of a doubt, 29 counties in the Republic. As hard as it is to believe, everything you see that says 26 counties is incorrect. The only thing that determines how many counties there are in the country is the Law.. not the GAA, not the car plates, not even the postal addresses (which will be changed anyway in 2 years). Please read the 1993 Local Government (Dublin) Act and the 2001 Local Government Act carefully to see how the country is divided. You may also feel like reading the 1898 Local Government Act to see that there is no difference between a "county" and an "administrative county". If it had not been intended to create Co. Fingal (and abolish Co. Dublin), Dublin would have just been regionalised like Co. Cork is. If you would like to see County Fingal, go buy Ordnance Survey Discovery map nos. 43 and 50 - but make sure its the 3rd edition as the government is only starting to realise what it has done. I'm working professionally on an ongoing project that (for one) depends on people knowing how many counties there are in the country - hence the changes. Accordingly, I'm reverting your edits.

User:LocGov 13:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I only realised you hadn't actually made any changes after I posted my reply, I just assumed you had by what you said. Your barrister friend's opinion would be interesting, but I think you might be mistaken about the existence of a Republic of Ireland Act 1984? Are you referring to the Republic of Ireland Act 1949? The 1949 Act does not mention any counties.. as far as I have researched no legislation has ever gone as far as saying "there are 26/29 counties in R.o. ireland".. you just have to count them up in Schedule 5 of the 2001 Local Government Act! Here:[3]

User:LocGov 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you had placed a source request on the Jennifer Kale page. What part of information were you looking to source? I didn't see any source citation links anywere in the body of information. Artemisboy 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Artemisboy 15:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dont know really. The article "MUMS" already existed. I turned it into a disambig page and moved the old flower page to Mums (flower). I suppose you could merge the latter if you like.--Zereshk 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the violation. I'll try and write it from stratch. --Longhornsg 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I'll see what I can do about the British stamps at least. All the best. --AlbertMW 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. It was an error. It's back in the postage stamp category.

By the way, if you want to challenge the CFD re philatelists, I will support you.

Best regards. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome & advice. Camaderry 15:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Really nice to find someone who's heard of, and knows just how good Albert is! Very best wishes, Lion King 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you're interested, Hogan's Hereo's are in Ireland on Saturday Lion King 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not, being, for now, a resident to the USA. ww2censor 23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, just thought I'd let you know! Best wishes Lion King 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I must remind my friend who introduced me to him. He loves finger-style guitarists. ww2censor 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you and your friend play? Lion King 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not me, I have 2 ears to listen with, but he occasionally plays for him own pleasure not publically. ww2censor 13:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, if people didn't listen, there'd be no point in us playing! Be Lucky, Erin go Bragh! Lion King 15:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Much appreciated. I am all in favour of a structured approach to any system, which is what this is, and I'm sure we can turn this into a showpiece category.

Your approach re the list of articles is definitely in line with my way of working. I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before but I am most impressed by Postage stamps of Ireland which is an excellent article. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit cheeky of George to nominate you but AlbertMW is new to the site and he knows I am likely to lose even more hair if I have to deal with that crew on the CFD page again! I'm afraid I don't know how to do it but I have found a page that supposedly explains it and I'll try to work it out. There is apparently an "umbrella method"!? I'll keep you posted. All the best. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the page: CfD and I'm trying to work out how to do it right now. If I succeed I'll get back to you. And if I fail I'll get back to you!! --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I might have done it. It really is complicated. Discussion Page Set Up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30 so please be prepared to give additional views if required. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there—Economy of the Republic of Ireland is currently in the FARC list. Nothing much has been done to improve the article since its nomination for FA Review. I wonder whether you're able to assist. It would be a pity if te article were de-listed. Tony 14:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)