User talk:Philafrenzy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Perfin

This discussion has been moved to the article talk page. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Your request has been authorised. Please read the instructions carefully and use the tool wisely. If the bot has not enabled your account in a day or two, please let me know. Happy editing!Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Burnett Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyderabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

postal history

Please revert and explain this edit. Gnangarra 13:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The "postal history of" and "postage stamps of" categories are being replaced with one "philately of" category showing all of the philatelic articles for a country in one place. Please see the philately project talk page for details. Thanks Philafrenzy (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What discussion link out of courtesy, also advise the WP:AWNB about changes that are going to affect the whole structure of that project and seek their input as well. Gnangarra 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the PO buildings of Australia a sub-category of Philately of Australia. It's not really changing the structure of the Australia categories very much is it? It significantly improves coverage of Australian philately as all of the articles can be seen in the same place for once. Do you oppose the deletion of category postal history of Australia? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately hardly looks like a general lengthy discussion over a subject,with due consideration - more like a proposal that no one has sufficiently challenged - pray tell what is and or where are policies about Flat categories??? SatuSuro 13:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

<ECx2>Yep because Postal history of Australia is more than just stamps, post offices were the focal point in towns for many other means of communication and government services, I have no issue with stamp articles being changed or the creation of a stamp category tree also see WP:COMMONNAME Philately is not in common use in Australia Gnangarra

I concur with Many readers will have no idea what "philately" means. SatuSuro 13:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Going into countries categories - blanking them and moving on to the next one looks like no discussion anywhere - specially the country projects that might have particular cultural or other contexts into which their postal history might not even entertain the idea of what the hell philately might mean in their language or culture SatuSuro 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And philately is more than just postage stamps and postal history. We now have 24 "philately of" articles replacing the current structure of "postage stamps of" and "postal history of" which duplicate themselves in virtually every country article. The new structure allows ALL of the philatelic articles relating to one country to be seen in one place for the first time, including postal history, postage stamps, revenue stamps etc and significantly improves the usefulness of the by country category structure in philately. I am not trying to invent a new rule about flatness, it just helps us to see it all in one place. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Postal means more than just stamps in Australia, infact all communications history in australia came under the postal banner it wasnt until very recently (1990's) that it was divided out but then Australia post became the primary point of access for most government services so using philatley to decribe postal history in Australia isnt correct. Gnangarra 13:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's only the category name that is changing not the article titles. The content is the same and we do have a philately project. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and some projects have to take very careful consideration (if you travel into WP:CFD, WP:CFR territory - the CFD/CFR archives have over 5 years of the stuff being hammered out over some subjects some almost biannually - over continental and regional variations that deny the one size fits all attempts by category creators) SatuSuro 13:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I first proposed this on the project page a month ago, waited for feedback and got little, then made some of these changes and asked for more feedback and took it all slowly in case anyone objects. These are almost the first comments I have had on the subject. I have been bold and started this. I have no objection to any number of parallel categories but we need one philately by country category as our current structure in this area does not work as it excludes large areas that are legitimately part of the philately of a country. If you check the categories you will see that we now have material about collecting societies, notable individuals, revenue stamps and others all in the same country category for the first time. This solves a long-standing problem within the project. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe an improvement in your eyes - but the lack of discussion outside of one project talk page and the lack forewarning in many other areas means you might be mending fences for a while - some projects might not even respond even if they saw the changes - bold is not something that comes easily to mind when having watched the horrible mess of many WP:CFD discussions over 5 years plus - neat and tidy for the philately project maybe - but probably zilch when it comes to understanding the need for long drawn out discussion and probing near dead projects and long awaited replies that might come if you are patient... SatuSuro 13:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about tidiness, it's about usefullness, and I venture to say that I have asked more than once for feedback and done what I have done over a period of a month with intervals to see if anyone objects. There comes a point where you just have to get on with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont disagree with a philately category structure but in Australian terms its not a simplistic replacement for Postal history, Postal service as they cover broader subject base. Gnangarra 13:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing Post offices are being merged with/taken overby local government services like libraries both static and mobile to create tele-centres in smaller towns where such services are individually uneconomical, these are being created in WA thru the royalties for regions program. Gnangarra 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a Postal system of Australia category to which many postal articles will correctly belong. I have to point out that "postal history" is in fact philatelic term and one probably also unfamiliar to most people. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please try to keep this category as flat as possible by not adding sub-categories so that ALL of the philatelic articles relating to individual countries can be seen in one place. is somewhat out of scope for what category pages are about flatness is nowhere to be found in WP:CATEGORY and I strongly suggest you remove instructions such as these unless you can find a policy that fits with such a precious notion -merrily creating your own personal notion of what categories do and how they function does not smack of what WP:ABOUT but simply a personal preference SatuSuro 14:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, it is my personal belief that the category will be more useful to users if it is flatter, I am not suggesting there is any rule about this. If you feel that this should be removed, please feel free to do so. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely enough at category practice - there might a little instruction on such items or similar - my part of the planet is pumpkin time so I am signing off at the moment - there might be a way of re-phrasing or using a template to evince the sentiment but which fits into Wp general practice - but not now. Will try to think around into general practice within the next week- beware the bandersnatch! SatuSuro 14:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

careful thought - misunderstanding of categories and their usage - or more useful - please read the category FAQ etc - there is nothing about the visual amenity as to whether all the articles for a parent category are visible - it is both counter-intuitive and counter-productive to a good category tree/family and a serious misunderstanding of what categories are about to have placed that bolded rubbish, bandersnatch withstanding - try understanding what wikipedia is about - and for heavens sake if you are worried about visual amenity - which has nothing to do whatsoever to what wikipedia is about - think carefully about emptying/blanking category pages without adequate edit summaries or explanations very careful - somewhere SatuSuro 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the category is to try to see everything about the philately of a country in one place so the flatter it is the better. A number of categories have instructions, suggestions and requests relating to their use and this is nothing more than a request. That's why it starts "Please try" and explains the reason. As mentioned above, I am more than happy to use an alternative wording or no wording at all if that is the consensus. Thanks for your interest in the subject. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a request for additional feedback about the wording on the project talk page. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In good faith- you seem to be unable to see that flatter is counter to what categories are about - absolute rubbish about being flatter as an attribute of what parent categories have and the children that they can include - not sure what wavelength you are on - but - to not actually understand that your request is counter to what categorization and sub categories are about - is disconcerting to say the least SatuSuro 09:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the purpose of categories but they may vary in depth. The tone of your responses is inappropriate and I am aware of the sarcastic little notes that you include in your edit summaries. I won't be adding anything further to this discussion with you and will feel free to remove any additional non-constructive messages that you may leave here. Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Depth has nothing to do with it - you are proposing an eccentric understanding of categorization and seem hell bent on carrying it out - you need to understand that I am simply another editor who has been around a lot longer and has seen a lot of much nastier and lack of AGF discussion when it comes to resolving issues of similar proposals to reinvent the wheel, and I certainly would like to see you saved from that sort of agravation.

I appreciate your conceding that you had not found any policies on what you are proposing - if you dont like my tone of voice in these posts and edit summaries, my apologies - but just remember you are basically trying to go into a way of reading the usage and understanding of a standard part of the structure of the whole wikipedia project and expect a congenial oh yes, go and do it sort of answer is being quite unrealistic SatuSuro 09:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be continuing this on the project talk page in order to de-personalise it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

the philately project is a quiet and not necessarily appropriate location - I have outline my understanding of the issue at - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories - maybe it is just as quiet... SatuSuro 09:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Innotata's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—innotata 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Postage stamps of Switzerland

Hi, can you tell me why you blanked Category:Postage stamps of Switzerland? If you would like to replace it with Category:Philately of Switzerland, as it appears, you would need to obtain consensus for that at WP:CFD first.  Sandstein  10:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is part of a wider reorganisation into Philately by country that there is consensus for on the talk page of the Philately Project. Feel free to revert it but I think if you check the higher level "Philately by country" category you will see the logic of what has been done. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to do, but you may not attempt to remove categories by simply blanking them; we have a process for this: WP:CFD. I am also not convinced that placing articles about stamps into the category "philately" (i.e., the hobby of stamp collecting) makes sense, and I see no consensus to that effect. For these reasons, I have undone the removal and blanking of Category:Postage stamps of Switzerland. If you would like to make this wide-ranging change, you would first need an explicit consensus to do so, e.g. via a WP:RFC or a WP:CFD nomination of all the "postage stamps" categories.  Sandstein  11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the category Postage stamps of Switzerland remaining. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Colin Tarrant

Back in June, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done so. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sherborn Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Embossed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

British India stamps

I've got around to asking, at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Government_works_from_British_India. Please reply if you want there or on my talk. —innotata 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Microgrant

Hi Philafrezny. Apologies for the delay in responding to your microgrant application. It sounds like a great project! I've asked for confirmation of a few things there - if there's no problem with those, then we should be able to approve the microgrant shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BL bookbindings

Hi - Can I interest you in this at all - Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/Bookbinding? There are a number of specific collections, but we (BL curator & I) thought initially an umbrella articles might be best. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Looks interesting. I will start it off today. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Treasury Excise Correspondence Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Customs & Excise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Deadlinks

I notice that you recently removed and replaced a deadlink from the Postage stamp article. I appreciate your attention to links and archiving them. Ww2censor asked me the other day why I put archive information after a live link. My response was at User talk:Ww2censor#Archive links. You might want to read Wikipedia:Link rot. There are recovery and repair options and tools available that are detailed in that article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that the time to archive them is as soon as you add them, though I must admit I don't always do it. It just means adding it at the end with the words Archived here or similar which is so easy. This also takes a "snapshot" of the text exactly as viewed which is essential for verifiability of the reference. I think you are absolutely right to be using WebCite and I have made a resolution to be more thorough in doing so myself. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the best method of adding the archive link is to consistently use citation templates and use the additional fields archiveurl and archivedate like this one. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted, but I don't think Internet Archive gives you on-the-fly one-click archiving like WebCite? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Project template

I see you are using the older template {{Philately}}, which is a redirect, instead of the current standard project banner format {{WikiProject Philately}}. We are trying to only use the current one. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have made a note. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Hi,

You have previously removed a page that I had made about the musician Jim Johnston on the basis that he was not notable enough. He has one album and two singles out on major release and a number of reviews now, all of which are verifiable and easy to reference. Can you let me know at what point you would consider he would be notable enough so that I can add to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Johnston_(musician)&redirect=no without my changes being undone? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martindupras (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but I might have nominated it as not notable. Check out WP:NMG for notability for musicians as this provides clear criteria. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This page was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Johnston (musician). You should read Wikipedia:Notability (music) for guidance. ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

British Library

Hi!

This is just to let you know that I've just recently started as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library, building off the 2011 British Library project which you participated in. I'll be working here full-time for the next six months; I'm still meeting people here to discuss projects that they're interested in working on, but if you've any suggestions, please do let me know!

We've currently got two events in the calendar:

• World War I Editathon, 16 June - organised jointly with JISC
• GLAM-WIKI 2012, 14-15 September - conference hosted by WMUK and the British Library

and I'm in the process of restarting the individual collaborations program - there's currently one article with a specialist looking for a Wikipedian, and hopefully I'll be adding more over the next few days.

(I'm planning to use the old participants list for any future messages - if you'd rather not be contacted, please leave a note there.)

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Following up... I'd quite like to talk to you about the past work you've done with the BL - I've been in touch with the philatelic curators here and they're keen to try and build on the collaboration. Could you drop me an email? andrew dot gray (a) bl dot uk. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The American Philatelist

Can you please explain what is going on there? Are you trying to get the edit history deleted? Why?

I was trying to correct a mistake I made when attempting to italicise the article title. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the proposed deletion tag and reinstated the page so as not to lose the history. What is the best way to change the title so as not to have quotation marks? Your assistance in sorting out my mistake would be appreciated! Philafrenzy (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Basically, you'll want to restore the situation that existed before the move. The you put the {{italic title}} template at the top of the page and, presto, you'll have an italicized title. Adding a magazine infobox will do the trick, too. The best thing to do here is contact an admin and ask him/her to sort this out. Don't edit more for the moment, as that will only make things worse. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it can't be that difficult surely? All I want to do is remove some superfluous quotation marks. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it is that difficult. The moves and subsequent copy/paste moves have screwed up the contribution history, which needs to be preserved in order to comply with WP's copyright statement. Perhaps it's easier than I think, but it will involve moving the original article back to its original title and as you have edited both pages since the move, this cannot be simply done by a move back, but some deletion/revision restore has to be done and only an admin can do that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Pat Keely

Hi, I just created Pat Keely as a WWII artist, but stumbled across his stamp designs for the GPO. Perhaps you could add a little something there if he is noted for his designs? I *may* be confusing two Pat Keely's but it would seem very unlikely. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is the same man and he designed several stamps. I will link it all up. He also did the poster for the iconic Night Mail documentary: http://postalheritage.wordpress.com/tag/night-mail/ If it was Crown Copyright it would be PD now. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanded with help from the Gibbons Stamp Monthly archive purchased using a Wikimedia Microgrant. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Train the Trainer - Wikimedia UK workshop for volunteers who deliver training events

Hi Philafrenzy, To support the volunteers who are delivering (or planning to deliver) Wikimedia training, Wikimedia UK is organising another Train the Trainer event on 27-28 October, in London. I really hope that you will be able to attend - if so please sign up: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/October_event The page will also give you more information about the event, but if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me (daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk). Thanks! Daria Cybulska (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:LibanPost logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:LibanPost logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre

I have added some references to Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre (2nd nomination). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardmobili

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardmobili.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Another comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardmobili

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardmobili.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clixtr

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clixtr.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

restored PROD: David MacKenzie (programmer)

As per a request on my talk page, I've restored the unsourced biography David MacKenzie (programmer), which was deleted as a result of a WP:PROD that you placed last year. This restoration is without prejudice to taking the article to AfD. Best regards, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Clive Feigenbaum

Thank you for detecting the wrong reference in the Format International section. The website is golowesstamps.com not glowesstamps.com. I have undone your revision and corrected the reference so all is as it should be Kermitstan (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit and moved the reference to an external link. The content is interesting but does not meet the standard of being a "reliable source". This sort of thing needs to be published in a newspaper or established philatelic journal in order to be good enough to use as a reference. (The turquoise on black colour scheme also somewhat undermines its credibility). Philafrenzy (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bespoke BBQ Company

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke BBQ Company.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading 1

Hi Philafrenzy. Thanks for taking the time to organise yesterday's meet. Sorry I wasn't terribly vocal, but I was content listening to what everyone else had to say! Cheers, matt (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for attending. Some of us have a lot to say, some might say too much! Next one is scheduled for 18 Nov same place or different if agreed by consensus on the talk page. Sign up if you can as success breeds success. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Philatelic Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Thompson Dobell

Hi. About a year ago you tagged Sydney Thompson Dobell with multiple issues "cleanup", "confusing" and "copy edit". I fully agree with you, and have done a copy edit just now, trying to make the article at least clear in meaning. The only thing is that the article is taken from Britannica 1911. It really needs rewriting to make a proper, 21st-century encyclopedia entry, so until someone does that, I felt it could be nice to at least keep the flavour, and I edited it much less heavily than one usually would. I've noted this on the article's talk page. This is just to let you know, in case you want to comment. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Added section headings. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philafrenzy. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to talk with you to improve Philatelic articke Jointly. Would you interest? Regards Rahman.safwan (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which article? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to improve wiki article about Postal Authority you wrote.can we do jointly?at this time,I would like to improve the Article "Afghan Post".I am waiting for work on it with you. Can I get your contact information?so that we can discuss about it. Regards Rahman.safwan (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't say which postal authority. As for Afghan Post, feel free to get on with it and I will add anything further I can. I only communicate on this page so please leave a message here. Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would like to add "Somalia Post" and Other Postal Authority of Africa at Wikipedia.because it is too hard to get the information of some country of Africa. Regarding Afghan Post,i would like to write it with more information.can we start jointly?also,your Article has not any source. I need your contribution to improve Afghan Post.so can we start a talk at the Afghan Post talk page? Regards Rahman.safwan (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is some useful info here: Communications in Somalia. I would think there is no article on Somali Post because it has been assumed that there is no functioning postal system at all in the country but that seems wrong now. Do you want me to start the article? For Afghan Post, what changes did you have in mind? It is normally best to just go ahead and build up the article gradually through consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The "MAIL" Part of the Article communications in Somalia was written by me.I had joint the information about Post.I had sent an email to Somali Post.but still they didn't reply.Can you please collect some more information? Regarding Afghan Post,i request you to give the source of your information.because i couldn't find any source there. I want to join, 1.under which Ministry afghan Post is? 2.About the service of Afghan Post. 3.the key people of Afghan Post. 4.revenue collect by Afghan Post 5.number of Post Office. 6.Area of Working. I hope,you would help me to provide this information. Regards Rahman.safwan (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about Somali Post. For Afghan Post, I should point out that I only did the first version of that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghan_Post&oldid=483771210 everything else was done by someone else. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Somali Postal Service now exists. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add details of current postal arrangements. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent writing. I think,you written something wrong.Somalia is an UPU member.about the international mail,I have contact with UPU regarding it.they reply me that it is not possible to send. They had an agreement with Emirates Post at 2004.at that time its possible to send.but now its not possible to send. I have number of somali post,can u please call? Regards Rahman.safwan (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to make it clear that they were requesting re-establishment of their membership which had effectively lapsed during the civil war. No, I can't call them but please add any information you have about current postal services with a reference to verify it. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Somali Postal Service

Hi. The current postal services bit was unsourced; it also indicated that "the Somali Postal Service has not issued any postage stamps". Somali Postal Service, however, is actually in the process of being relaunched, so it couldn't have issued any stamps to begin with. Given this, I replaced those sentences with a note from the Information, Posts and Telecommunications indicating that "residents subsequently had to turn to traditional methods of dispatching parcels and letters". Per the Somali government, that's the current state of the postal service, pending the re-launch of Somali Post next year (c.f. [1]). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand but I think there is interest in whether you can send a letter to or from or within Somalia and although the information is sketchy I was hoping that it would prompt someone with current knowledge to expand it. The point about the stamps was that many bogus stamps have been issued marked Somalia. There is a link from the philatelic article to a website showing some of them. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the stamps. In Rahman.safwan's edit on the Communications page, he indicated that "Though they dont have International Postal service,they have inland Postal service.Its Possible to send letter inside the Somalia.There is a GPO(General Post Office) situated at Mogadishu" [2]. The Somali Postal Service states that it has managed to rehabilitate the GPO in the capital, and appointed an official Postal Consultant to provide professional advice on the renovations. This is all part of Phase I of their larger rehabilitation program. I added a note to that effect in the History section. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It won't be long before this is definitively resolved. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already operating some sort of postal system in Mogadishu in preparation for a full launch. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's quite possible. Middayexpress (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Roll of Distinguished Philatelists‎

I see you working on some of the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists‎ and if you can help I have started some work on Maurice Burrus at User:Ww2censor/Maurice Burrus. You are welcome to contribute there until it is ready for prime time. There is lots more to write but I have not had much time to add anything recently. Cheers and happy holidays. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

They are mostly just one liners with one ref as I have a few days off at this time. I will look at the Burrus if you like but why don't you release it? I think I would prefer not to edit someone else's user space, even if invited to do so. Seasons greetings. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can understand being hesitant to edit other people's sandbox but you are welcome if you chnage your mind. Generally I tend to work on articles in my sandboxes until I feel they are ready rather then just put up something too short, especially where I know they is a lot to add as with Maurice Burrus. However, if you have any references that would be useful I would love to know them and you could put those on the talk page for me. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited G. S. F. Napier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Feldman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 3

I'm sorry that you couldn't attend the second Oxford Meetup: we had a good turnout - 13 people, one of whom had never edited before, but created an account during the meetup. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday] and Reading [third Sunday]). I have created a page about the third Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is Reading, 20 January 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't be there. Work commitments unfortunately. Glad to see it is establishing itself. Hope to make Reading. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Negus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Holman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Philatelist stubs

Hi, Philafrenzy. Sorry for the inconveniences with S. D. Tchilinghirian and Archibald G. M. Batten. I am seeing the Category:People stubs, trying to re-brand most of its articles. I guess it is time to suggest the creation of a new category:Philatelist stubs (as a subcategory of the category:Post and philately stubs). What do you say? If you agree with my proposal, then I will formally propose the new stub category. Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have a general philately stub, we just need to ensure that the right nationality is used for the bio stub I think. What is the policy for people of unknown nationality? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Philately by country

Hi, as you seem to be active on this topic, please see Category:Philately by country, which contains sub-cats for "Philately of Foo" and articles on "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo".

There is also Category:Postal history by country, which is currently under-populated. It seems to me that either:

1. Category:Postal history by country should be merged and redirected to Category:Philately by country; or
2. all the articles on "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo" should be moved from Category:Philately by country and added into both Category:Postal history by country and Category:Postage stamps by country.

Category:Postal history of the United Kingdom has a decent number of articles, suggesting that "postal history" can be a separate sub-topic, so I am inclined to go with (2) above. What do you think?

The "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo" pages should also be added into each country's "Category:History of Foo by topic", or if that does not exist then "Category:History of Foo". – Fayenatic London 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to get all philatelic articles for a particular country in "Philately of.." for a while but have met some opposition where there a number of articles in either the postage stamps or postal history categories. I think both are obvious sub-categories of "Philately of" which must be the top one as philately embraces postage stamps, revenue stamps, postal history of a country etc. I think the current arrangement is the right one but the underpopulated categories should simply be deleted and the articles placed in the top "Philately of" cat. The only exceptions should be where there are significant numbers of articles already in which case they stay as they are. I have argued that having postage stamps of and postal history of all running in parallel is a huge over-categorisation. "History of" and "communications in" go above philately of I think. Please don't merge "philately of" with anything, it was a huge effort to get it established and it really works well in terms of being able to see everything philatelic about a country in one place (as far as possible). Philafrenzy (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean you support my #1 above? – Fayenatic London 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, including Germany and Canada with the exception of the UK where there are 11 articles. In the unlikely event that a significant number of pure postal history articles are created for one country then the category can always be recreated but to be honest I see no reason for any PH category at all. Postal History is a mainstream part of philately and to my mind the flatter the "Philately of" category is, the more useful it is. I think this structure is just a hang-over from more ambitious times when we planned a grand structure of detailed articles! Of course, my views may not be representative and you might want to check with the Philately Project. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've nominated Category:Postal history by country for merging. Please comment at the CFD. I've tagged Category talk:Postal history by country with the Project, so it should automatically come up on the project's Alerts list.

I see you have removed the WP Philately banner from some pages. Please don't do that; it prevents the system from notifying CFDs to other members of the project. – Fayenatic London 17:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Philately banner? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

{{WP Philately}} (short for WikiProject) - see e.g. talk page history. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't recall editing any talk pages recently. That was a year ago in 2012. I can't recall the exact details but I think I was trying to achieve something similar to you. Recently I only removed a few articles from Postal History categories because they shouldn't have been in there in the first place. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine -- provided it's demonstrable that they should not have been there. If it's arguable and a CFD is in progress or coming up, please leave them so that participants in the discussion can judge for themselves. Emptying during or in advance of a CFD discussion is considered to be "out of process". Just so that you know. – Fayenatic London 18:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. (So few people seem to be active in this area that I often forget that there are other Wikipedians and just do things!) Philafrenzy (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been through the articles from A to E in Category:Philately by country making sure that they are within the category for History (by topic, if there is one) as well as Communications (or Postal systems, if there is one) for each country, except for small former countries which don't have such categories. If you would like to carry on, please leave a note here, because I'm stopping that for now... – Fayenatic London 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that postal systems of is a valid upper category actually, as philately embraces more than the postal system (some people don't get that), however, postal system should be within philately of. I understand you are stopping. Categorisation can be incredibly tedious after a while. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles I'm talking about are all called "Postage stamps and postal history of...". It seems to me that postal history should always be within postal system. – Fayenatic London 19:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I will reply later. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I misread the earlier post, you were talking about articles not categories. I have commented in the discussion in support of the proposal. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Murray (art historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaidon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali

Good one, Ipigott had just spent time proofing it until you jumped the gun and he lost it through an edit conflict.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well sorry but why not place correctly proof read text in the article in the first place? We all have computers on which we can do that after all. If I see gibberish I remove it. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading

Only three people signed up. Do we go for it (there is after all a somewhat interesting museum there that allowes photography) or do we call it quits?©Geni 15:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This being a three-way discussion, I've replied centrally, at m:Talk:Meetup/Reading/4#Shall we continue?. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Meta. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 4

I'm sorry that you couldn't attend the third Oxford Meetup: we had a good turnout - 10 people. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday]). A page has been created about the fourth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is London, 10 March 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the next five years – a day workshop on the future of Wikimedia UK

There's a sign up section on the event talk page. If you have a particular preference about work shops you want to attend, you might want to add you name to the relevant lists. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Glasgow

Delighted to see there's a meetup in Glasgow! Won't be able to make it, I'm afraid, but hope it goes well... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs‎

There's also an entry in Weitzmann, Kurt, ed., Age of spirituality : late antique and early Christian art, third to seventh century, no. XXX, 1979, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, ISBN 9780870991790; full text available online from The Metropolitan Museum of Art Libraries. for more. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I will check it out. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As usual it's overloaded. Try tomorrow. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a huge PDF, & you have to just move through it. Can't remember the number I'm afraid. Great book though. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Brighton meetup

Hi - yes, that's fine; drop me a note on my Talk page and I'll take it from there. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Hope to see you there if you can make it! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Solkin

The article David Solkin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:PROF.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deadbeef (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of David Park (art historian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Park (art historian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Park (art historian) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. SudoGhost 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)