User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 25

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

October to December 2009

WP:AE

Angus, are you familiar with the language of WP:REVERT, where a revert "is any action that reverses the actions of another editor?" This is the way cases are usually closed at the WP:3RR board. An edit can be a revert even though it doesn't restore a previous version of the article. Changes in different areas of an article, performed in a single day, are all counted as reverts even though they don't focus on a single topic. Though AE is a much scarier place than 3RR, I'm not sure why the 1RR rule would be interpreted differently there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"An[y] edit can be a revert ... [c]hanges ... are all counted as reverts..."? I'll stick policy's with "repeatedly override each other's contributions" as being an adequate summary of what reverting looks like in practice. Every time I try to write a longer explanation it ends up containing too many gerunds, so we'll leave it at that. There's no meeting of minds here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Repeatedly override' is part of the broad summary given at the top of the WP:Edit war page. Later, when it gets down to specifics, it uses the language 'any action that reverses the actions of another editor.' Do you consider the two sections to disagree with one another? EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like broad summaries, they tend to be clearer. My rule of thumb, paraphrasing Potter Stewart, is that I know a revert, or an edit-war, when I see one. So that'll have to be a yes then. I do think that there is a conflict between the plain language of the lead and the far from clear text in the body. I am not at all sure what additional sense "any action that (sic.) reverses the actions of another editor" is supposed to convey to the informed reader. I certainly don't propose to read it literally since that would lead to ridiculous outcomes. Assuming it is intended to cover reverts which don't immediately look like reverts, I didn't see any of those here unless I assume bad faith and imagine that some form of collusion is ongoing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hart

Hi Angus,

Let me first say that I think you and Rockpocket have done excellent work de-poving the Peter Hart article from the hatchet job that it was. You'll also be aware that Domer and I don't exactly see eye to eye. However, once you have seen off the pov-pushing, there is a genuine content issue here.

Is it not legitimate to mention that here has been criticism of Hart's work and interpretations? (Not all of it from he likes of the Aubane Historical Society). Just a question, as I have no intention of getting involved in that particular can of worms. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is surely legitimate. Just so long as it is well-referenced and doesn't get into WP:COATRACK territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, well whenever the war there is finished we can look at it again. Jdorney (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading up on the Aubane Historical Society (never heard of them till 10 minutes ago) and apart from the fact that some virulent anti-nationalist groups and people don't like them I fail to see what makes them "unreliable" untouchables. At least to anyone who supports WP:NPOV when it comes to Irish historical articles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Questionable sources is what you're after. If you think the continuation of B&ICO is not extremist I'm afraid we'll need to agree to differ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention "extremist"? I thought I was talking about reliability or otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The two ideas are inseparable. Extremists are never reliable unless talking about themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Simplistic or wha?! Reading a book by a chap (Michael Scheuer) who worked in the CIA for 20 years and admits he was a key player in their rendition program. He favours terminating US enemies with extreme prejudice and is indifferent to "collateral" casualties. But he openly admits that a majority of Muslims across the globe actually were pleased with 9/11. Opinion polls tend to support this. So, question: Is supporting 9/11 an "extreme" view? (I'm not suggesting B&ICO are remotely equivalent in their departure from conditioned responses) - but what is "extreme"? Tell me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may also want to have a look at the Kilmichael Ambush page, the site of the other 'set-piece' controversey over the 'IRA and its Enemies', if you're removing the anti-Hart stuff from WP articles. Jdorney (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Logging

Hiya, just to clarify the paperwork, was Domer48's ban under the Troubles case or WP:BLPBAN? If the latter, then the ban should probably be logged at WP:BLPLOG. --Elonka 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very poor manners to push in in front of Sarah777. Sorry but it does make things more readable.

It was both. I'd have let him have more rope if this weren't a Troubles article. But I expect we'd have got to the same place in the end. I'll add it at the BLP log. Thanks. By the way, did you get my email last week? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'tis OK Ang - I'm well used to your manners by now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was under "irritation to folk-who-think-they-know-what-an-extremist-is" :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: Yes, sorry I forgot to reply. The answer however is, "Nope, haven't noticed anything recently." --Elonka 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, I see you never got around to logging this, as you said above. Also, you banned him from the article, but blocked him for an edit on the talk page, which merely referred to BLP/V, rather than inserting material in violation of those policies. Might I suggest you save the block for something unequivocal?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I will save the block for later. If you want to unblock him, go right ahead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a rubbish block, as ONiH pointed out no remedy allows you to issue a page ban. If you want to claim otherwise, provide a link to where you can. Your ban also says that Domer is banned from the article, traditionally such wording doesn't cover talk pages. BigDunc 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per your permission above, I have unblocked Domer48, as I don't believe that his edit was in violation of your BLPBAN. Should future edits violate it, of course, I have no problem with a reblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good unblock Sarek. Also ONiH allured to WP:BLPBAN, and said the required procedure wasn't followed. Unless you provide a diff where you "counselled" him on "specific steps" prior to warning him, he can't be blocked. ONiH obviously didn't think you'd followed the procedure and neither do I. BigDunc 16:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing acquiescence with consent. As for BigDunc's plea for counselling, Domer48 has been page-banned before. He should be able to remember whether that included the talk page. So did it? Don't look here if you don't want to know the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should counsel editors who fail to comply with BLP policy... and Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, when did you do this? BigDunc 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd start at Talk:Peter Hart. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will find on the talk were you specifically counseled Domer is that what you are alluding to? BigDunc 16:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, in that link above, Domer was explicitly banned from the article and talk page. In your recent BLPBAN, you only explicitly banned him from the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to contest both the troubles and BLP special enforcement. The troubles rfar doesn't allow discretionary topic bans on its own, and I've seen no evidence that Domer's action on Peter Hart justify invoking BLP special enforcement (compare with the other logged actions) Were either of these done via consensus on an AN or ANI board?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest, rather than ban Domer from that page, he agree to take this incident (and the advice offered by an increasing number of people about criticism and BLPs) under consideration apropos his future editing at Peter Hart and associated pages. It would be much better for everyone if this could be resolved without restrictions. However, I have noted that I will take this to AE (or ANI) to gauge consensus on such a ban if these BLP concerns continue. Rockpocket 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What advice would that be he is essentially being hounded from the page by the Scotish admin brigade with blocks and bans and threats of blocks, and it transpires spurious into the bargin, so what were the words of wisdom, IMO John was the only who remotely showed good faith to what Domer was doing. BigDunc 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Does every administrative action require lengthy discussion beforehand, or only blocks, or perhaps it's just page bans? Why would page bans require more discussion than blocks which are rarely discussed? I'm not looking for answers. I know what I think the answers are. I'm always open to reconsideration if you can show me why I'm mistaken, but I feel that you're not off to a good start. I've think I've seen ample evidence that Domer48's editing in relation to Peter Hart, whether at the article of that name or elsewhere, justifies action. There are more than enough recent examples of Domer48 not hearing disagreeable things at the Hart article and others, and also in Wikispace, for me to conclude that nothing but a page ban - or indeed several page bans - will stop Domer48 from pushing coat-racks of criticism of Hart based on questionable sources into any article he can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the BLP violations that I committed? You have not addressed any of the concerns raised here or addressed any of the questions you were asked. Please remove this here or mark it overturned, and this here likewise. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that first diff needs to be modified at this time, but I will make a note on that second one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Angus, topic bans and BLPBANs are more significant than blocks, which are actually trivially easy to overturn. More creative sanctions should be preauthorized by ArbCom remedy or community consensus, or supported by them after the fact. The onus is on the administrator to make the case for such enforcement, and likewise, if such actions turn out to be controversial, to reconsider them. In this case, Domer can be fairly accused of editing in a way that is irritating and not the best writing, but I have seen little evidence that this goes beyond a pedestrian content dispute to the damaging of a living person.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does need an addendum. As Jdorney pointed out, there's more coat-rackery at Kilmichael Ambush#Controversy, complete with more questionable sources. So we have three articles in all, assuming we haven't missed any, with criticisms of Peter Hart. Is this rather excessive when the criticism is based on the propaganda publications of a tiny extremist group and the biographer of one of the key figures in the disputed events? I should say that it is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That section is a perfect example of the issue here. Read that, Tznkai, and tell me it is a fair treatment of Hart. Then consider this has been going on across multiple articles for many months. The persistent and systematic editing of Wikipedia to selectively attack the work of one academic using a questionable sources, across multiple articles, is hardly a "pedestrian content dispute". Selectively quoting these individuals (from the same questionable sources) in an attempt to label his work "sectarian" is a undoubtedly a BLP issue. Just because it isn't simple doesn't make it any less of a problem. What exactly would you suggest, considering the advice and requests of multiple admins and outside editors are completely ignored or rebuffed? Rockpocket 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading, will comment more conclusively later. I was given the impression originally that the issue was only the Peter Hart issue. I do however, remind that not all undue weight issues that involving living persons are BLP problems. IFF the work is genuinely controversial, then that should be noted, though not necessarily addressed in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no-one is claiming that there are not disputes and no-one is saying that they should not be noted. As you will see, I wrote a neutral balanced section addressing the controversial issues which Domer reverted. The issue is one editor, counter to consensus, selectively using sources to further a position (and in doing so, whether purposefully or not, systematically and solely attacking one notable, published academic whose work the editor has vocally dismissed). The critical material? Chunks of text culled from pamphlets published by Pro-Nationalist groups, Indymedia, letters to the editor of newspapers (I kid you not), An Phoblacht, the list goes on. In other words, everything and anything a google search will turn up when it comes to criticizing Hart. This is not how we write BLPs. When the attack material is removed from the bio, it goes into other articles. Even when the material has nothing to do with the content in article itself, it is still used as a forum to criticize Hart. So, again, how do we stop this from continuing when asking nicely and giving advice is unheeded? Rockpocket 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Rock has problems with identifying conditioned responses. The only thing that makes this "historian" notable is his controversiality. So we must explore that fully. Rock dismisses a whole subset of the media on the grounds that it is "pro-nationalist" ! Let's be consistent and dismiss the Anglo MSM on the rather obvious grounds that it is overwhelmingly anti-nationalist. WP:NPOV demands no less. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai should ask you to back up your personal attack and if proved, I will volunteer to walk away for a month. However if it is nothing more than a dishonest attack they should lose your tools as not fit to have them. As to this myth about sources:

The first Discussion on the RS notice board.

• We weren't asked to rule on whether the Aubane Historical Society is RS in all circumstances. Obviously it is as a general rule not RS. Instead we were asked about a specific case and have given advice tailored to that case. Itsmejudith

• All right, if you like, there is a consensus among uninvolved commentators here that the AHS source is as a rule not reliable. But there may be a few cases in which it can be used and we need context to be able to advise further. Itsmejudith

Now the blocked sock abusing IP closed this discussion as Aubane Historical Society is clearly Not a Reliable Source.

However at ANI with the result.

This is the trainwreck of a WP:RS noticeboard discussion. Closure by IP editor did not seem to match consensus - I would say it should have been closed "no consensus". Regardless... here it is. Simonm223

Now Elonka made this determination of consensus on the article. Not exactly in line with the consensus obviously. Even the IP said as much “As described and referenced at AN/I, where it was brought at your [Elonka’s] direction, your 'determination' was challenged by editors representing both sides of the discussion and found no editor supporting it. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet Elonka calls that consensus? [1]

The current discussion at the RS noticeboard also does not support Elonka’s suggestion, quite the opposite in fact.

• The consensus of those who regularly contribute to this board is that Aubane is not a good source for historical articles. We should try and find better sources. But policy makes it clear that there can be exceptions. Itsmejudith
• For example, when authors' scholarly credentials are independently established their Aubane-published sources could be considered. Itsmejudith
• the author is more important than the publisher in cases like this. If it is clear that the author of a self-published book pass the bar set by those policy statements, then it does not matter whether the publisher is a vanity press. Blueboar
• If the authors have been published elsewhere, we can consider them "acknowledged experts" and cite their self-published books. Blueboar
• Applying WP:V and WP:RS to the issue... when a source is published by Aubane, use caution. Blueboar
• Look a bit deeper... see who the author is and what else the author has published. Our policies do not "ban" self-published sources... but they do limit them. So you need to determine if the specific source and author pass those limitations. Blueboar

Now Elonka is not alone in her misinformed opinion, so are John here and here Rockpocket here and of course Angusmclellan. So please stop with the questionable sources nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Still ignoring the questions above! This is not about questionable sources, its about your questionable actions. Your views and the very strong opinions expressed above would be a concern if you were to edit these articles. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would I waste your time and mine in the pretence of a dialogue? Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngsocWikipedia. How could we communicate? I had thought to use the word xyloglossia to describe my perception of how you conduct a discussion. Apparently that doesn't exist on Google books. Think of it as your very own protologism.

You asked about the use of AHS material at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You didn't like the answer there. You don't like my answer. But will that stop you? Apparently not. You say you've read BLP but you evidently didn't understand it. Like I say, why waste my time and yours? You have surely memorised lots of acronyms, but you don't bellyfeel them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a conversation on Wikipedia without someone invoking Orwell for once?--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, here's my opinion on the situation:

Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. This actually surprised me, as such sanctions are pretty routinely authorized in other cases related to nationalist disputes (WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBMAC, WP:DIGWUREN, etc.). Perhaps it's because the Troubles case is older (2007), and discretionary sanctions didn't start to be routinely authorized until 2008. To address this, I recommend that we open a thread discussing the matter, perhaps at WP:AN. The question to the community would be simple: Would it be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area?

Now, having said that above, I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Domer48 had been inserting controversial information into a BLP article, using unreliable sources from the Aubane Historical Society. Multiple recent threads have affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Domer48 is well aware of this, so for him to continue to argue that AHS is a reliable source, is clearly disruptive. On that basis alone, as soon as Domer48 started using AHS again, he could have been blocked for disruption. It is my opinion that a temporary page ban is far more lenient than a block, since it's only limiting one editor from editing one article for a few months, rather than blocking their account access entirely. So on that basis, I feel that the page ban was justified.

However, having said that I agree with Angus's implementation of a page ban, I have to disagree with Angus's implementation of a followup block. Page bans are routinely understood to apply only to the editing of an actual article, unless specifically expanded to include the article and talkpage. So it was reasonable for Domer48 to assume that though he was banned from the article, he could still post comments on the talkpage until told otherwise. So, I agree with Sarek on this matter about overturning the block. I also commend Sarek for doing things the right way, and checking with the blocking admin first, rather than simply overturning the block on sight. Especially because this was described as an ArbCom enforcement ban (be it for Troubles or BLPBAN), as such bans are not to be overturned lightly.

In terms of how to proceed, my recommendations are:

• We should start a thread at an admin noticeboard, to clarify the issue of whether discretionary sanctions are reasonable in the Troubles topic area (I feel strongly that they are needed)
• Domer48, because of disruptive behavior, should be placed under formal probation via the Troubles case.
• If Domer48 persists in inserting any AHS sources into any article, his account access should be blocked, not because of an ArbCom case, but simply because he's violating WP:V and ignoring consensus from WP:RSN.

--Elonka 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My main concern remains the use of questionable sources in a BLP and in what amount to BLP sections in articles with other subjects. Tznkai doesn't like Orwellian allusions, so how about Terminator ones?. Domer48 tells us himself that he "absolutely will not stop. Ever." And I believe him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits of the content dispute yet, but I am going to say that BLP special enforcement is a Big Stick best reserved for really bad cases. Domer is nothing if not stubborn, true, but I don't think he's out to ruin anyone's reputation. If you feel strongly about a topic ban, I would point y'all at WP:AN/I. I will not contest any administrator placing Domer under general probation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to my comment, my concern is not just process wonkery- topic bans should have a lot of eyes on them when they are potentially controversial, and I think BLP special enforcement needs to be reserved for certain cases to ensure that when it is needed, it sticks.--Tznkai (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is best to set aside the disputed topic ban at this time. ONiH appears to have succeeded where the rest of us failed. He wrote Domer: I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material and block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. [2] Domer's response, "It [the ban] will be ignored and your advice taken on board" [3] appears to suggest he will not be adding "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page" henceforth, which should preclude the need for the ban. If Domer decide to change his mind and add "possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page", we can easily take this to ANI and see if there is consensus for a reinstatement. Does this sound reasonable? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works works for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka I've clearly illustrated above that you are wrong, recent threads have not affirmed a clear consensus that AHS is an unreliable source. Confirmed also at ANI that there was no consensus. Sadly, it does appear to be true that discretionary sanctions are not authorized via the current wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles...I would argue that Angus's page ban of Domer48 was still a reasonable thing to do. Its because of comments like that it would not "be reasonable for administrators to use discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area." Now not only was the ban wrong under the troubles, it was not even right under WP:BLP. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: I went ahead and put both Mooretwin and Domer48 under probation for 90 days, for recent edit-warring at Sinn Féin. Angus, would you like to start a thread at WP:AN about the discretionary sanction issue? It'll be nice to have a clear community consensus affirming authorization for discretionary sanctions in the topic area. And if for some reason there's not a clear consensus, at least it'll be a next step towards filing an ArbCom Request for Clarification. --Elonka 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka having not been able to support the ban do you seriously think your probation will be seen as anything other than an petty attempt to provoke? Now I suggest you go to ANI because I'll be ignoring this latest BS. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@Angus: There is now an ANI thread about the Troubles probation, here. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to raise the issue of authorizing discretionary sanctions in the entire topic area? --Elonka 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Elonka. Have left a comment. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Had any luck?

I don't know if you saw but I replied to you on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that person.

We definitely need to expand Osraige, but their ancestry is problematic. I've come across a third claim, based on a pedigree I haven't seen, that they may have claimed kinship with the Dál Fiatach (why?) up north in addition to the Laigin. But see my musings in the response.

Another Munster kingdom I've looked at are the once powerful Corca Oiche. Facts: 1) They came under Uí Fidgenti overlordship in the 6th or 7th century after losing a major battle. 2) St Molua belonged to their ruling dynasty. 3) That dynasty branches from the Corcu Loígde pedigree at a fairly early point. 4) An online place name expert appears convinced they were actually migrating Cruthin from Ulster. Do you know anything about them? DinDraithou (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see it, thanks very much! I'll have a look and see if I can find anything about the Corca Oiche, but I don't have much in the way of material on early peoples. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Corcu Duibne has now turned a pretty blue, btw. I'll try to do Corcu Baiscind soon. DinDraithou (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't optimistic about the Corcu Óiche, but there's actually something useful on them in Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland and a bit more in Charles-Edwards' Early Christian Ireland, plus the usual passing mentions elsewhere. For the Corcu Duibne it would be nice to have a picture of one of the Ogam stones. I think I should be able to find one in an old book on Google or archive.org. And even I should be able to make a map for that! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't own it, but most of Charles-Edwards is available online. Ó Cróinín I may not have access to (I live way out in the countryside presently). When I start the article I'll let you know. Something I failed to mention is that their ancient dynasty is still extant as the O'Macasa (Mackessy) family, so they definitely deserve the article. The Mountcollins article says it was in or close to Corca Óiche, or however it should really be spelled. DinDraithou (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can add Corcu Óche as well to the spellings! The easiest thing is just to pick one at random and make redirects for all the others you can think of. I wouldn't worry about trying to be consistent in spelling. Anybody who is deeply concerned about that can always move the article. I'm off to look for a Corcu Duibne ogam stone now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Embrace the mud

Hi Angus. My biggest error earlier was assuming I might be dealing with fanpeople with some idea of the bad dating supporting these theories but I don't think anyone has, even though Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) is only a click away. This means the upcoming article will require some intricate explanation and reference numerous recent studies, or it will be lost on people. The only way to portray Oppenheimer is as an out-of-his-league popular writer who based his best theories on other people's errors. More accurately he appears to be a celebrity "defender of the mud people", trying to increase his celebrity stature by adopting them and "interpreting" their mud-headed views for the evolved public, who see them embarrassing themselves trying to become somebody else's ancient people. Right? But of course we can't say that.

I'm working on it at User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland, currently adding sources. Feel free to contribute to the page, or even create the article from it if I'm going slow. Embrace the mud. DinDraithou (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And btw thank you. The expression is used too frequently where I come from and frequently negatively, or is forced out of people who don't want to say it. So I tend not to say it on the interwebs because I'm worried I'll sound mockingly ungrateful or sarcastic. Cheers. DinDraithou (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No bother. I'm afraid I won't be any help at all on genetics stuff. I've read Cavalli-Sforza's book (the one for dummies) and a couple of papers, and that's it. Well, and Oppenheimer too, but we won't count him! But you could try Alun (User:Wobble) if you want an outside opinion. I don't think he's very active right now but he's still around sometimes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kilmichael

A good online article re the controversey. Well worth a read if you want to get past the pov and get acquainted with the sources. The Kilmichael Ambush - A Review of Background, Controversies and Effects, by Seamus Fox (2005)

Jdorney (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very interesting article. Many thanks indeed for the link! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Byzantine Empire

A RfM has been submitted at the RfM page here for the article Byzantine Empire. You may add any comments you may have on this page and are welcome, but your presence is not required. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Hundreds of Yorkshire etc

I think this should be relisted (perhaps spearately). In Yorkshire they are Wapentakes; in Cumberland Wards; etc (as in the nom). This is a case where reality is untidy, and WP cannot impose order where there is none. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

True. But that doesn't mean some of us won't try! Did you ever hear of a lamb voting for Easter? Me neither. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You had me puzzled for a minute there. Do people eat lamb particularly at Easter? I usually have it at Xmas. Turkey is more likely to be scoffed chez Angus in the form of schnitzel and quite often. Or it was when I was in Belgium. I haven't managed to find any in Scotlandshire yet. Maybe next year. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to a free if not always reliable encyclopedia: "Many families have a traditional Sunday roast, particularly of roast lamb which is regarded as the traditional Easter feast." Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles discretionary sanctions

Hiya, FYI, I have filed a request for amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles.. Would you like to file a statement, in regards your own experience with trying to implement a page ban? Or if not, would it be alright with you if I brought it up? --Elonka 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly comment later. At the moment I am making one of these as jvdb requested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed, but looking good! May I add to it, or would you prefer that I maintain a separate list in my own userspace? --Elonka 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add away! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay if I reformat, too? Like to put it in a table? Or would that make things more difficult for you? --Elonka 00:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A table will be fine. I'll see if I can beat you to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Francia / Carolignian empire interwii

Hello, I noticed you first reverted and next repaired interwiki links in Carolingian Empire and Francia. Ther were some problems yet, so I tried to repair the rest. Please, can you check it? JAn Dudík (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Can you give me some more information on the problems your bot found? The only remaining problem I could find was with Hungarian on Carolingian Empire; I changed both en and hu to what I think are the right interwikis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Your help would be appreciated in ongoing clean up and de-pov work here at Ulster Special Constabulary. Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's Cartulary

I've put Hemming's Cartulary up for peer review, here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1. Comments are appreciated. (I should be picking up two works on the Cotton Library tomorrow which will hopefully give me more background on how the manuscript came into the hands of Sir R. Cotton). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a read through and see if I can come up with something sensible to say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dunmanway Massacre

I created the article with the name The Dunmanway Massacre. The name was changed on October 28 with no notice to me. I am willing to go through the hoops to justify my compromise name (The Dunmanway murders); did the cabal of republican supporters who changed the article's name do so? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did as you recommended. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The move discussion is here in case you'd like to participate. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi (bis)

Hi Angus. I am planning to use this remarkable book as a reference: L'Europe et l'Islam, Quinze siècles d'histoire, by Henry Laurens, John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, Editions Odile Jacob, 2009 ISBN 9782738122193. What do you think? Per Honor et Gloria ^Talk 09:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

However good a book it is, and the reviews are decent enough, Veinstein's name is mud in some quarters, and rightly so. Whatever his merits as a historian of the early modern period, he's on record writing some supremely stupid things on matters outwith his field of expertise. This is not to say that you shouldn't use the book, but before adding it as a source you should think hard about the reaction you'll get and whether you want the resulting troubles. Avoid anything to do with Anatolia and the Caucausus and you should be safe enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Angus! Per Honor et Gloria ^Talk 14:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re image deletion

Hi Anugusmclellan, I see that you deleted File:Footing of Humber footbridge in river.jpg (local copy) because it's been moved to Commons, despite the {{nocommons}} template. Please reconsider. I've seen too many images disappear over at Commons for capricious reasons, with no attempt to contact the original uploader in this project, to want to have to depend on them keeping images I have uploaded, which is why I put the template on. Risker (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Undeleted and so is File:Humber footbridge 2.JPG. Sorry about that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Angus. I know what it's like when doing a big task. Thanks very much. Risker (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Corcu Baiscind and Múscraige

Hello there, Angus! I have created Corcu Baiscind, and Múscraige! DinDraithou (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Dáire mac Dedad, Íar mac Dedad, and Dedu mac Sin. For the last I have made redirects (Dedad, Dedaid) but Deda was an article about something deleted. It says I need an admin. Could you redirect it? DinDraithou (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess nevermind. In any case I've just found the golden pedigree giving the direct descent of the Dál Fiatach from Cú Roí himself, in ZFCP 14. Chaos looms! DinDraithou (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 11

I noticed your edit summary on this edit and investigated the issue. It turns out someone used the AFD closing templates instead of the FFD version, which made the bot decide that discussion wasn't closed. If you see any issues like that again, please don't hesitate to drop a note at User talk:AnomieBOT to let me know there is an issue. Anomie⚔ 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<rant>Damn bots are taking over the world!</rant> Many thanks for the explanation. I'd have been forever finding that myself. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IFD again

Re: this, we just went through an IFD for these, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_23#9_David_Eddings_Malloreon_.26_Chess_book_covers. Naturally you have the right to bring it to XFD again, but....is it really necessary? Dreadstar ☥ 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, are you nominating just the "extra" book covers at the beginning of the article or all of them? Dreadstar ☥ 02:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For now just the one. I don't like multiple nominations. Let's see what happens with it. You can read why I think it is necessary here. Most Wikipedias get by with no non-free content. I wouldn't go that far, but I would like to see 95%+ of our current non-free material gone. Boilerplate rationales were supposed to have been gotten rid of, but they're as common as ever they were. Since I'm not stupid enough to run for arbcom, and am far too lazy to be a clerk of any sort, but need something wikipolitical to keep me amused I'll have this Crusade for Freedom instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, isn't this one, the same as this one that you very recently took care of from a FU perspective? Dreadstar ☥ 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems best to assume that this happened because I didn't change all of the template stuff to remove the "fair use" allusions. I'm not sure why there should be a separate "fair use" class for things needing redone in SVG, but there is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion

Hi, Angus, I see you're on patrol today. Perhaps you have time to take a closer look at File:Alfa-Romeo-2-yacht.jpg; it's used in the article Alfa Romeo (yacht) which was featured on the Main Page in Did you Know? 05:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC) with this text: ... that on 9 July 2009, the racing yacht Alfa Romeo II broke the Transpac record for miles sailed in one day, by sailing 431 nautical miles in 24 hours? The image's use in the article passed the community's scrutiny to achieve that small DYK milestone. Thanks for double-checking on the image and for reading closely just as the DYK volunteers did at that time. How can I help? Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance! Good editing!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Replying at File talk:Alfa-Romeo-2-yacht.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have written the media representative for the Alfa Romeo distributor and he has replied with an alternative image he is releasing under CC-by-SA 3.0. The File:Alfa-Romeo-2-yacht.jpg image used in the article remains fair-use only; so I believe I will be uploading the substitute and tagging the fair-use image for deletion. I'm awaiting feedback on this from OTRS before I proceed. Thought you'd be interested to hear this.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is great news. Thank you very much indeed! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

John Marshall (cartoonist)

More info added to fair use rationale. This picture of the Blondie creative team cannot be replaced because it is the only photo of the writer and the two artists together. No new photo can be taken because although they work together, they all live in different states, and it would be impossible to bring them together for a new photo. The photo is obviously promotional and was taken at a time when the three had just begun to work together. In truth, photos that show comic strips teams together in one shot are extremely rare, making this an unique and irreplaceable image. Pepso2 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that more or less. It's possible that at some point I might nominate this for discussion at FFD, but probably that'll never happen. There's a decent case for using the pic so I think we can leave it until the thousands and thousands and thousands of worse things have been dealt with. Thanks and all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Pepper and the Blondie team

I have no problem with your efforts to reduce unfree content. From time to time I go through images myself and try to deal with the shaky ones. I have to tell you, that I thought your edit summary was unnecessary. I uploaded the image in good faith, and I reversed your deletion template also in good faith, because of the way the policy is written. If you disagree with the policy, there are ways in which you could have it assessed and possibly amended, but it's not necessary to take such a heavy handed attitude with someone who trusts that they can refer to it, because it is written there with "policy" at the top of the page. WP:NFCC#10 includes "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value." How do we identify "possible"? Is it possible to identify the copyright holder of the Barbara Pepper photo? I don't know, but I would think it's less possible than the prospect of the Blondie team getting together for a photograph, although the impossibility of such an event seems to have been accepted.

Until I noticed the comments about the Blondie team, I intended only to mention the comments about the photos I'd uploaded. The Blondie pic shows a source but no copyright attribution. In that regard it's no different to the Pepper photo. It shows three living men, and they're not doing anything except standing together. There's nothing compelling in their appearance, so I don't understand how "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project" doesn't apply. I also don't understand how the fair use rationale ""they cannot be brought together because they live in three separate areas of the U.S." can be taken seriously. If they cannot be brought together, how can one explain the existence of the photograph? Clearly they can be brought together, and a reunion would be possible with the mere purchase of a couple of airline tickets. They can be photographed, while Barbara Pepper and the other dead actresses can't be. The Blondie team's images aren't necessary to understand their careers in which their faces are of no significance, while the appearance of an actress who used her face as part of her tools-of trade does provide a greater context than mere identification. I think the Barbara Pepper (and other images) meet WP:NFCC#8, perhaps not overwhelmingly, but the image of the Blondie team doesn't meet WP:NFF#8 at all.

Don't get me wrong - I support you in trying to reduce unfree content. I just don't see very much good faith in your response to me, and now that I've visited your talk page, I don't see consistency either. Rossrs (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can or should apologise for the edit summary. It wouldn't be sincere. Perhaps I could have phrased it better but the point remains that a link to a random web page is not a source by any reasonable interpretation. Anyway, unless you're the one and only author of IUP I don't see how you can read the edit summary as being directed at you. And what were the people who wrote it thinking about? More careful study suggests that they weren't thinking what I had thought they were. The example given - and it has been there at least since 2007 - of a "web link" for non-free content is File:Dewan negara.jpg. I hope you'll agree that there is a gulf between "link to a random website" and "link to an official website which we got the image from". One tells a potential reuser nothing at all, the other tells them that they should contact the Malaysia Parliament if they want to get commercial permission to use the image. And I don't see any inconsistency on my part on this point as the Blondie image referred to has no problems in this respect.

But let's get back to the files at issue here. And we'll start with replaceability since you raised that point. A great many images from the period these ladies were active are in fact free of copyright - as can be deduced from this albeit it may be difficult to prove this conclusively - so there is a case for believing that many US images from the period 1923 to 1963 are replaceable. Images from film or record publicity or stills from films are not likely to be free but there is no doubt as to their source or the copyright holder so the absense of a clear source and owner could be resolved. So yes, it is not possible to photograph dead actresses but it may be possible to find free images of them and it is assuredly possible to find images of them whose ownership is certain. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you responded. I was not looking for an apology. I realize the second part of the comment wasn't directed at me. The first part seemed to be putting me in my place when you could have written a note on my talk page. Now that you've explained your position, I understand. If you find any others that I've uploaded, it's not necessary to post anything on my talk page. I understand what you're saying, although I disagree with one part of it regarding film publicity photos, which were mass-distributed, sometimes without registering for copyright. We don't know which are free and which are not, so it's not something that can be pursued, and I wouldn't try to claim any specific image falls into that group. I still see problems with the Blondie image. For one, it doesn't show anything vital that the article couldn't do without. They're all living people, one of whom isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and they're not doing anything. It only shows what they look like. If it was a significant moment and if the photo showed them doing something that could not be adequately described in prose, I could understand. Regardless of what brought them together, the photo itself gives nothing except to show what they look like. Given the degree of thought you've given to the actress photos, I don't understand why you accept a fair rationale saying "they cannot be brought together because they live in three separate areas of the U.S." which is a false statement, contradicted by common sense - there are numerous ways they could be brought together - and by the very existence of the photo. I'd accept a rationale that justified its use, but not that. Still, you said you may even nominate it for deletion someday, but that it's not a priority, so you're obviously not completely convinced. Anyway, I understand your viewpoint on the actress photos, so thank you for taking the time to convey your thoughts. Regards. Rossrs (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Favour please

Sorry, you cannot tell if what is right? Mind you, I am taking a long wikibreak; you may want to ask again on WP:PWNB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's easy: it is legal per commons:Template:PolishSenateCopyright. My wikibreak depends on several things, it may be quite long. I am not sure if I'll have any motivation left to contribute to any WMF projects after that; other than occasionally uploading pictures to Commons... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when it is on Commons, I can still tag the pl wiki image for deletion due to redundancy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite so (glad you found it), unfortunately, I no longer can edit a protected template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You recently deleted EyesOnMeSmall.jpg

You recently deleted EyesOnMeSmall.jpg, whose usage as a non-free image was at the heart of an editorial dispute. You tagged it with "(F7: Violates non-free use policy: Why wait?)," essentially declaring the editorial dispute over and picking a winner.

As I see it, a wholistic reading of "Non-free image use in list articles", "Unacceptable use/Images", and "Acceptable use/Images" would allow for the image if the song or album had significant commentary even in articles containing more than one such work, but would not allow the image in "An album cover as part of a discography..."

It would be helpful if you made a comment on Talk:Music of Final Fantasy VIII explaining to the parties of that dispute why the policy clearly prohibits the use of that image. As my reading would suggest the policy allows the use of the image, I don't see any clear prohibition here. If the policy is unclear, or if it does not prohibit the image, then please reconsider your deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at WP:ANI [4] Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Artistic renditions of coins!?!

I think maybe someone should look into the Ceonwulf mancus being fair use if its the only one of its type, not to mention in the British Museum (is this a private copyright holder?). Its all a tragedy for historians in this life I guess. Misinformation, disinformation and anti-informativeness (copyright) are basically all the things us aspirational scholars on the Wiki must tolerate for now. Wikipedia may well be up to its fullest potential one day though.

Either way the scetch / trace of the rare Mercia coin is actually quite a good idea. Can I ask U to explain how this image becomes one's own even if it depicts a coin from a photo. I think I understand it is the image itself that people can copyright of these coins. Is it Ok to create as perfect a rendition as possible if it contains no pixels of the original image? I mean can we photoshop the images, and copyright them ourselves? Any gold or silver colour may well be lost although there is potential for some remastery too...

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Non free content usage on wikipedia

I notice your comments at the discussion on drawings of people. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rama. It would be extremely useful to have comment from Wikipedians with a good understanding of the Wikipedia policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to, then I got sidetracked by work (spit!) and a chap who isn't happy with the upload form. I'll get there eventually I hope. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Škoda 130/135/136

Hi, why this page was moved to Rapid? isnt the rapid only name for the coupe model? --Typ932 ^T·C 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I requested deletion page Škoda Rapid so I can move page Skoda Rapid on this name. I didn't mean move Škoda 130/135/136 on this name.--Slfi (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think "Oops" would be the correct response here. I'll fix that now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I get that right now? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it's perfect, thak you :-)--Slfi (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pirveli Liga seasons

Yes, but I think that it's better to delete the Pirveli Liga year-by-year tables than merge with Pirveli Liga. I don't mean other normal articles, but articles, indicated here must be delete. P.S. But I don't know English enough to explain all this:)) BRUTE (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Centrobasket/Goodwill Games articles

Hello. You'd created redirects for various Goodwill Games and Centrobasket tournaments and then tagged them to be deleted. I didn't delete them. I think your redirects here are useful and that they can probably be expanded in time into full articles. Hope this isn't a problem! Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked for them to be deleted as I thought that the Red color of an unexisting page would bring the attention to it, so that someone could create it with actual data. If you thinks the redirects are better than nothing, there were other deletes done by Athaenara for the 1971-95 Centrobasket tournaments. I was wondering why some were deleted and others not. Coquidragon (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is true that a redlink is easier to spot. But there is a way to categorise redirects so that people can tell they should likely be articles. If you add {{r with possibilities}} after the redirect, so like #REDIRECT [[Centrobasket]] {{r with possibilities}}, it will categorise them as things that have the possibility of being an article. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I should redo the redirects that were deleted? Coquidragon (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I will undelete them. No point in you doing the work twice! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A master of diplomacy

(Laughing) It took me some time reading your comment to AchimKoerver about his photo'ing books to include in Wiki articles[5] to realize you intended to delete the photos. What diplomacy! I must create a Wiki-award for that. (Right after I finish the one I keep promising "Kateshortforbob"). Sometimes it's really hard to slow the momentum of a new editor gracefully. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

("shoddy, illegal, and self-serving") gracefully? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Shoddy" refers to cut-and-pasting photo captions that largely don't relate to the photo. "Illegal", his use of copyright violation material in Wikipedia. "Self-serving", two external links in each article to his own books.

At the time of my first comment on the submarine edits, I assumed good faith on the part of AchimKoerver. After discussion, and with his abuse of other editors, and especially with his (tongue-in-cheek?) suggestion on his personal page of a method to vandalize Wikipedia, I do not.

A diplomatic approach, and one calculated to limit the interchange, might have been simply to drop matters at the point AchimKoerver agreed to stop adding new articles spamming his books. However, apart from his request to have all his articles deleted, I was struck by another factor. It's the holidays, time to renew acquaintances with family and friends. To share what I've been doing this year. A regular query from my academically-disposed family is whether the information Wikipedia, in words yesterday from someone with an advanced degree from an Ivy League college, "can be trusted". It's all very well wishing that abusive, self-promoting new editors go away — but they carry their experience back to the academic community. In this case, I thought it might be worthwhile noting concrete examples to him where he has not been playing by Wikipedia guidelines, or by international law. In order, perhaps, that his academic peers could review, and discern for themselves. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh Gott, how slimy and false you are, Contre-Bass. You are telling LIES behind my back about me, that you wouldnt dare to repeat on my talk page, where all your subjective and emotional arguments went down with flying flag in discussion with me. I was more than right to stop contributing here, where this kind of spirit rules, its disgusting. Sorry, so many negative spirit, and thats before Christmas :-))) AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"his (tongue-in-cheek?)" - please forgive me, I am one of the poor 6.000.000.000 human beings on this planet, not beeing an english native speaker. Something I write may have another sense that I wanted to express. And maye reverse. So, please, be kind with me and my possible errors. Always try clear-speach, always tell it directly to me, not behind my back to others in byzantinian style. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

""Illegal", his use of copyright violation material in Wikipedia." I cite my own book here, on which I have all copyrights. WiKi thought control: War is peace, Peace is War, Copyright is Copyright violation. Nice definition of self-violation, wouldnt you like to try it out, if it works, physically, and then present the public the results here ? "(Laughing)" ;-)) AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

""Self-serving", two external links in each article to his own books.". Yes, I cite in my articles text passages from my book. To reference this I have to do a book cite link to the 2 volumes of my book. Yes, I know, for you it is a Wiki-crime. For me its scientific style. I know, you personally prefer to cut-paste text from uboat.net here, which after my experience is a solid source, but "only" an Internet page without mentioning any source or any proper source citation. If you would like to create unreferenced texts from unreferenced sites only to end up in Middle Age superstition, ok, say this clearly here. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"his abuse of other editors,". This I must tell what it is - it is a LIE. Please, a proof. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's all very well wishing that abusive, self-promoting new editors go away — but they carry their experience back to the academic community.", Oh yes, these damned Intellectuals ! Why couldnt one simply make them silent like under Stalin ...

"here he has not been playing by Wikipedia guidelines, or by international law." Oh, now I am also a criminal, only because I wrote articles here ?? Have you already informed ThoughtControl about this? You make me fear, so short before Christmas. All the years I have always managed to escaped undetected, but you, you are too hard for me, really, I must confess this truly! I plea for innocence ... "(Laughing)" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

" ... my academically-disposed family ..." I assume, you must be the black sheep there, aaarrgghhh ... "(Laughing)" AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"that his academic peers could review, and discern for themselves." Your first good idea, I think. Please name me YOUR academic peers first (but no family members please "(Laughing)" ), than we bring them together and let them decide. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again an example of your crude logic: "[6]" First: You propose to keep the crucial content from my article - which is "shoddy, illegal, and self-serving", and a "copyright violation in itself", as you tried to show all the time. Second: You deleted all the references and external links from my last version. What is wrong with the references and the external links (I know, you as "historian" dont like this nasty stuff)? Do you think the Wiki-User has now more or less info available as in the version before ? Isnt that already objective vandalism ? Third: You type in some text from uboat.net. This is an Internet site without any named sources. Conclusion: I think we should "discuss" a little bit more, maybe this could teach you some logic and help you to get something more clear in your head. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Contre-Bass, soo much time invested in pure negativism, only to try to make down a newbie ? Why didnt you from the beginning try to propose ameliorisations to a Newbie, which you start now a little bit, after I have retired (bad conscience?). In any case its a nice devote byzantian style, in which you try now to justify yourself before the seniors. What a roaring sergent-major fun it must be to make down newbies ! Ha, ha, ha. Such, such were the joys ... You are really a great Des-tributor before the Lord. And an obvious LIER, who denounces others behind their back with non-existing or false proofs. Shame on you. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused as "criminal" : find the crime in SM U-19 (the "criminal" image style - the image has simply been forgotten to be deleted). Compare with SM U-92, text style. Where is the crime hidden ? AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Accused as "criminal" - a citation from the discussion with Contre-Bass: "'Wikipedia has many detractors.' Yes, I imagine. And if ME would be a software mogul with douzends of billion dollars available, than I woul hire some fifth column agents to register here and disturb any Newbie until desparation, until they retire :-)) Only a joke, no new conspiration theory ;-))" Maybe Contre-Bass felt touched somehow by this tought - could explain the emotional panic ? AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oh, pain, pain - no answer from you, piano. So I must be totally wrong, not even worth a response. To make this good I started to bring all my articles in the form proposed by you here "[7] - I reversed all my criminal and illegal contents, references and external links. Now it is conform with YOUR standards. So you see, Piano, you get what you deserve - honni soit, qui mal y pense ;-))) So lets stop our war here and lets live in eternal christmas peace, very distant from each other. Your humble servant AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 11:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Disposition of WWI submarine articles

Looking through my books at home, and reviewing uboat.net, it seems possible to preserve the submarine articles without too much work -- even with the photos deleted. See [8] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hi. Very great logic, Contre-Bass - first everybody here, including you, told that my project idea is nonsense. Now, where I retired, you plea for keeping it. The same logic as in your arguments, that I used "too many" references and links in my articles. Saw you already started to delete this at SM U-109. Dont forget the other articles between SM U-6 and SM U-117 ;-))) In any case, a nice joke between historians, I will note it down. Its like one musicians says to the other that he uses too many music notes in his pieces. Or physicians: too many formulas. Ok, you seem to have changed your mind now. Very wise, my arguing with you seemed to have helped to give you some clearer ideas, as yours showed to be all quite subjective and emotional :-)) --Hans Joachim Koerver 11:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, only to mention: there is one image, that was forgotten to be deleted. I am sure you will find it ;-)) --Hans Joachim Koerver 11:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus Regt badge discussion

Thanks, Angus. I felt that it could be licensed under a variety of tags and gave several as an option. Your choice of tag is fine with me. Best wishes Jack1956 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikisky images

I've decided to go the route of WP:CSD#F11 rather than IfD, as their website does state they're willing to provide OTRS tickets on request. I've changed the notice to read:

File permission problem with File:{{{1}}}

Thanks for uploading [[:File:{{{1}}}]]. I noticed that while you provided a copyright licensing tag, the source website [9] does not have a license that is compatible with that of Wikipedia's.

Please note that "wikisky" files are licensed for non-commercial use only [10], which is incompatible with the Wikipedia's retention/deletion policy. They do state, however, that an WP:OTRS ticket may be possibly obtained through pr@sky-map.info. Without the OTRS ticket, this image will be deleted 1 week after this notice. Please follow this link for information on obtaining the OTRS ticket.

If you see anything wrong with that, let me know. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing

Hi, Angusmclellan. Thanks for your current work on FFDs. Regarding this closing, I wonder what made you decide for keeping the image since none of the problems raised in the nomination were ever addressed. You mentioned the image's rationale for Greek Junta Trials in your closing statement. In that rationale, the stated purpose of use is "Illustrates the events described in the article Greek Junta Trials". Considering the article is about a trial, and the image just shows people in the trial, do you believe the article needs an illustration to be properly understood? Of course, there's also the sourcing problem that was raised and never addressed in the discussion. Thanks! --Damiens.rf 03:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Torosay castle 02.jpg

Hello. I can't find this picture on Geograph. It doesn't show up on the listing for that grid square: here. Can you help? If you are no longer sure, it might be best to delete it and upload one of the other images from Geograph. Please let me know what you find, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know! I think that photo used to be on Geograph, but I've just replaced it with one that definitely is on it now. Should clear it up. Thanks!--Craigenputtock (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Ahmadinejad at Natanz.jpg

I'm not sure why you continue to try and speedy this file, but I've given a discussion of why it should be kept on its talk page, and definitely object to it being speedied. If you'd want to delete it, please use WP:IFD. --Fastfission (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

When I tagged it as unused it was indeed unused. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Festive Greetings!

Thankyou Angus, I had not forgotten, though I was a weeny bit preoccupied with various goings on within and outwith the Project. I haven't had a chance to look at your latest works but will take the trouble shortly. I feel quite a lot stronger than I did thanks to the pills I keep taking. Duck and pheasant with mother tomorrow. The Staffordshire hoard is provoking various talks and gatherings which annoyingly I seem only to hear of after they have happened, but I may be having my say in the spring. The hoard all looks to me to be mid to 3rd quarter of 7th century (deposit), slightly earlier manufacture, mixed origins (part East Anglian), spoil processed to form a kind of weighable gold-with-garnet bullion - and divided up, as this is only part of the whole. Hope you're in good sorts: Have a Very Merry Christmas and a prosperous and peaceful New Year. Best wishes, (Steven) Eebahgum (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dominique perben.jpg

I replied to your message about this file on my talk page. In summary, go ahead and delete it! Bigbluefish (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

for closing this debate. I am glad the picture wasnt deleted. could you pls help me understand the basis of your decision. Is it because wikimedia has little more relaxed policy. --CarTick 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a much stricter policy than we do but it is not simply a stricter version of our policy.

In theory, they will *only* accept images which are free in the country of origin and in the US. We only care about the US status. Copyright for Indian pictures expires in the year 60 years after publication, so this image is no longer protected by Indian Copyright law. However, the Indian copyright term expired on 1 January 2000, which is after the magic date for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, so in theory the US thinks the copyright on this image has not expired whatever Indian law says. This is clearly nonsense so Commons will accept images like this. They should be tagged with the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template [doesn't exist here, only on Commons] which I forgot, as does everyone else I think.

For Indian pictures, we will accept any published in 1935 or earlier, while Commons will accept any published in 1948 or earlier (right now and 1949 in 2010; the 1935 date here doesn't change). But since pictures on Commons can be used here, and also on all the other Wikipedias, it doesn't make sense to upload any new ones here.

If you have any questions, or if this isn't clear, please let me know. Don't forget that we also have "fair use" rules, and Commons does not, so if necessary we can use a picture which is still covered by copyright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

wonder what allows Commons to make that distinction other than just common sense. we have many images published before 1948 having similar problems. guess, i would need to transfer all of them to Commons and use it from there. --CarTick 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they make the distinction on the basis that the URAA extension provisions aren't tested much in court and what cases there were didn't give a clear outcome. We really couldn't do the same as we rely solely on US law. This allows us to host a great many images which Commons cannot host due to the US "published before 1923" blanket rule. It might be an idea to create a special sort of move-to-commons template for Indian (and there are plenty of similar cases: Pakistan has 50 year copyright, Sri Lanka 25 in some cases) images which could be better hosted on Commons. The people over at media copyright questions may be worth talking to about this. But certainly we shouldn't be deleting these images, even more so when there are so many others we can better delete first! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I was searching in vain to find the commons copyright policy link. --CarTick 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

Of course, but for most images there is an EDP (not free images available). Depends on the subject: free images are available only for most known object, and in that case, capturing images from wikisky is not correct. For all other cases, it's true that no free images are available, because for most of the objects you need a professional instrument to capture it (expecially object on IR), and all research institutes who do sky survey release their work only for NC. If you can accept this ok, otherwise, no problem. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Emmanuel ngara.jpg

My understanding when I uploaded the file was that, especially for identifying the subject of a bio, a low resolution non-free image was acceptable. Was I wrong or have things changed? Babakathy (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This problem probably also applies to File:Julius weinberg.jpg, a promotional which I uploaded at around the same time. Babakathy (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Peso

Hi, with regard to your recent deletion, I would be interested to know what are "the usual PD-Cuba rules for currency" on which you based your decision. Best wishes, Graham Colm ^Talk 21:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked my comment. I hope it's clearer now that I didn't assume there are or were any special rules for Cuban currency. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the closing statement it says, "nobody commenting here has given a good reason for supposing that there is an exception to the usual PD-Cuba rules".

But I had commented: "The 1977 Cuban copyright Act has this to say regarding limitations of copyright. Chapter 8, Section 1a, allows use "for the purposes of education, information, criticism, illustration" but stipulates that the author's name and source must be given. Section 1c says, "to reproduce by any means, except those involving direct contact with the surface, a work of art on permanent display in public except those in exhibitions in museums". Article 45 says, "In the case of a work published anonymously, or under a pseudonym, the copyright is valid for twenty years after its first publication." I am not expert on Cuban copyright law, but it I think it would be helpful to discover who designed the coin. If this is not possible I think the Article 45 might be applicable. Having said this, because Wikipedia is a non-profit making, educational organisation, use of this image does not seem to contravene Cuban copyright laws."

I would be interested, for future reference, to know why my reasons were not "good". Graham Colm ^Talk 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And Why is this allowed on Cuban peso? Selective enforcement?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Educational, etc, use is not acceptable to us as a release. We need licenses that allow commercial use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Guidelines.

While it might look promising, in fact a twenty year term makes no difference either here as this means that the URAA applies in the USA. I think that only a ten year term would avoid that for a coin "published" in 1985, so no luck there. Commons might be willing to accept the image if tagged with {{PD-Cuba}} [you'd need to get the templatery changed though to avoid problems in the long run] and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} [that doesn't exist here, only on Commons, as we do follow URAA rules]. If you'd like to try that I'll undelete it temporarily and upload it on Commons.

And why is Cuban Peso not a problem? The use of non-free coin images is specifically allowed there by WP:NFCI point 3 (the same one that disallows the use in the iguana article). Whether those images are non-free or not, of that I am not sure. But whether they are or they aren't free we can use them there. Hope this all makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear as mud...think I'll go make some fake pesos in my basement and keep an eye peeled for the Cuban hitsquad.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, we can upload it on Commons and see what they make of GrahamColm's argument. It might work! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, this makes no sense at all. Surely this about Cuban Copyright Law. I suggest restoration of the the image and a fuller discussion about this at the Commons. This deletion was too hasty. I would restore the image but I am mindful of WP:Wheelwar. PS, Mike WP:AGF :- ) And Angus, best wishes. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know! I just get sarcastic and don't use smiley's...kinda the adverse of those people who say "Pun intended" or "Pun not intended". It's all good.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you have a bloody good FAC running (for too long maybe) and perhaps you are getting a little frustrated—if the coin image has to go, and I hope it doesn't, then so be it. But this has become a test case I think, and Angus can help resolve this one way or the other. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) I would have to disagree on the relevance of the coin's status under Cuban law here on enwp; it's US law that matters, URAA and all. In general object to exporting our problems to Commons, but in this case I think it's a debate that should be had over there rather than here. I've reverted my removal of the pic as it is now at commons:file:Peso.jpg. For how long? I don't know. Mike, no problem, I knew what you meant! Good luck with the FAC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This will be the last time I nominate a FAC so close to Christmas or St. Crispin's Day!  :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the original 1977 Cuban copyright law was amended in 1994, changing "25 years" in Article 45 to "50 years". "We are stuffed" should just about cover it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Curses, foiled again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Face picture

Need some help navigating this... I have difficulty with pictures on Wiki all the time. The picture is from their promo kit that the band manager sent me. Is that free use? Why wouldn't we be able to use it on wiki? Argh! This is my biggest stumbling block on wiki... the language is just not easy to understand. THDju (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Clément Ader

Hi Angus! I am planning to use as a source "Clément Ader, inventeur d'avions" by Pierre Lissarrague, Bibliothèque Historique Privat, 1990 ISBN 2708953559. Do you think this is OK? Happy New Year 2010! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and a very Happy New Year to you too when it comes. Seems reasonable to me although Ader's claims to have "flown" probably need multiple sources ("one the one hand ..., on the other hand ..., on the third hand ..." and so on). Wasn't there also stuff on Ader in Carlier's Sera Maître du Monde, qui sera Maître de l'Air? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

G18

File:G18 glamour lrg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paradiver (notify | contribs). This non-free file is used to illustrate the Galaxy 18 article. It doesn't seem likely that this image is adding to the reader's understanding or that its absence would detract from that understanding. If so, it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the previous page was photoless and gave no content to the article. Addition of media always brings life to articles. This photo was reduced and uploaded in a smaller format. If you believe that a photoless page brings a message across then so be it, but I do not; hence my addition of a true representation of the object in question. Paradiver (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)