MilborneOne, I'm trying to advise an user on the image permission and OTRS ticket process, but have no direct experience with that. If you can please add/correct my post on my talk page here. Thanks! - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You left a note for me saying that there was no proof that 2 pics were from the author. According to the Author, he emailed the pictures and permissions to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (along with several others) granting CCA-SA 3.0. I do not know how to verify that but will you please check that before you delete the pictures. If I need them resent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org please let me know. I do want to be correct in what I do. Thank you for reviewing my article. R. T. Gates ( talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Good work on editing Talk:List of honorary British knights and dames/Temp table version draft. As part of my updating of this page, when I have been updating nationalities of those with Wikipedia pages, I have also been ensuring that the categorisation on the person's main article is for the honorary award, not the substantive award (less the Royal Victorian Chain which, strictly speaking, was always awarded substantively, not honorarily). I have been using the unlinked status of the nationality column as a visual marker to aid me in identifying who I need to check. Given that you have also been updating and linking nationality, could I ask that when you do this, you also perform the same categorisation check I have been doing. This way we won't miss anyone. As a rule of thumb, I think that when referring to someone's occupation, it should be the occupation contemporary to the service recognised by the award with a note, if relevant, to what the person ultimately achieved if this is more widely known. I suspect that this is what you have already been doing. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
G'day MilborneOne, I am nearing readiness to re-sort the list alphabetically (still have to double check the royalty category first). Are you wedded to the current sequence for your ongoing program of updating (and need me to hold off) or are you happy for me to launch when I am ready? When I do, I will put up a notification to avoid editing whilst I am transitioning the table to the new structure. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on the British Airways page since June 5 2010 to get the page to A-Class from GA-Class but I need two uninvolved editors to say yes or no to the change. You seem to have done a lot in this field so I thought you would probably be best qualified to help me with this. You don't have to do it right away but a quick response would be helpful. The review page is here and I've done all the work outlined by SidewinderX ( talk) even though it isn't all scored through. Thanks in advance, Plane Person ( talk) 09:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC).
I noticed you semi-protected the article because of ongoing content disputes. I was just wondering whether you think I was being overzealous in my actions and whether or not I was right to revert edits by the anonymous IP based on his past contribution log. Vedant ( talk) 04:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Her's a possible sock for you: User:SuperJewishBrain here. Quite strange all these new users showing up and making the same exat edits! Oh, he's edited a few Jewish topics for good measure! Can I request a full-page protect? Thanks for looking into this, again! - BilCat ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
May I know how the previous decision can be enforced? 61.18.170.156 ( talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As you will be aware, the British Airways page has just reached A-Class but a number of unregistered users (see edit history of the BA page) have been changing the fleet numbers and saying some aircraft are in service or on order etc without references (and some are clearly wrong such as one person wrote that BA had 737-400 aircraft on order). I'm just wondering if this qualifies the page for semi-protection to try and prevent this from occurring and to promote discussion of changes prior to just going ahead with any old change. I'm not sure if these edits count as vandalism but it's getting very annoying having to revert all these edits. Many thanks, Plane Person ( talk) 11:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC).
Evening MilborneOne: You might recall the discussion after I had Flight images of three aircraft removed from the Commons on copyright grounds (though, oddly, two three-views survived). The conclusion, on TraceyR's page was that we needed to go back to the editor of Flight to work out a statement that would satisfy our copyright folk. Is there any movement on this, do you know? I was not part of the earlier interchange with Flight and don't know the editor, nor have a very clear grasp of copyright law; I guess the only advantage I have is more time than most, together with a strong belief in the ability of the Flight archive to repair WikiAviation's major (in my view) flaw, the lack of images and three-views. I'd rather spend time grabbing images and uploading them to Commons and thence to the articles, but not without the certainty that these images are acceptable and will remain in place. We need to try to nail it.
I was reminded of this issue by the appearance of a Flight image in the Vickers Viastra article; just what we want, but will it survive, do you think? Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne. You removed my section of specs on the F-35B, saying, 'we only list the specs for one variant'. Are you sure. Both our articles on the Grumman F4F Wildcat and North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco have specs for two variants. Is there some rule in AV that says we only need the specs from one variant? Please write my talk page or leave a {{ talkback}}. Thanks, -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again MB1, this edit got me confused despite him being told that it is not notable unless there was a hull loss or passenger casualty involved. Note also the condescending tone of his edit summary. Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Milborne, could you please solve the issue at Bulgaria Air destinations. IP user keeps adding flags even though I have told him to stop. I don't want to get in an edit war. Please may you protect the page. Thanks. Zaps93 ( talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added an accident to the Dyn'Aéro article. I don't know whether or not you have this watchlisted, but please see my comments at the talk page re accidents involving these aircraft. Mjroots ( talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear MB1: I hope your computer problems are resolved? We had no internet here for 12 hours yesterday - I was just in the middle of an AfD, so I know how frustrating that can be. I'll assume that you will get this note whenever you are back on line.
I realize this article is is a bit off your normal beat, but I thought I could trouble you to have a look at it regardless. The above article was started and deleted once (I think it was via CSD as Spam). It was recently restarted by a COI editor and was initially identical to the previously deleted version. Rather than renominate it for deletion I engaged the creator on Talk:Cvision Technologies to see if we could fix it up instead. Since no one else seems to have found it yet, I have removed all the corpspam text, added a bunch of text and refs and generally fixed it up as far as I can go, given the refs available. I did ask the other editor to see if he can find some better refs and he did, but mostly they are press releases, company webpages and such. There is just one real third party ref that discusses the company and it looks like a "soft-lob interview" type press release to me too. Basically at this point I am not sure the article makes Wikipedia:Notability and especially WP:CORP with its opening statement: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
The whole notability issue is discussed at Talk:Cvision Technologies.
Since you have a well-won reputation for fair and neutral assessments of articles for this sort of thing I thought perhaps I could prevail upon you to review the article and talk page and offer some advice and recommendations on what should be done with it. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Good morning MB1: This article has an expired WP:PROD (just part of my effort to clean up the encyclopedia). Just to avoid the problem of someone removing the tag after it has expired, I was wondering if I could prevail upon you to delete the article. Thank you for your consideration. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne. I was just looking at Delta Air Lines destinations and noticed that all destination lists do not follow WP:DASH. A while back I fixed the dashes (- to –) and was reverted, being told that destination articles didn't use en dashes. I shrugged it off then, but I'm curious to know why, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ Review? 07:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Milborne. I recently had an article ( My WINGS - a planned German airline) I had worked hard on deleted by an administrator ( User talk:RHaworth). I got annoyed by this and posted a comment on his page as I didn't get time to put a "hang-on" tag in. He then responded in a rude manner and I was disappointed by this, he is an admin and was speaking very rudely back at me, yes I put a quite snappy comment first but then I decided to re-ask him in a calm professional manner, he did not do the same and continued being power-obsessive and very rude. I decided to look through the rest of his comments to other people, such a rude person. Please may you look into this user and see if there is anything I could do about him. Kind regards, Zaps93 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Great Barrier Airlines official accident report about ZK-LOU. Based on that report, I think that the section that's being deleted isn't really NPOV. I mean there is some information in the report that didn't make it into the article. If I don't hear from the other editor (the deleting editor) in the next few days, I will have a go at rewriting the section on my own. Thanks very much. Susfele ( talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Susfele
The 2009 Act that came in in 2010 still discriminates against the children of British female citizens who are born before 1983. This is because the citizenship process requires registration, fees, and good character check. It is not automatic and the same for either those born to male citizens or to those born after 1983. The issue here is that the discrimination is applied as a path through registration against automatic nationality. I fear you have misunderstood my point! You may also read this petition online by another person also fighting about the same issue : http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/nationality-via-british-mother
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been a movement going on that these persons are being held hostage to fees by the UKBA through the use of secondary legislations and not quite making things equal on a playing field for everyone. Its important to point this out. Last march we had managed to get the home secretary to agree to abolish the fees and the process however with the new government we have had to start all over again. Hence its important to high light this fault in the law and try and bring it to more wide spread public attention and scrutiny. There is another petition on line that I am running. the url to the previous one is being run by Maureen Bow.
You could sign up to it at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/british-nationality.html
The overall problem is that of ageist problems along with gender problems. The ageist factor also effects those children who may be born here inside the UK to European or other mothers but are the children of unmarried British fathers. They too are suffering this injustice and finally even those born before 2002 to British by descent citizens also suffering this.
I would like to enlist your help in how to make this a bit more obvious to users in order to gain more wide spread support and knowledge over this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with the BoB aircrew list... I'm now in Canada, so probably working on it through your night! Do you have access to Kenneth Wynne's book "Men of the Battle"? I can't get hold of a copy out here, so if you can get one from a library it would be fantastic! There's loads of events going on to celebrate the 70th Anniversary - check them out at http://battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/index.html - I just wish I were in the UK. I doesn't seem like five years since I was saluting Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall as they unveiled the Battle of Britain Monument in London! Best wishes and thanks again -- KizzyB ( talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When sockpuppets using IP addresses via proxies, or caches at large ISPs that rotate IP addresses, it is not common to ban the IP itself, because it would block hundreds of users. The behavior at WP:AIRLINES is re-inserting conversations that were removed months ago, because that is what this sockpuppet does. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Michael, I have a couple of move requests for you when you can.
First, per WT:AIRENG#More list fun, could you move List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) to List of aircraft engine manufacturers? Once the redirects are taken care of, Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers can probably be deleted.
Second, per WT:AIRENG#Salmson 9 series, Salmson 9 (air cooled engine) should probably go back to Salmson 9, as it still covers both the water- and air-cooled variants. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting this guy, please note that his IP is dynamic and falls in the category of troublemaker who had previously harassed me and another user, the Admin - PMDrive1061 ( talk · contribs). When I saw his edit today, my instinct was to revert him but for some reason, I stopped half-way and decided to wait it out... then you came along to revert him. Thanks, that low life can be very persistent, check his contribution and page edit history to see for yourself. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that you're an active participant of the aviation section on Wikipedia as well as an administrator. Would be grateful if you could advise whether or not the SQ A380 incident involving the engine failure on the way to Paris/Charles de Gaulle is notable enough to be put onto the Singapore Airlines article. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability, it suggests that the first incident for any aircraft type is notable but some other Wikipedians dispute this. The same question applies for the B747 tailstrike in Auckland. According to news releases, it caused 'severe damage' to the aircraft (criteria under Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content). Regards, Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
So your addition is seen as not notable enough for the airline article, the A380 is very minor and I suspect not the first incident with a A380. A tailstrike is not that unusual and it looks like this one was repaired. But if you think they should be included it does no harm to bring it up for discussion on the talk page to see if a local consensus can be reached on inclusion or not. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne
Could you possibly have a look at this (as an independent editor) - 1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash, I don't think the notability tags are justified, thanks Pandaplodder ( talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For outstanding research in assisting me to locate which RAF Squadrons were involved in the St. Nazaire Raid I have great pleasure in awarding you the WikiChevrons -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC) |
THANKS a lot -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I seem to recall that the similar aircrft section were removed from the HAL Tejas and JF-17 Thunder articles awhile back because of the relentless edit warring. The JF-17 one is still disabled, with an hidden note, but the Tejas one is back again. The ubiquitous 59.xxx IP that never ever discussed anything is involved again. I've tride to remove it, but when I came back to add the hidden note, he had restored it with his onw hidden coments! I'm too close to 3RR on this to intervene again, so can you help? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this page seems like a good idea. I'm just wondering if you are going to finish it.-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Evening MilborneOne. Following the flurry on the Envoy,I'm having a quick look at the Viceroy. I seem to recall that you have the 1970 ed of AJ Jackson's British Civil Aircraft and I'm wondering what figure he gives for the wing area. In the 1959 ed he says 299 sq ft, significantly less than the Envoy's 339 sq ft. Spans were the same, though the Viceroy's nacelles were fatter. Taylor's Airspeed Aircraft is not helpful, since he only says dimensions the same. Might or might not include the wing area. We ( Airspeed Viceroy)say 399 sq ft, but not where that came from. Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 140 Squadron RAF, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Milborne,
Do you know what the first aircraft (s) was (were) that used aluminum in the skin or cowling? THNKS. > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
G'day MilborneOne, Welcome to WP:ODM! By the way, you recently added a Times citation for Queen Victoria's appointment to the Order of the White Elephant. Did the Times article indicate what she was appointed as? I expect that it was something along the lines of Knight (or possibly Lady) Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Eagle. I'm trying to ensure that everyone is reflected with their appropriate grade which is also important for article categorisation. Notwithstanding, this can sometimes be tricky as too often historical sources don't mention the grade. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
Many thanks for rationalising the refs and categories on George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding, the sort of task that I haven't managed to get my head around. Appreciated.
Acabashi ( talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear MilborneOne, how tiresome the work of an administrator must be. But do you have any idea's how frustrating it can be for anyone who wishes to contribute? It is nearly impossible to understand the guidelines and policies the Wikipedia posts. I find it more helpful to look at showcase articles to see what is allowed or not.
Also a lot articles are vandalised, but this seems to go unnoticed. There are people that seem to have no brain and discuss stuff on the discussion page that should not be there (have a look on the discussion page of Rachel, the French actress).
Recently I wrote an article on Philip Sayer, not because he is interesting, but for some reason he is omitted. During my research I came across some interesting photographs. You can see them here. Is it my imagination or are PS and SS intimate? I am not going to upload these pictures because I respect the privacy of SS. I originally stated that PS was reputed to have had an affair with SS. What are you afraid of?
-- JHvW ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a minor change but can you move the article to:Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. Note the slight change to the capitalization noted by another editor and this is confirmed by the use of the original movie poster. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello MB1, I apologise as I understand that it must be in the wee hours of the morning when you get this message but as the previously-blocked-one is back after a 3 months block, can you please take a look at this? About his insults and name-callings, I've left a similar note on User talk:Moonriddengirl#Here we go... (again!). Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This user keeps removing content from TAI Hürkuş and Talk:TAI Hürkuş without explanations. The user just reverted my edit again on TAI Hürkuş, but I'd rather not revert anymore and get into trouble. Can you see if you can do something? Thanks! - Donald Duck ( talk) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted at the request of the user. Fred Talk 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Users have a right to disappear. Fred Talk 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Right to vanish is only a courtesy, not a requirement, but unless we have more business with this user I can see no rational basis to continue to maintain user pages when they have asked to leave permanently. Fred Talk 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No need. You are correct that the user talk page should not have been deleted. Fred Talk 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a {merge to} on this and the other similar articles of listed AEF's, all seem to cover pretty much what the other says, have suggested that they be merged into Air Experience Flight, any opinion?
Also somone has changed the cat from AEF to Air Cadet Experience Flight, seeing as they are also used by UAS I think this cat is wrong. Pandaplodder ( talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The revert war at Aircraft engine continues, per this diff. To this point,m there seems to be no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. A dynamic IP user appears to be pushing a POC agenda there, and shows know signs of letting up. I've not checked to se if they are discussing this somewhere on a user page. Could you check the page, and see if you can protect it? I guess a ful -protect is warranted if there is no discussion being carried aout anywhere. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit war appears to be continuing on some other pages too, such as Jet aircraft and Coandă-1910. Three cheers for Open editing and the dynamic IPs which make our jobs so much fun! - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns on "for further info" and agree. My concern is this page last seen as Steven Slater is now called a very non-notable, and in my opinion very unhelpful name, so I believe that those seeking further information will not find it? Maybe I should wait until the AfD and inevitable appeal go though, as that detail article should be moved if it survives. Obviously I can;t port more data across to Jet Blue (I shortened it recently) due to undue weight issues. Maybe I'll try and edit the 1st link on JetBlue? 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Mdnavman is adding a lot of photos of British aircraft using Aviastoar as a source, with the rational that the photos are unattributed and hence are pd-uk because the author is unknown. As Aviastar has a habit of blatent copyvio from books, I'm not sure whether Aviastar can be claimed as trustworthy about whether the authours are unkown - as I understand, some effort is required by UK copyright law to look for the author of the photos before making this claim. Any opinions? Nigel Ish ( talk) 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Mdnavman, first can I say that nobody thinks that you uploaded the images in bad faith.
AS you can see from the Warwick image that has been sent to PUF for review we can guess who took the image but wikipedia really needs to know particularly when it come to copyright. You see a number of WW2 aircraft images on wikipedia that have been declared pd because they were crown copyright when we dont have any evidence. People like Charles Brown took many wartime photographs some for the RAF but a lot were taken for the aircraft companies which still hold the copyright. So just because it was taken during the war is not a clear indication of crown copyright. Some of this is very confusing and I cant say I am an expert on it but is the reason why many aircraft articles dont have any images, we can all scan images from books etc but without a provenance it is just best to do without. Although rare and one of images can be used under fair use but again you still need to know where they came from. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I could use some advice on Swoose Snead, a probable copyvio of this site. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force#Swoose Snead for further details. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See Piaggio Aero ( [1]) and Piaggio P.180 Avanti ( [2])- these are direct copyvios from the Piaggio website, from both User:Enrisga and User:213.156.53.158. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to get Sutton Wick air disaster to GA status, and have been asked to clarify what is meant by "blind approach" in the article. I'm not sure who added it, but it was there before I started working on the article, and I was wondering if you could confirm what it means. On a similar note, do you know what time of day or night the accident took place? Regards, WackyWace converse | contribs 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you look at the discussions in this AFD? Bzuk ( talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you do a 48-hour user-requested enforced wikibreak? Please note in the block log that it's user requested, so people don't confuse it with my 2 non-user-requested blocks! Thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you buy Aeroplane magazine. Fascinating account of the loss of Avro Vulcan XM610. Probably notable enough for an article IMHO. As a direct result of the accident, engine bays and the bomb bay of all Vulcans were strengthened to prevent an uncontained failure of an engine damaging other engines or the bomb bay. Pilot awarded the Air Force Cross and named RAF Man of the Year, all other crew awarded a Queens Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air. What do you think? Mjroots ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Qantas Flight 74, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Just an FYI, I don't dispute the basis of your PROD and might bring it to AFD despite the fact that I made improvements to the article itself, but an editor protested deletion on the article's talk page. -- Atama 頭 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I don't really understand, but just for the record: the entire section of the op history in the original was written by me. So I am moving my own work to a different article for the sake of bettering the former one. Cheers. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Not accusing anybody just not sure why the fuss over what is a standard template, but as you insist I just picked one random sentence:
Based around the concept of the long-range Zerstörer or "Destroyer Fighter" the Bf110 enjoyed some success in the Polish and French campaigns before the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engined aircraft. was part of the page when it was created in 2003 by an IP user 80.177.108.194.
In April 2004 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=3119720 User:GreatWhiteNortherner split and tweaked the sentence and it became However, the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against more maneuverable single-engine aircraft
In February 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=40844075 User:62.6.139.1 removed the word maneuverable.
In August 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=71097083 User:Evil Merlin made a minor change and removed the however to make it The Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft
In May 2007 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=131455059
User:Geeman added the Bf 110 bit to make it The Battle of Britain revealed the Bf 110's fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft which it has remained unaltered until it was moved to the operational history. So all we are doing is giving these guys the courtesy of attribution.
MilborneOne (
talk)
13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
OK found it - I think we are finished here. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the deal here with comments like this? Bzuk ( talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am an aviation ethusiast and I would like to ask you whether the Airbus A340-200 has two types of 3-class seating configuration, which are 239 seats and 261 seats. Is there any difference between the two of them? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) -- LS C HIST ( talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I came across René Leduc (1898–1968) and should be able to expand it quite usefully. It seems to me that the article title convention is unusual for a bio article, thought I would check with you before moving it as you are more au fait with bio articles. It should be René Leduc (engineer) I think or probably better just plain René Leduc as there seems to be nobody else with this name on WP at the moment, might need moving over the redirect. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
René Leduc re-directs to René Leduc (1898–1968) as the other article does not exist. I think that (engineer) is better (as per the French wiki) but can we find out anything about the other Leduc? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have pasted this onto the article talk page - if it does not generate any objections after a few days then we can move it. 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it being an aircraft is not stationary and will visit other airfields. But as of now, no free images of the aircraft is available. The situation is unlikely to change till the aircraft is displayed to the public in some way (perhaps a fly-past at the Indian Republic Day parade). I agree that removing the image is not detrimental to the article, but there are no other pictures which illustrate a Phalcon AWACS radar mounted on an Il-76 platform. So I feel that the image should not be deleted. -- Gremaldin ( talk) 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... you are suggesting that a free image is possible despite the fact that the aircraft is based at a secure IAF airbase because the aircraft fly around and visit other airfields? So you think someone will photograph the aircraft mid-air? I don't see how that is possible. The details of when the aircraft is transferred to another airbase will not be released to the public, so no one knows when the aircraft is going to leave the airbase or which airbase it is transfered to. -- Gremaldin ( talk) 04:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, could you look at User talk:Beeblebrox#Recreation of an AFDed article? I'm not sure when the admin will be back online. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I had some problem uploading the HZurichAA.jpg image properly as you know (you flagged it for early deletion). I gave it a permission of CC-BY-SA version 3.0 because I have the permission in an email that I forward to permissions AT wikipedia DOT org as required. My problem is I can't remember what I was supposed to use as a tag that states the permission was sent to OTRS. I've done it in the past but can't recall what it was. Additionally, I don't know how to change the current settings. I can't figure out what the edit process is for the tags on the image. Your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnhoops ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I noticed the Early Deletion template is still attached. Can that be removed? The last time I added an image with OTRS pending took a little over 4 weeks to be reviewed and approved. Jrnhoops ( talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I was intrigued to read that the FVA-18 was a glider tug on 40hp. Of course it wasn't. it was an ultra-ligtgh trainer intended to give chep flying to all that want it. I think the confusion may have come in a tranlation somewhere, as it is compared to a powered primary glider in the german text of the FVA site - [3]. I have editted your article to suit and will probably fill it out when I get round to the aircraft articles for the Akafliegs. Petebutt ( talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Aircraft engine#Edit request: Maintenance tags has an editprotected request that at first glance looks uncontroversial. As you protected the page without a set expiration date, I assume that you are monitoring the situation, but here is a quick ping just in case. As at least some of the dispute seems to have revolved around issues of sourcing, I would rather not step on your toes with a low-priority edit to a protected article. Please let me know if you would like me to actually look at the article and the dispute. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborne,
I know I had some rough spots when I first started editing, but I think I now have the hang of it. I hate to bother you but could you please check out this discussion about the P-39. To be honest there are people who look at the beautiful lines of the P-39 and it is like a man and a beautiful woman. They can't see beyond the looks. A neutral POV is impossible. I posted a paragraph on how disappointed the UK and US was with the P-39 in combat and how the finger pointed back at the manufacture Bell. I was preparing to add the references (ie in my notes I stated that) when it got reverted. I reverted it back. Again reverted. That means I stopped. I do one revert in pages (I don't even wait like many in these disputes a day or a week and then revert what I had posted without an understanding it will not be reverted).
Finally, if you believe it is not important and just leave the editor (who has worked hard on this page) alone with it, I am fine moving on. Lot more work to do (Dave wants me to really work on the Compacto 76mm page, but GAWD that is going to be a lot of work!). Jack --
Jackehammond (
talk)
05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, what's the first step to take in haveing an admin's behavior reviewed, and possibley having his adminship revoked? I'm dealing with one who got his nose out of joint that I dared to revert him on the F-35 page, and dispite his own lectures to me that my revert was a misuse of my own limited tools, he seems to be taking this extremely personally, and won't even discuss serious questions addressed to him on improving the article, per this diff and previous ones. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding it extremely difficult to assum good faith with this "user", especially given edit summaries such as "sorry for editing... totally my bad. Thought this was an open project". He appears to be taking our "dispute" very personally, as his comments in that edit, "Likewise, I respect that I don't care for you, and I've made no effort to revert that either", indicate. Sorry, but nothing excuses this sort of behavior from an admin. The last few comments are escpecially provocative, and I've "nearly bitten my tongue in half" in holding back my natural inclination to respond in kind. - BilCat ( talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I got a message from you saying with the above subject/headline. As per legal terms I have submitted the things in respectable articles.
I followed all the rules and policies and strongly feel it all meets with the condition to permit for all my edits in regard to this subject.
I want you to message once it is done as a mark of acknowledgement. Many thanks.
Keyan20 ( talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On the List of fatalities from aviation accidents, you stated once that GBR is the name for British sporting teams/Brits who compete in sports. Now you claim that the sporting list should be added as UK. Make your mind up, you are getting annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.50.194 ( talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborneone,
Working the weapons pages and just fiddling and adding external links and correcting and fixing external links (came across the most gross bit of vandalism seen since I started on Wiki and I am hard to shock!). Was adding a good external link to the
Land mine page. Jeez! I mean that page has been taken over by the Ban the Land Mine groups. History and technical explanation of land mines is not 2nd or even 3rd. It is maybe 10th on the list. The external links is filled with groups trying to ban land mines -- over 20 such links. The Ottowa Treaty page should be for that. Or maybe a Ban The Land Mine" page. There is a box requesting the deletion of external links (or moving them to notes and references), but I have a feeling that if I delete agenda driven external links and agenda driven comments sh*t will hit the fan. And advise? Jack --
Jackehammond (
talk)
06:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the third paragraph of that page:
I've just given this editor a uw-ics4. Should he upload any more images without copyright status being shown, particularly where it is claimed that he made the image when it is patently obvious he did not, then I propose an indef block until such time as it is demonstrated that the policy on images will be complied with. Mjroots ( talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I wanted to make sure that you saw this post. It's a response to the copyvios added to the Piaggio articles, and an admission of COI. WOuld you want to respond to this? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborne,
I found a great link on the incendiary bombs and was posting it to Incendiary device. The agenda groups had struck again. They had the laws of warfare being discussed after the first sentence. I did not delete that large section. I just moved it down the page like you did with land mines and added a separate section to address the subject. Can you take a gander and make sure I broke no rules with my editing. Thanks.
Jack E. Hammond
Milb, can you have a look at this please File:Genet Major - (7cyl.).jpg? It's not being used but I do doubt that it is the author's own work. If it is then I wish I could draw like that!! Always like to be proved wrong. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, could you check this post here, and give me some advice on what the next step should be? The user has raised an RFC at Talk:Football#Naming Standardization In Different Codes, but seems intent on doing his own thing without a clear consensus to do so. Any direct help you can provide is also welcome. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you look over 124x247x221x146 ( talk · contribs) and their editing. I noticed what appeared to be an edit war with Felix505 ( talk · contribs) over the Ngurah Rai International Airport and issued both with a uw-3rr. Felix505 has engaged in discussion, and a look at 124's talk page suggests that that is where the problem lies. Felix505 states that 124's editing covers other articles too. Not sure whether an absolute final warning or a short "across the bows" block would be best here so I'm asking for a second opinion. Mjroots ( talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne, can you please have a look over my edit proposal on the Destinations table of the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and the addition of a weblink in the External sites section. I have painstakingly reviewed the content of the airline and destination content, found some more oversights and errors including a couple of my own and really I can see no reason why anyone would object to that content if it were uploaded now. I am certainly not infallible but it is a vast improvement on what I found there originally. The result of 124xxx's editing is still there and although he did return a couple of my edit details the bulk of them remain deleted and the table is really quite inaccurate and misleading. I have draw attention to a couple of entries that could benefit from your overview as to the appropriateness of them being in the table. I have also supplied a table with the airlines URL's and a full breakdown of the edits with the sources and reasons for changing the original table and the current version on the page edited by 124xxx. I hope you are able to find the time to have a look at it. Thanks. Felix505 ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is deleted. I do not know the reason. Even on the discussion page one felt that it should not be deleted as it is very very important to the article aand it is no way replaceable in future. Please do keep this photo back on the article. Many Thanks,
I am writing this since both the image and policy meets all wiki norms and it should have not deleted. Please do not make the process very very complicated by adding a BOT tag on this image. Review it how much you want - but no deletion is accepted as it meets all needs to make the article complete and informative.
Ungal Vettu Pillai 10:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 ( talk • contribs)
I placed the email permission on the discussion page. Honda AC15 Noles1984 ( talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the files I uploaded I will attach the email permission number after I apply. I just received two tickets for two websites. Should I place the ticket number on the file page or discussion page?... or both? Thanks for the help. Noles1984 ( talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should have first addressed the issue on my talk page in an assumption of good faith. You didn't have to template a regular. Thanks. -- Brian Halvorsen ( talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy of comments
| |||
---|---|---|---|
I believe I've already done everything which could conceivably be required regarding the image in question. Here is an account of the history of the image so far: Firstly I received the following message from User:Fastily on the 28th of March 2010: * ==File copyright problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thank you for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock (TALK) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Then I added the required tag. Next I received the following message from User:IngerAlHaosului on the 23rd of May 2010: * ==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) To which I responded by emailing the owner of the International Times material used in the image. He emailed me back and gave the appropriate permission. I then forwarded a copy of his email to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org and left a message to say so on User:IngerAlHaosului's talk page. Then today I received your message saying: ==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg, which you've sourced to International Times. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I believe the matter is already fully dealt with. However, I will send the copies of the emails in question to permissions again (in case the previous ones have, in some mysterious way, been lost. Also, here are copies of those same emails (I have removed the actual email addresses of myself and of Mike Lesser from these copies (for security) but the copies sent to permissions have the original addresses in place): from Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> to email address withheld from this copy date 29 March 2010 00:19 subject Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia mailed-by googlemail.com hide details 29 Mar Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
email address withheld from this copy to me show details 29 Mar Dear Petre, Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. Good hunting. Mike Lesser. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia - Show quoted text - Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
Peter-David Smith to permissions-en show details 24 May - Show quoted text -
Forwarded message ---------- From: <email address withheld from this copy> Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy>
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/
-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
Permissions to me show details 21 Jul Dear Peter-David Smith, Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message. - Show quoted text - 05/23/2010 23:28 - Peter-David Smith wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <email address withheld from this copy> > Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 > Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > > > Dear Petre, > Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The > Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant > flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope > to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. > Good hunting. > Mike Lesser. > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > ------------------------------ > *From: * Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > *Date: *Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 > *To: *<email address withheld from this copy> > *Subject: *Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > > Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International > Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the > authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information > Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief > that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain > or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite > permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 > from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an > article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the > alternative society and the UK underground. > > Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status > to the image file. > > Cheers, > Peter-David Smith > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ > If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which may be viewed at < http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>. Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>. If you provide us with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org |
I'll send fresh copies of these emails to permissions again now (including the original addresses) and hope that these new copies will not become lost or mislaid. I'm assuming good faith on this and trying not to feel harrassed or unfairly censored, although you will, I am sure, understand the inevitable temptation which exists to regard in such a light the repetition of these stages. :-)
-- wayland ( talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File talk:Diegojourdan1.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Image is on Commons, not technically a G8, though it is Commons problem to solve. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 18:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne, wow, I can't understand what happened. I did send the permit to OTRS on Feb., but these things happen. What I just did was re-email the permit today. Just in case, I am posting the signed permit here for your observation. I will make a notation on the file and remove the deletion tag since the new e-mail sent will have an OTRS pending. Maybe you know some one in OTRS who can now look at the new e-mail sent. take care Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy of permit
|
---|
Copy of permit Thank you once more. Here is the permit slip allowing us to use Carmen Bozak's image. Once signed, I will forward it "OTRS". "I Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Latino & Latina WWII Oral History Project_____, have written permissions to use the image attached/in url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carmen_Conteras_Bozak.jpg, I agree to release in under the terms of GFDL I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected." |
Errm, what are you doing? The file has an OTRS tag William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have previously forwarded proof of license to the Wikimedia address, but perhaps it did not go through. I will submit it again if needed. Thank you, Feather Jonah ( talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Permission has already been sent from György for the use of his artwork on the Wiki page. I've asked him to re-send the consent with the ticket number. Keithbates51 ( talk) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I did email Johnny Two Shoes a while ago asking to provide the licensing information to OTRS. They did licensing out a bunch under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. I set the Plunderland Logo image to this license under anticipation that they would license the image as that, as they said they most likely would. I don't know if they will be able to respond by October 2nd because they are currently on a long vacation in Greece (they live in London). You can try to help by emailing them at hello@johnnytwoshoes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthEnigma ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
http://anoraksia.ukgeeks.co.uk/
From this page, Find the box named 'Welcome' (Top of page, right side), read the fourth paragraph. I already emailed the emails about the image, the last time this came up, to WP:OTRS! "Pictures from this site may be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia without seeking my specific permission but please acknowledge this site as the source." If there's a actual issue, please be more specific.-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This was due for deletion today but someone has removed the tag without any justification, when tackled about this they referred to List of RAF Squadrons which is totally different, I have put a speedy delete tag on it (as I am the original author!)Can you have a look at this one + the list of ACF units which is the same Pandaplodder ( talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I understand that I need to get some extra permission from the Mail on Sunday Picture Desk to use these images. Could you please point me to a template which will give me the exact wording that I need to achieve this? I've exchanged a number of friendly emails with the Desk and I'm confident that they will be amenable to including any required text in an e-mail. Best wishes, Jprw ( talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It turns out the ticket number for the image was "2010092510006993" and has now been merged with a new number: "2010052310032466". Presumably there is somewhere where administrators keep these numbers so that other administrators can check them. I have never applied to be an administrator and so I remain blissfully ignorant of that procedure. However I am reliably assured that these numbers do exist. Today I received this response from Fae Styles at Permissions:
Dear Peter-David Smith,
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.
Your email with ticket number "2010092510006993" is merged to "2010052310032466".
Yours sincerely, Fae Styles
I sent a message to Stuart Adams, the photographer of this image: File:Shaky Smithson.jpg and he says he emailed OTRS today. Sorry about the delay. — Ute in DC ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am new to this, so pleas bear with me. ( Verybluesky ( talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC))
Michael, you might want to have a look at this diff. We get these types every so often, but other than reverting them, I'm not sure the best way to handle these. If the info is from a reliable source, it's quite silly to try to "censor" it on WP. - BilCat ( talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
MB1 - Since you haven't taken part in this AfD perhaps I can prevail upon you to have a little read though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 and perhaps see if a quiet word with one participant in particular might not be in order or not. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I'm trying to advise an user on the image permission and OTRS ticket process, but have no direct experience with that. If you can please add/correct my post on my talk page here. Thanks! - Fnlayson ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You left a note for me saying that there was no proof that 2 pics were from the author. According to the Author, he emailed the pictures and permissions to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (along with several others) granting CCA-SA 3.0. I do not know how to verify that but will you please check that before you delete the pictures. If I need them resent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org please let me know. I do want to be correct in what I do. Thank you for reviewing my article. R. T. Gates ( talk) 13:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Good work on editing Talk:List of honorary British knights and dames/Temp table version draft. As part of my updating of this page, when I have been updating nationalities of those with Wikipedia pages, I have also been ensuring that the categorisation on the person's main article is for the honorary award, not the substantive award (less the Royal Victorian Chain which, strictly speaking, was always awarded substantively, not honorarily). I have been using the unlinked status of the nationality column as a visual marker to aid me in identifying who I need to check. Given that you have also been updating and linking nationality, could I ask that when you do this, you also perform the same categorisation check I have been doing. This way we won't miss anyone. As a rule of thumb, I think that when referring to someone's occupation, it should be the occupation contemporary to the service recognised by the award with a note, if relevant, to what the person ultimately achieved if this is more widely known. I suspect that this is what you have already been doing. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
G'day MilborneOne, I am nearing readiness to re-sort the list alphabetically (still have to double check the royalty category first). Are you wedded to the current sequence for your ongoing program of updating (and need me to hold off) or are you happy for me to launch when I am ready? When I do, I will put up a notification to avoid editing whilst I am transitioning the table to the new structure. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of work on the British Airways page since June 5 2010 to get the page to A-Class from GA-Class but I need two uninvolved editors to say yes or no to the change. You seem to have done a lot in this field so I thought you would probably be best qualified to help me with this. You don't have to do it right away but a quick response would be helpful. The review page is here and I've done all the work outlined by SidewinderX ( talk) even though it isn't all scored through. Thanks in advance, Plane Person ( talk) 09:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC).
I noticed you semi-protected the article because of ongoing content disputes. I was just wondering whether you think I was being overzealous in my actions and whether or not I was right to revert edits by the anonymous IP based on his past contribution log. Vedant ( talk) 04:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Her's a possible sock for you: User:SuperJewishBrain here. Quite strange all these new users showing up and making the same exat edits! Oh, he's edited a few Jewish topics for good measure! Can I request a full-page protect? Thanks for looking into this, again! - BilCat ( talk) 14:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
May I know how the previous decision can be enforced? 61.18.170.156 ( talk) 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As you will be aware, the British Airways page has just reached A-Class but a number of unregistered users (see edit history of the BA page) have been changing the fleet numbers and saying some aircraft are in service or on order etc without references (and some are clearly wrong such as one person wrote that BA had 737-400 aircraft on order). I'm just wondering if this qualifies the page for semi-protection to try and prevent this from occurring and to promote discussion of changes prior to just going ahead with any old change. I'm not sure if these edits count as vandalism but it's getting very annoying having to revert all these edits. Many thanks, Plane Person ( talk) 11:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC).
Evening MilborneOne: You might recall the discussion after I had Flight images of three aircraft removed from the Commons on copyright grounds (though, oddly, two three-views survived). The conclusion, on TraceyR's page was that we needed to go back to the editor of Flight to work out a statement that would satisfy our copyright folk. Is there any movement on this, do you know? I was not part of the earlier interchange with Flight and don't know the editor, nor have a very clear grasp of copyright law; I guess the only advantage I have is more time than most, together with a strong belief in the ability of the Flight archive to repair WikiAviation's major (in my view) flaw, the lack of images and three-views. I'd rather spend time grabbing images and uploading them to Commons and thence to the articles, but not without the certainty that these images are acceptable and will remain in place. We need to try to nail it.
I was reminded of this issue by the appearance of a Flight image in the Vickers Viastra article; just what we want, but will it survive, do you think? Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 21:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne. You removed my section of specs on the F-35B, saying, 'we only list the specs for one variant'. Are you sure. Both our articles on the Grumman F4F Wildcat and North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco have specs for two variants. Is there some rule in AV that says we only need the specs from one variant? Please write my talk page or leave a {{ talkback}}. Thanks, -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again MB1, this edit got me confused despite him being told that it is not notable unless there was a hull loss or passenger casualty involved. Note also the condescending tone of his edit summary. Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Milborne, could you please solve the issue at Bulgaria Air destinations. IP user keeps adding flags even though I have told him to stop. I don't want to get in an edit war. Please may you protect the page. Thanks. Zaps93 ( talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added an accident to the Dyn'Aéro article. I don't know whether or not you have this watchlisted, but please see my comments at the talk page re accidents involving these aircraft. Mjroots ( talk) 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear MB1: I hope your computer problems are resolved? We had no internet here for 12 hours yesterday - I was just in the middle of an AfD, so I know how frustrating that can be. I'll assume that you will get this note whenever you are back on line.
I realize this article is is a bit off your normal beat, but I thought I could trouble you to have a look at it regardless. The above article was started and deleted once (I think it was via CSD as Spam). It was recently restarted by a COI editor and was initially identical to the previously deleted version. Rather than renominate it for deletion I engaged the creator on Talk:Cvision Technologies to see if we could fix it up instead. Since no one else seems to have found it yet, I have removed all the corpspam text, added a bunch of text and refs and generally fixed it up as far as I can go, given the refs available. I did ask the other editor to see if he can find some better refs and he did, but mostly they are press releases, company webpages and such. There is just one real third party ref that discusses the company and it looks like a "soft-lob interview" type press release to me too. Basically at this point I am not sure the article makes Wikipedia:Notability and especially WP:CORP with its opening statement: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
The whole notability issue is discussed at Talk:Cvision Technologies.
Since you have a well-won reputation for fair and neutral assessments of articles for this sort of thing I thought perhaps I could prevail upon you to review the article and talk page and offer some advice and recommendations on what should be done with it. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Good morning MB1: This article has an expired WP:PROD (just part of my effort to clean up the encyclopedia). Just to avoid the problem of someone removing the tag after it has expired, I was wondering if I could prevail upon you to delete the article. Thank you for your consideration. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne. I was just looking at Delta Air Lines destinations and noticed that all destination lists do not follow WP:DASH. A while back I fixed the dashes (- to –) and was reverted, being told that destination articles didn't use en dashes. I shrugged it off then, but I'm curious to know why, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ Review? 07:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Milborne. I recently had an article ( My WINGS - a planned German airline) I had worked hard on deleted by an administrator ( User talk:RHaworth). I got annoyed by this and posted a comment on his page as I didn't get time to put a "hang-on" tag in. He then responded in a rude manner and I was disappointed by this, he is an admin and was speaking very rudely back at me, yes I put a quite snappy comment first but then I decided to re-ask him in a calm professional manner, he did not do the same and continued being power-obsessive and very rude. I decided to look through the rest of his comments to other people, such a rude person. Please may you look into this user and see if there is anything I could do about him. Kind regards, Zaps93 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the Great Barrier Airlines official accident report about ZK-LOU. Based on that report, I think that the section that's being deleted isn't really NPOV. I mean there is some information in the report that didn't make it into the article. If I don't hear from the other editor (the deleting editor) in the next few days, I will have a go at rewriting the section on my own. Thanks very much. Susfele ( talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Susfele
The 2009 Act that came in in 2010 still discriminates against the children of British female citizens who are born before 1983. This is because the citizenship process requires registration, fees, and good character check. It is not automatic and the same for either those born to male citizens or to those born after 1983. The issue here is that the discrimination is applied as a path through registration against automatic nationality. I fear you have misunderstood my point! You may also read this petition online by another person also fighting about the same issue : http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/nationality-via-british-mother
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been a movement going on that these persons are being held hostage to fees by the UKBA through the use of secondary legislations and not quite making things equal on a playing field for everyone. Its important to point this out. Last march we had managed to get the home secretary to agree to abolish the fees and the process however with the new government we have had to start all over again. Hence its important to high light this fault in the law and try and bring it to more wide spread public attention and scrutiny. There is another petition on line that I am running. the url to the previous one is being run by Maureen Bow.
You could sign up to it at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/british-nationality.html
The overall problem is that of ageist problems along with gender problems. The ageist factor also effects those children who may be born here inside the UK to European or other mothers but are the children of unmarried British fathers. They too are suffering this injustice and finally even those born before 2002 to British by descent citizens also suffering this.
I would like to enlist your help in how to make this a bit more obvious to users in order to gain more wide spread support and knowledge over this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmortoza26 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me with the BoB aircrew list... I'm now in Canada, so probably working on it through your night! Do you have access to Kenneth Wynne's book "Men of the Battle"? I can't get hold of a copy out here, so if you can get one from a library it would be fantastic! There's loads of events going on to celebrate the 70th Anniversary - check them out at http://battleofbritain1940.net/bobhsoc/index.html - I just wish I were in the UK. I doesn't seem like five years since I was saluting Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall as they unveiled the Battle of Britain Monument in London! Best wishes and thanks again -- KizzyB ( talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
When sockpuppets using IP addresses via proxies, or caches at large ISPs that rotate IP addresses, it is not common to ban the IP itself, because it would block hundreds of users. The behavior at WP:AIRLINES is re-inserting conversations that were removed months ago, because that is what this sockpuppet does. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Michael, I have a couple of move requests for you when you can.
First, per WT:AIRENG#More list fun, could you move List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical) to List of aircraft engine manufacturers? Once the redirects are taken care of, Lists of aircraft engine manufacturers can probably be deleted.
Second, per WT:AIRENG#Salmson 9 series, Salmson 9 (air cooled engine) should probably go back to Salmson 9, as it still covers both the water- and air-cooled variants. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting this guy, please note that his IP is dynamic and falls in the category of troublemaker who had previously harassed me and another user, the Admin - PMDrive1061 ( talk · contribs). When I saw his edit today, my instinct was to revert him but for some reason, I stopped half-way and decided to wait it out... then you came along to revert him. Thanks, that low life can be very persistent, check his contribution and page edit history to see for yourself. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that you're an active participant of the aviation section on Wikipedia as well as an administrator. Would be grateful if you could advise whether or not the SQ A380 incident involving the engine failure on the way to Paris/Charles de Gaulle is notable enough to be put onto the Singapore Airlines article. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability, it suggests that the first incident for any aircraft type is notable but some other Wikipedians dispute this. The same question applies for the B747 tailstrike in Auckland. According to news releases, it caused 'severe damage' to the aircraft (criteria under Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content). Regards, Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
So your addition is seen as not notable enough for the airline article, the A380 is very minor and I suspect not the first incident with a A380. A tailstrike is not that unusual and it looks like this one was repaired. But if you think they should be included it does no harm to bring it up for discussion on the talk page to see if a local consensus can be reached on inclusion or not. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne
Could you possibly have a look at this (as an independent editor) - 1944 Cheshunt B 24 Bomber crash, I don't think the notability tags are justified, thanks Pandaplodder ( talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For outstanding research in assisting me to locate which RAF Squadrons were involved in the St. Nazaire Raid I have great pleasure in awarding you the WikiChevrons -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC) |
THANKS a lot -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I seem to recall that the similar aircrft section were removed from the HAL Tejas and JF-17 Thunder articles awhile back because of the relentless edit warring. The JF-17 one is still disabled, with an hidden note, but the Tejas one is back again. The ubiquitous 59.xxx IP that never ever discussed anything is involved again. I've tride to remove it, but when I came back to add the hidden note, he had restored it with his onw hidden coments! I'm too close to 3RR on this to intervene again, so can you help? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this page seems like a good idea. I'm just wondering if you are going to finish it.-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Evening MilborneOne. Following the flurry on the Envoy,I'm having a quick look at the Viceroy. I seem to recall that you have the 1970 ed of AJ Jackson's British Civil Aircraft and I'm wondering what figure he gives for the wing area. In the 1959 ed he says 299 sq ft, significantly less than the Envoy's 339 sq ft. Spans were the same, though the Viceroy's nacelles were fatter. Taylor's Airspeed Aircraft is not helpful, since he only says dimensions the same. Might or might not include the wing area. We ( Airspeed Viceroy)say 399 sq ft, but not where that came from. Cheers, TSRL ( talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 140 Squadron RAF, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Milborne,
Do you know what the first aircraft (s) was (were) that used aluminum in the skin or cowling? THNKS. > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
G'day MilborneOne, Welcome to WP:ODM! By the way, you recently added a Times citation for Queen Victoria's appointment to the Order of the White Elephant. Did the Times article indicate what she was appointed as? I expect that it was something along the lines of Knight (or possibly Lady) Grand Cordon of the Order of the White Eagle. I'm trying to ensure that everyone is reflected with their appropriate grade which is also important for article categorisation. Notwithstanding, this can sometimes be tricky as too often historical sources don't mention the grade. Cheers, AusTerrapin ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne,
Many thanks for rationalising the refs and categories on George Rudolf Hanbury Fielding, the sort of task that I haven't managed to get my head around. Appreciated.
Acabashi ( talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear MilborneOne, how tiresome the work of an administrator must be. But do you have any idea's how frustrating it can be for anyone who wishes to contribute? It is nearly impossible to understand the guidelines and policies the Wikipedia posts. I find it more helpful to look at showcase articles to see what is allowed or not.
Also a lot articles are vandalised, but this seems to go unnoticed. There are people that seem to have no brain and discuss stuff on the discussion page that should not be there (have a look on the discussion page of Rachel, the French actress).
Recently I wrote an article on Philip Sayer, not because he is interesting, but for some reason he is omitted. During my research I came across some interesting photographs. You can see them here. Is it my imagination or are PS and SS intimate? I am not going to upload these pictures because I respect the privacy of SS. I originally stated that PS was reputed to have had an affair with SS. What are you afraid of?
-- JHvW ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a minor change but can you move the article to:Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines. Note the slight change to the capitalization noted by another editor and this is confirmed by the use of the original movie poster. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello MB1, I apologise as I understand that it must be in the wee hours of the morning when you get this message but as the previously-blocked-one is back after a 3 months block, can you please take a look at this? About his insults and name-callings, I've left a similar note on User talk:Moonriddengirl#Here we go... (again!). Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This user keeps removing content from TAI Hürkuş and Talk:TAI Hürkuş without explanations. The user just reverted my edit again on TAI Hürkuş, but I'd rather not revert anymore and get into trouble. Can you see if you can do something? Thanks! - Donald Duck ( talk) 16:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted at the request of the user. Fred Talk 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Users have a right to disappear. Fred Talk 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Right to vanish is only a courtesy, not a requirement, but unless we have more business with this user I can see no rational basis to continue to maintain user pages when they have asked to leave permanently. Fred Talk 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No need. You are correct that the user talk page should not have been deleted. Fred Talk 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a {merge to} on this and the other similar articles of listed AEF's, all seem to cover pretty much what the other says, have suggested that they be merged into Air Experience Flight, any opinion?
Also somone has changed the cat from AEF to Air Cadet Experience Flight, seeing as they are also used by UAS I think this cat is wrong. Pandaplodder ( talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The revert war at Aircraft engine continues, per this diff. To this point,m there seems to be no discussion on the talk page, just in edit summaries. A dynamic IP user appears to be pushing a POC agenda there, and shows know signs of letting up. I've not checked to se if they are discussing this somewhere on a user page. Could you check the page, and see if you can protect it? I guess a ful -protect is warranted if there is no discussion being carried aout anywhere. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit war appears to be continuing on some other pages too, such as Jet aircraft and Coandă-1910. Three cheers for Open editing and the dynamic IPs which make our jobs so much fun! - BilCat ( talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns on "for further info" and agree. My concern is this page last seen as Steven Slater is now called a very non-notable, and in my opinion very unhelpful name, so I believe that those seeking further information will not find it? Maybe I should wait until the AfD and inevitable appeal go though, as that detail article should be moved if it survives. Obviously I can;t port more data across to Jet Blue (I shortened it recently) due to undue weight issues. Maybe I'll try and edit the 1st link on JetBlue? 24.23.198.90 ( talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Mdnavman is adding a lot of photos of British aircraft using Aviastoar as a source, with the rational that the photos are unattributed and hence are pd-uk because the author is unknown. As Aviastar has a habit of blatent copyvio from books, I'm not sure whether Aviastar can be claimed as trustworthy about whether the authours are unkown - as I understand, some effort is required by UK copyright law to look for the author of the photos before making this claim. Any opinions? Nigel Ish ( talk) 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Mdnavman, first can I say that nobody thinks that you uploaded the images in bad faith.
AS you can see from the Warwick image that has been sent to PUF for review we can guess who took the image but wikipedia really needs to know particularly when it come to copyright. You see a number of WW2 aircraft images on wikipedia that have been declared pd because they were crown copyright when we dont have any evidence. People like Charles Brown took many wartime photographs some for the RAF but a lot were taken for the aircraft companies which still hold the copyright. So just because it was taken during the war is not a clear indication of crown copyright. Some of this is very confusing and I cant say I am an expert on it but is the reason why many aircraft articles dont have any images, we can all scan images from books etc but without a provenance it is just best to do without. Although rare and one of images can be used under fair use but again you still need to know where they came from. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I could use some advice on Swoose Snead, a probable copyvio of this site. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force#Swoose Snead for further details. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
See Piaggio Aero ( [1]) and Piaggio P.180 Avanti ( [2])- these are direct copyvios from the Piaggio website, from both User:Enrisga and User:213.156.53.158. Thanks again. - BilCat ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to get Sutton Wick air disaster to GA status, and have been asked to clarify what is meant by "blind approach" in the article. I'm not sure who added it, but it was there before I started working on the article, and I was wondering if you could confirm what it means. On a similar note, do you know what time of day or night the accident took place? Regards, WackyWace converse | contribs 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you look at the discussions in this AFD? Bzuk ( talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you do a 48-hour user-requested enforced wikibreak? Please note in the block log that it's user requested, so people don't confuse it with my 2 non-user-requested blocks! Thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you buy Aeroplane magazine. Fascinating account of the loss of Avro Vulcan XM610. Probably notable enough for an article IMHO. As a direct result of the accident, engine bays and the bomb bay of all Vulcans were strengthened to prevent an uncontained failure of an engine damaging other engines or the bomb bay. Pilot awarded the Air Force Cross and named RAF Man of the Year, all other crew awarded a Queens Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air. What do you think? Mjroots ( talk) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Qantas Flight 74, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Just an FYI, I don't dispute the basis of your PROD and might bring it to AFD despite the fact that I made improvements to the article itself, but an editor protested deletion on the article's talk page. -- Atama 頭 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I don't really understand, but just for the record: the entire section of the op history in the original was written by me. So I am moving my own work to a different article for the sake of bettering the former one. Cheers. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Not accusing anybody just not sure why the fuss over what is a standard template, but as you insist I just picked one random sentence:
Based around the concept of the long-range Zerstörer or "Destroyer Fighter" the Bf110 enjoyed some success in the Polish and French campaigns before the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engined aircraft. was part of the page when it was created in 2003 by an IP user 80.177.108.194.
In April 2004 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=3119720 User:GreatWhiteNortherner split and tweaked the sentence and it became However, the Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against more maneuverable single-engine aircraft
In February 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=40844075 User:62.6.139.1 removed the word maneuverable.
In August 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=71097083 User:Evil Merlin made a minor change and removed the however to make it The Battle of Britain revealed its fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft
In May 2007 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_110&oldid=131455059
User:Geeman added the Bf 110 bit to make it The Battle of Britain revealed the Bf 110's fatal weaknesses as a daylight fighter against single-engine aircraft which it has remained unaltered until it was moved to the operational history. So all we are doing is giving these guys the courtesy of attribution.
MilborneOne (
talk)
13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
OK found it - I think we are finished here. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the deal here with comments like this? Bzuk ( talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am an aviation ethusiast and I would like to ask you whether the Airbus A340-200 has two types of 3-class seating configuration, which are 239 seats and 261 seats. Is there any difference between the two of them? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) -- LS C HIST ( talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I came across René Leduc (1898–1968) and should be able to expand it quite usefully. It seems to me that the article title convention is unusual for a bio article, thought I would check with you before moving it as you are more au fait with bio articles. It should be René Leduc (engineer) I think or probably better just plain René Leduc as there seems to be nobody else with this name on WP at the moment, might need moving over the redirect. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
René Leduc re-directs to René Leduc (1898–1968) as the other article does not exist. I think that (engineer) is better (as per the French wiki) but can we find out anything about the other Leduc? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have pasted this onto the article talk page - if it does not generate any objections after a few days then we can move it. 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it being an aircraft is not stationary and will visit other airfields. But as of now, no free images of the aircraft is available. The situation is unlikely to change till the aircraft is displayed to the public in some way (perhaps a fly-past at the Indian Republic Day parade). I agree that removing the image is not detrimental to the article, but there are no other pictures which illustrate a Phalcon AWACS radar mounted on an Il-76 platform. So I feel that the image should not be deleted. -- Gremaldin ( talk) 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight... you are suggesting that a free image is possible despite the fact that the aircraft is based at a secure IAF airbase because the aircraft fly around and visit other airfields? So you think someone will photograph the aircraft mid-air? I don't see how that is possible. The details of when the aircraft is transferred to another airbase will not be released to the public, so no one knows when the aircraft is going to leave the airbase or which airbase it is transfered to. -- Gremaldin ( talk) 04:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, could you look at User talk:Beeblebrox#Recreation of an AFDed article? I'm not sure when the admin will be back online. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
MilborneOne, I had some problem uploading the HZurichAA.jpg image properly as you know (you flagged it for early deletion). I gave it a permission of CC-BY-SA version 3.0 because I have the permission in an email that I forward to permissions AT wikipedia DOT org as required. My problem is I can't remember what I was supposed to use as a tag that states the permission was sent to OTRS. I've done it in the past but can't recall what it was. Additionally, I don't know how to change the current settings. I can't figure out what the edit process is for the tags on the image. Your help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnhoops ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I noticed the Early Deletion template is still attached. Can that be removed? The last time I added an image with OTRS pending took a little over 4 weeks to be reviewed and approved. Jrnhoops ( talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I was intrigued to read that the FVA-18 was a glider tug on 40hp. Of course it wasn't. it was an ultra-ligtgh trainer intended to give chep flying to all that want it. I think the confusion may have come in a tranlation somewhere, as it is compared to a powered primary glider in the german text of the FVA site - [3]. I have editted your article to suit and will probably fill it out when I get round to the aircraft articles for the Akafliegs. Petebutt ( talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Aircraft engine#Edit request: Maintenance tags has an editprotected request that at first glance looks uncontroversial. As you protected the page without a set expiration date, I assume that you are monitoring the situation, but here is a quick ping just in case. As at least some of the dispute seems to have revolved around issues of sourcing, I would rather not step on your toes with a low-priority edit to a protected article. Please let me know if you would like me to actually look at the article and the dispute. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborne,
I know I had some rough spots when I first started editing, but I think I now have the hang of it. I hate to bother you but could you please check out this discussion about the P-39. To be honest there are people who look at the beautiful lines of the P-39 and it is like a man and a beautiful woman. They can't see beyond the looks. A neutral POV is impossible. I posted a paragraph on how disappointed the UK and US was with the P-39 in combat and how the finger pointed back at the manufacture Bell. I was preparing to add the references (ie in my notes I stated that) when it got reverted. I reverted it back. Again reverted. That means I stopped. I do one revert in pages (I don't even wait like many in these disputes a day or a week and then revert what I had posted without an understanding it will not be reverted).
Finally, if you believe it is not important and just leave the editor (who has worked hard on this page) alone with it, I am fine moving on. Lot more work to do (Dave wants me to really work on the Compacto 76mm page, but GAWD that is going to be a lot of work!). Jack --
Jackehammond (
talk)
05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, what's the first step to take in haveing an admin's behavior reviewed, and possibley having his adminship revoked? I'm dealing with one who got his nose out of joint that I dared to revert him on the F-35 page, and dispite his own lectures to me that my revert was a misuse of my own limited tools, he seems to be taking this extremely personally, and won't even discuss serious questions addressed to him on improving the article, per this diff and previous ones. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding it extremely difficult to assum good faith with this "user", especially given edit summaries such as "sorry for editing... totally my bad. Thought this was an open project". He appears to be taking our "dispute" very personally, as his comments in that edit, "Likewise, I respect that I don't care for you, and I've made no effort to revert that either", indicate. Sorry, but nothing excuses this sort of behavior from an admin. The last few comments are escpecially provocative, and I've "nearly bitten my tongue in half" in holding back my natural inclination to respond in kind. - BilCat ( talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I got a message from you saying with the above subject/headline. As per legal terms I have submitted the things in respectable articles.
I followed all the rules and policies and strongly feel it all meets with the condition to permit for all my edits in regard to this subject.
I want you to message once it is done as a mark of acknowledgement. Many thanks.
Keyan20 ( talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On the List of fatalities from aviation accidents, you stated once that GBR is the name for British sporting teams/Brits who compete in sports. Now you claim that the sporting list should be added as UK. Make your mind up, you are getting annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.50.194 ( talk) 18:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborneone,
Working the weapons pages and just fiddling and adding external links and correcting and fixing external links (came across the most gross bit of vandalism seen since I started on Wiki and I am hard to shock!). Was adding a good external link to the
Land mine page. Jeez! I mean that page has been taken over by the Ban the Land Mine groups. History and technical explanation of land mines is not 2nd or even 3rd. It is maybe 10th on the list. The external links is filled with groups trying to ban land mines -- over 20 such links. The Ottowa Treaty page should be for that. Or maybe a Ban The Land Mine" page. There is a box requesting the deletion of external links (or moving them to notes and references), but I have a feeling that if I delete agenda driven external links and agenda driven comments sh*t will hit the fan. And advise? Jack --
Jackehammond (
talk)
06:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the third paragraph of that page:
I've just given this editor a uw-ics4. Should he upload any more images without copyright status being shown, particularly where it is claimed that he made the image when it is patently obvious he did not, then I propose an indef block until such time as it is demonstrated that the policy on images will be complied with. Mjroots ( talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, I wanted to make sure that you saw this post. It's a response to the copyvios added to the Piaggio articles, and an admission of COI. WOuld you want to respond to this? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Milborne,
I found a great link on the incendiary bombs and was posting it to Incendiary device. The agenda groups had struck again. They had the laws of warfare being discussed after the first sentence. I did not delete that large section. I just moved it down the page like you did with land mines and added a separate section to address the subject. Can you take a gander and make sure I broke no rules with my editing. Thanks.
Jack E. Hammond
Milb, can you have a look at this please File:Genet Major - (7cyl.).jpg? It's not being used but I do doubt that it is the author's own work. If it is then I wish I could draw like that!! Always like to be proved wrong. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Michael, could you check this post here, and give me some advice on what the next step should be? The user has raised an RFC at Talk:Football#Naming Standardization In Different Codes, but seems intent on doing his own thing without a clear consensus to do so. Any direct help you can provide is also welcome. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you look over 124x247x221x146 ( talk · contribs) and their editing. I noticed what appeared to be an edit war with Felix505 ( talk · contribs) over the Ngurah Rai International Airport and issued both with a uw-3rr. Felix505 has engaged in discussion, and a look at 124's talk page suggests that that is where the problem lies. Felix505 states that 124's editing covers other articles too. Not sure whether an absolute final warning or a short "across the bows" block would be best here so I'm asking for a second opinion. Mjroots ( talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi MilborneOne, can you please have a look over my edit proposal on the Destinations table of the Ngurah Rai International Airport article and the addition of a weblink in the External sites section. I have painstakingly reviewed the content of the airline and destination content, found some more oversights and errors including a couple of my own and really I can see no reason why anyone would object to that content if it were uploaded now. I am certainly not infallible but it is a vast improvement on what I found there originally. The result of 124xxx's editing is still there and although he did return a couple of my edit details the bulk of them remain deleted and the table is really quite inaccurate and misleading. I have draw attention to a couple of entries that could benefit from your overview as to the appropriateness of them being in the table. I have also supplied a table with the airlines URL's and a full breakdown of the edits with the sources and reasons for changing the original table and the current version on the page edited by 124xxx. I hope you are able to find the time to have a look at it. Thanks. Felix505 ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is deleted. I do not know the reason. Even on the discussion page one felt that it should not be deleted as it is very very important to the article aand it is no way replaceable in future. Please do keep this photo back on the article. Many Thanks,
I am writing this since both the image and policy meets all wiki norms and it should have not deleted. Please do not make the process very very complicated by adding a BOT tag on this image. Review it how much you want - but no deletion is accepted as it meets all needs to make the article complete and informative.
Ungal Vettu Pillai 10:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 ( talk • contribs)
I placed the email permission on the discussion page. Honda AC15 Noles1984 ( talk) 21:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the files I uploaded I will attach the email permission number after I apply. I just received two tickets for two websites. Should I place the ticket number on the file page or discussion page?... or both? Thanks for the help. Noles1984 ( talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should have first addressed the issue on my talk page in an assumption of good faith. You didn't have to template a regular. Thanks. -- Brian Halvorsen ( talk) 23:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy of comments
| |||
---|---|---|---|
I believe I've already done everything which could conceivably be required regarding the image in question. Here is an account of the history of the image so far: Firstly I received the following message from User:Fastily on the 28th of March 2010: * ==File copyright problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thank you for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock (TALK) 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Then I added the required tag. Next I received the following message from User:IngerAlHaosului on the 23rd of May 2010: * ==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 11:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) To which I responded by emailing the owner of the International Times material used in the image. He emailed me back and gave the appropriate permission. I then forwarded a copy of his email to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org and left a message to say so on User:IngerAlHaosului's talk page. Then today I received your message saying: ==File permission problem with File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg== ![]() Thanks for uploading File:IT 1971-09-09 B-IT-Volume-1 Iss-112 020-clip.jpg, which you've sourced to International Times. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I believe the matter is already fully dealt with. However, I will send the copies of the emails in question to permissions again (in case the previous ones have, in some mysterious way, been lost. Also, here are copies of those same emails (I have removed the actual email addresses of myself and of Mike Lesser from these copies (for security) but the copies sent to permissions have the original addresses in place): from Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> to email address withheld from this copy date 29 March 2010 00:19 subject Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia mailed-by googlemail.com hide details 29 Mar Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
email address withheld from this copy to me show details 29 Mar Dear Petre, Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. Good hunting. Mike Lesser. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia - Show quoted text - Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
Peter-David Smith to permissions-en show details 24 May - Show quoted text -
Forwarded message ---------- From: <email address withheld from this copy> Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy>
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device From: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 To: <email address withheld from this copy> Subject: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the alternative society and the UK underground. Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status to the image file. Cheers, Peter-David Smith -- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/
-- http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ Reply Reply to all Forward
|
Permissions to me show details 21 Jul Dear Peter-David Smith, Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message. - Show quoted text - 05/23/2010 23:28 - Peter-David Smith wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <email address withheld from this copy> > Date: 29 March 2010 00:18 > Subject: Re: Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > To: Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > > > Dear Petre, > Please take thiis msg as authoriuty to use the cliip you mention.. The > Archive was created for just such use and seems to be providing a constant > flow of facts.. We are delighted with the uses it has already found and hope > to provide more infomation on restance to tyrany.. > Good hunting. > Mike Lesser. > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > ------------------------------ > *From: * Peter-David Smith <email address withheld from this copy> > *Date: *Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:19:52 +0100 > *To: *<email address withheld from this copy> > *Subject: *Using a small clip from International Times in Wikipedia > > Hi. I'm writing to ask for permission to use a small clip from International > Times (in the form of a JPG image) on a page of Wikipedia to support the > authenticity of information in an article about Alternative Information > Centres such as BIT or Release. I originally uploaded the JPG in the belief > that images from 1971 underground newspapers would be either public domain > or fair use but this has been challenged so I'm asking for definite > permission to use the clip. It's only the top left hand corner of page 20 > from issue 112 (9-9-1971). The clip is important because it supports an > article which, in turn, supports other Wikipedia content relating to the > alternative society and the UK underground. > > Please reply so that I can add the correct copyright or non-copyright status > to the image file. > > Cheers, > Peter-David Smith > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ > > > > -- > http://art-moving-on.blogspot.com > http://my-subversions.blogspot.com/ > http://how-i-came-to-be.blogspot.com/ > If you wish for text from another website to be included in Wikimedia projects, it must be released by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which may be viewed at < http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>. Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses>. If you provide us with a clear statement that the copyright holder is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license, then the content may be used on Wikimedia projects. The email template at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT> can be used if needed. Thank you for your understanding! Please see < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights> for more information. Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis -- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org |
I'll send fresh copies of these emails to permissions again now (including the original addresses) and hope that these new copies will not become lost or mislaid. I'm assuming good faith on this and trying not to feel harrassed or unfairly censored, although you will, I am sure, understand the inevitable temptation which exists to regard in such a light the repetition of these stages. :-)
-- wayland ( talk) 17:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File talk:Diegojourdan1.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Image is on Commons, not technically a G8, though it is Commons problem to solve. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 18:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello MilborneOne, wow, I can't understand what happened. I did send the permit to OTRS on Feb., but these things happen. What I just did was re-email the permit today. Just in case, I am posting the signed permit here for your observation. I will make a notation on the file and remove the deletion tag since the new e-mail sent will have an OTRS pending. Maybe you know some one in OTRS who can now look at the new e-mail sent. take care Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy of permit
|
---|
Copy of permit Thank you once more. Here is the permit slip allowing us to use Carmen Bozak's image. Once signed, I will forward it "OTRS". "I Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Latino & Latina WWII Oral History Project_____, have written permissions to use the image attached/in url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carmen_Conteras_Bozak.jpg, I agree to release in under the terms of GFDL I understand that this allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as the constraints in the license, like attribution, are respected." |
Errm, what are you doing? The file has an OTRS tag William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have previously forwarded proof of license to the Wikimedia address, but perhaps it did not go through. I will submit it again if needed. Thank you, Feather Jonah ( talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Permission has already been sent from György for the use of his artwork on the Wiki page. I've asked him to re-send the consent with the ticket number. Keithbates51 ( talk) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I did email Johnny Two Shoes a while ago asking to provide the licensing information to OTRS. They did licensing out a bunch under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. I set the Plunderland Logo image to this license under anticipation that they would license the image as that, as they said they most likely would. I don't know if they will be able to respond by October 2nd because they are currently on a long vacation in Greece (they live in London). You can try to help by emailing them at hello@johnnytwoshoes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StealthEnigma ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
http://anoraksia.ukgeeks.co.uk/
From this page, Find the box named 'Welcome' (Top of page, right side), read the fourth paragraph. I already emailed the emails about the image, the last time this came up, to WP:OTRS! "Pictures from this site may be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia without seeking my specific permission but please acknowledge this site as the source." If there's a actual issue, please be more specific.-- The Navigators ( talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This was due for deletion today but someone has removed the tag without any justification, when tackled about this they referred to List of RAF Squadrons which is totally different, I have put a speedy delete tag on it (as I am the original author!)Can you have a look at this one + the list of ACF units which is the same Pandaplodder ( talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I understand that I need to get some extra permission from the Mail on Sunday Picture Desk to use these images. Could you please point me to a template which will give me the exact wording that I need to achieve this? I've exchanged a number of friendly emails with the Desk and I'm confident that they will be amenable to including any required text in an e-mail. Best wishes, Jprw ( talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It turns out the ticket number for the image was "2010092510006993" and has now been merged with a new number: "2010052310032466". Presumably there is somewhere where administrators keep these numbers so that other administrators can check them. I have never applied to be an administrator and so I remain blissfully ignorant of that procedure. However I am reliably assured that these numbers do exist. Today I received this response from Fae Styles at Permissions:
Dear Peter-David Smith,
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.
Your email with ticket number "2010092510006993" is merged to "2010052310032466".
Yours sincerely, Fae Styles
I sent a message to Stuart Adams, the photographer of this image: File:Shaky Smithson.jpg and he says he emailed OTRS today. Sorry about the delay. — Ute in DC ( talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am new to this, so pleas bear with me. ( Verybluesky ( talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC))
Michael, you might want to have a look at this diff. We get these types every so often, but other than reverting them, I'm not sure the best way to handle these. If the info is from a reliable source, it's quite silly to try to "censor" it on WP. - BilCat ( talk) 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
MB1 - Since you haven't taken part in this AfD perhaps I can prevail upon you to have a little read though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243 and perhaps see if a quiet word with one participant in particular might not be in order or not. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)