User talk:Ww2censor

Wait! If I tagged your image for deletion, read this page before posting here!
Are you here because your article was speedily deleted? Click here before leaving any message.

---

1. If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
2. For image deletion notices please talk to me here but please read the above notice first.
3. When I start discussion on your talk page I will watch your talk page for a while and continue to discuss that topic there. Thanks.

Urgent FAR/FARCs
Héctor Lavoe	Review it now
Chennai	Review it now
Medal of Honor	Review it now
Federalist No. 10	Review it now
Transhumanism	Review it now
Kolkata	Review it now

Ireland articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	5	4	14	7			30
FL				3			3
GA	3	4	29	50			86
B	30	170	281	322		1	804
C	18	77	216	526		1	838
Start	8	300	1,815	8,957		32	11,112
Stub		11	784	14,185		379	15,359
List		12	226	625	71	2	936
Category					6,460		6,460
Disambig			2	53	66		121
Portal		1					1
Project					2		2
Template		17	5	143	539		704
NA				4	19		23
Assessed	64	596	3,372	24,875	7,157	415	36,479
Unassessed			1	4		383	388
Total	64	596	3,373	24,879	7,157	798	36,867

Picture of the day

Laughing Kookaburra Photo: JJ Harrison Archive – More featured pictures...

This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Geological Survey of Ireland Postage stamps and postal history of Tristan da Cunha Postage stamps and postal history of Lebanon Postage stamps and postal history of Cyprus P. Felix Ganz Postage stamps and postal history of New Zealand List of British post offices abroad Masthead (publishing) Oriental Philatelic Association of London Postage stamps and postal history of Antigua List of people on stamps of Italy Calvin Waters Christian Gilmer belt Paddy Roy Bates Blacksod Bay Nyassa Company Postage stamps and postal history of Togo Gregory B. Salisbury Meter stamp

Cleanup Hildebrand & Wolfmüller Postage stamps and postal history of Malta Gaza flotilla raid Merge Semi-postal Pobal Chill Chomáin Policing of the Corrib gas protests Add Sources Mulready stationery Galway List of baronies of Ireland Wikify Postal codes in Sri Lanka Neopost web-enabled stamps Chalky paper Expand Irish people MEPSI Derry

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion.

Heroes Welcome

Hi Thanks for your help and advice, Heroes Welocme is a collection of over 40 communities spread across the UK and Perhaps a little like Wikipedia in that we are an informal grouping so as a voluntary admin my role is perhaps a little similar to yours. I have read the conditions and do understand the need to be objective and neutral, hopefully this is reflected in the quality of the article. Having spoken to our sister organistanions, the major Uk military charities, I undertsand that they have either had to pay an officer to learn Wiki or a professional company to prepare an article on their behalf which seems less appropriate. Again Many thanks for the advice and I will try to sort the logo . Best regs Fwe506 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Having people edit Wikipedia articles for you is highly frowned upon but I sure it happens without us knowing or being tracable. Besides the WP:COI aspects I mentioned on the MCQ page, you should possibly also read WP:NOT especially WP:NOTPROMOTION which applies in your case. Articles should be written because the topic is notable and not for other reasons. We are looking for editors who are interested in contributing to articles in a constructive manner, I'm not saying you won't, in a wide range of topics or even a narrow one that they have knowledge of. However, coming to Wikipedia just to write an article to promote or make your organisation known is not really helpful in the long run and does not promote a longer term positive editing experience for you; you are here and then you're gone but it happens. I would encourage you to edit because you like it not just to promote an organisation you happen to belong to. Consider what your editing contributions will be in 12 months time? It can be a rewarding experience. Anyway, good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again many thanks for the advice and I will and do take a wider view so will continue add to Wikipedia as and when possible. Thanks Fwe506 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Script testing

Hi, thanks for your patience in testing the upload script. Could I ask you a favour – would you mind also trying out actually uploading a file? It worked for me in Firefox and Chromium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I

I am just talking what is happening and somebody may add the contents to the United StatesPostal Service article. Eveyone knows we talk and it is not news, but let me add this in a different title thus not news -- GoShow (...............) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If this topic is something encyclopaedic which may be used as a reference within the article and would add something of value to the article you could discuss it. In that case you can link to an external link with the subject you which to discuss. All your post is, is a promotion to get people to contact their representative and that sort of canvassing has no place here. When and if these proposals are implemented it may be a useful addition for a mention in the article itself. ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you--GoShow (...............) 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Central ky.jpg

I had uploaded an image for "Central Kentucky", of which I had obtained permission from the image's creator (a Kentucky State gov't agency), and which, I'm fairly certain, I went to great lengths to indicate, appropriately, and discovered, today, that it had been "speedy deleted" by "mabdul" 21:14, 29 December 2011, and that "ww2censor (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)" indicated there was a copyright issue. There was no "speedy deleted" indicator on the "Central Kentucky" page, which is now pretty much void of anything relevant. I can replace the photo, but I would have to dig around for the e-mail from which I had obtained permission from the aforementioned agency. Please advise as to what I should do, if anything. Thank you.

Skaizun (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Actually the image you refer to was deleted by Fastily with the note that it was a: Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission, so I doubt permission was even indicated but you could ask him. He is a decent guy who know his stuff. Image deletion notices are not usually places in the articles but on the image files themselves and the original uploader is notified. However, we don't actually accept the say so of uploaders, some of whom have unfortunately been untruthful, so we request that you ask the copyright holder to directly verify their permission with our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The image can then be restored by them if you tell them the exact original file name for the copyright holder to refer to. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your response, especially after presenting the details of the deletion, I'll never waste my time doing anything like that, again, especially as the process is convoluted and untrusting, not to mention that it allows any troll or vigilante - - however "decent" or well-intended - - to report or remove content without so much as notifying the contributor, much less that the vast majority of content on Wikipedia is impossible to verify. I went to the trouble of finding a relevant photo, contacting the owner, and getting permission to use the image, and then had it rejected, regardless of the reason, which makes editing Wikipedia not worth my time and trouble, any longer, as I would not make willy-nilly changes. There needs to be a mechanism to identify trolls, newbies, good contributors, et al. When a system chastises or otherwise repudiates an intelligent individual for doing the right thing, then the system needs to be changed; I won't hold my breath on that. Skaizun (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have yourself pointed out some of the very reasons why some processes have become more stringent. In the past editors were able to add images and prose with little or no oversight and while I am certain some of that still happens today, there is increased vigilance by volunteer editors and bots to monitor some of the issues you mention. I am sure you agree that we should be wary because not all editors are truthful, don't provide reliable sources and make false licencing claims. While years ago we used to accept uploads in good faith third party images need to be verified by the copyright holder and your image would stay if the copyright holder confirmed their permission but you did not know we are so strict otherwise you could easily have got them to provide the permission directly to the OTRS team. We have seen false permissions claimed by uploaders and for that reason we now request a direct verification. We also appreciate the work of constructive editors. It is not that we don't trust you, chastise you or repudiates you, or that we suggest you are lying but we need to verify what you say is accurate and truthful in regard to images uploaded. I am sure you can appreciate that prose can be relatively easily checked if a source are provided. It is of course your choice at what level you contribute, be it willy-nilly changes, extensive rewrites of existing article or the creation of new ones, we appreciate your contribution no matter their size or apparent importance. Anything that improves the encylopaedia is welcome. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Positioning of Toponomy

You accused me of "removing" a section "I didn't like". I did not do that. I didn't remove it, and I do like it. The piece on Toponomy is interesting but is arcane to most readers and is objectively less important than a general history of the town. Its current positioning therefore, above the history for the town, is unwarranted. This article on Wicklow was taken from Stub by me years ago and I've contributed anonymously (Geography, Growth of Town, Meaning of Cill Mantain, Story of Mannteach, History of Black Castle, Presence of Abbey Ruins, Presence of Norman Names, References and story relating to the 1641 rebellion, atrocities carried out by Coote etc.) for years only recently taking on this ID. I've laid out my reason (again) for its positioning further down the page. I Invite you to justify your undoing of the considered (and correct IMO) movement of the section. Het Masteen (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are correct, you moved the section and did not remove it. I must have been too tired when I made that revert. So I'm sorry, I have reverted my revert. Indeed, the article has been improved significantly over the last few years. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Need Example

Hi, I was sent the following message (below). I am currently trying to get an email from the true owner of this photo so I can have it included on the new page I created. I was told by another editor to tag it as CC-BY-SA. So I am thinking when I get the notice of permission and send it through the OTRS process I will be good to go.

Is it possible for you to send me what you consider to be a perfectly cited image? That would be very helpful.

Thanks for all of the work that you do File:Nextant 400XT CFG.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NP1985 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 February 2012

Happy to help. All you have to do is get the copyright holder, who may not actually be the owner of the image unless it was a work-for-hire situation, to verify their permission to our OTRS Team by email to use their image under a free licence. Tell them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You can't just tag it CC-BY-SA because you don't know that the copyright holder will release it under that licence, which they may or may not do, so let's hope they agree. When OTRS team are satisfied with the permission they will add an OTRS Ticket to the image to show the permission and licence has been verified. If by any chance the image get deleted before the permission arrives don't worry as the image will be restored at that time. Make sure the copyright holder quotes the full and proper name of the image. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful, and thank you for the time you took to respond. I do my best to be compliant and helpful feedback is always appreciated.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.124.97 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive links

Dead links are a continuing problem, many times when going over an article I've found potentially productive links that are neither alive nor archived, so sometimes when I find a link that has a reasonable potential to become dead, I check it to see if it has been archived, and if not, I attempt to archive it using WebCite; but if it is archived at Internet Archive, I say why waste the work, why not put the archive data in there now. I notice that the Cite template has a switch that can be set for whether the original url is alive or not. An additional problem is that sometimes links are not dead, but the data on the page has significantly changed, sometimes eliminating the very thing for which it was cited. So in my own work, I try to remember to archive all important references that have a reasonable potential for going dead, in other words not Google Books. I am taken by surprise sometimes, such as when all of the U.S. Interior Dep't disappeared about 2001, or when the National Biological Information Infrastructure went down 15 January 2012. Overall, I think that editors should pay more attention to archiving. As to why I didn't put the archiving data into the Cite template, I was in a hurry (called to dinner) and could not remember the switch to say original url active, and forbore to look it up. --Bejnar (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable enough explanation. I too am aware of the sudden disappearance of some links, though I will likely wait until the links go dead rather then search out the archive now. Good luck and thanks for the reply. ww2censor (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)