User talk:Dapi89
Retired
Had enough of wasting my time trying to improve this place, and getting blocked for a pathetic reason, which is completely unjustified. Dapi89 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dapi89 - these images fail both WP:NFCC#10c ánd WP:NFCC#8 - even if you would satisfy WP:NFCC#10c you can not include the images. These images simply can not be used on these pages, there is no need to keep them there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Re edit summary; non-free content isn't allowed to violate our policies while a discussion takes place about whether it violates our policies or not. There was no pressing need to retain the content. Instead of seeking discussion, you sought to edit war. I would ask you to please reconsider your departure. This is an unfortunate event, but it shouldn't end a career. Your contributions to the mainspace here have been invaluable. Don't end it over something like this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Good call on the block, Dirk. Dapi89, you were repeatedly told that these images do need a fair-use rationale before inserting. You did not go on and place that, you choose to revert and revert. This is not the way forward. These images clearly fail WP:NFCC#10c - no rationale for this use. Not that a rationale would be enough - they also fail WP:NFCC#8 - they are here purely decorative. Please reconsider your edits. Thanks Goldblooded (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Until you've stopped behaving like the snivelling little child you are, and can get your articles to stick on wikipedia, much less secure anyone’s respect, I have little to say to you. Other than perhaps; that is a sure fine way to make enemies. You might want to grow up, and come back in two or three years depending on how long it takes you to mature. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- This last comment by Goldblooded is somewhat gratuitous and unnecessarily inflames the situation: totally unnecessary when it does not concern you in the first place. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed -- Goldblooded, there's absolutely no need to cruelly pile on. @Hammersoft, the image was in the article for months. A few more days could have kept a valuable contributor on Wikipedia; we weren't in danger of getting sued, and there's a reason we have a policy named "ignore all rules." Yes, the images probably should not be used, at least in that article – but taking the time to kindly and personally (a template? I'm hoping you've heard of WP:DTTR...) discuss the reasons why could have greatly changed this ending. In the future, I think you and Δ should consider a much lighter approach, especially to those who have written so much for the 'pedia. Very respectfully, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a copyright violation, ed17. Though we have WP:IAR, there are certain things that you can not ignore. This is something which flows out of a Foundation resolution. The burden is on the editor wishing to include the media. We do not retain a violation of copyright while discussing it (and this is a clear violation of copyright, there is no need to discuss it). An explanation was given in the edit summary, and maybe templating is 'harsh', that still does not mean that you then can just re-insert the copyright violation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dirk, while it was certainly an unambiguous NFCC violation, it probably was not a copyvio. However, I'm not a lawyer, and, so far as I know, you're not either, so I don't think throwing around that kind of terminology is helpful in this case. However, regardless, such edit warring really is not warranted; IAR is nice, but the content really was unambiguously in violation, and so the removal was right and proper (and, as an aside, not subject to the three revert rule). We could argue that the issue was not dealt with perfectly by Delta/others involved, and there may be a case there (I have no opinion at this time), but the point remains that Dapi89 was clearly very much in the wrong. I was going to say that I considered the block a little long, but, considering Dapi89's previous block log, it is possibly appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually not so sure it's a copyright violation. Crown copyright expires 50 years after creation or publication (depending on whether one considers them artistic works or not), and these unit crests have expired under either requirement. Unless the RAF has protected the images with Letters Patent, then they have no control over the reproduction of the image (which appears to be why the images are treated as FU here). Unless it can be demonstrated that they are protected by Letters Patent, then they should be tagged with {{PD-UKGov}}. FWIW, I've contacted the MoD to see if they can clarify whether these unit crests are so protected. Regardless, we could use a better source than simply stating "Royal Air Force."
- Given that Dapi's last block was nearly 2 years ago, 2 weeks is a bit long, and does not serve the purpose of the block (i.e., to stop the problem). Especially given that Δ made no attempt to discuss the issue (slapping a template on a talk page doesn't count) and the block came after only a couple hours of activity. I feel this was excessive. Moreover, if one had simply looked at the terms of Crown copyright, they would have found what I did (that the images are almost certainly PD with no restrictions whatsoever) and we could have avoided this whole mess.
- Dapi, I am disappointed to see you go. I hope you'll reconsider. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that Dapi was in the wrong – under the information we knew then, the images were clearly decorative. That's not my point. The point is that taken together, everyone's actions drove a normally good-natured editor, one who has written fantastic articles, off the project. If that's not a reason to examine and modify your methods, then I don't know what is. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with The ed - Dapi can be hot-headed but did not deserve two weeks in the cooler for a relatively small technical infringement, and with very little discussion before the plug was pulled. Edit Warring? I have seen far worse behaviour go unpunished, or let go with minimal penalty: the generally high standard and value of Dapis work should also have been taken into consideration by Beetstra. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate all this being pointed out. The individual who decided it was better to block than discuss shouldn't be an administrator. Any who, I dropped in to put the squirt straight (above) and read these messages, but this won't change anything now or in the long run. To enforce an indefinite absence, I shall seek a block of this account in kind upon expiry. People like Beetstra really are not worth the time and effort. Its rather annoying that someone who, it seems, has contributed very little of value to wikipedia can make absurd decisions and get away with it. It kinda reminds me of a quote by Adolf which applies to this case far more aptly than his own; along the lines of " those who remain after the battle are of little value, for the worthy have already fallen"....naturally, I hope the list of exceptional editors in the MilHist project, a couple of whom have commented here, carry on their good work and force this place to work properly. I hope I’ve helped a little in my four years here and am still hopeful it has not all been in vain. Over and out. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more with The ed - Dapi can be hot-headed but did not deserve two weeks in the cooler for a relatively small technical infringement, and with very little discussion before the plug was pulled. Edit Warring? I have seen far worse behaviour go unpunished, or let go with minimal penalty: the generally high standard and value of Dapis work should also have been taken into consideration by Beetstra. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Dapi, I haven't had much to do with you but I've found you kind and courteous. I hope you change your mind.Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
@Minorhistorian - this is not a 'relatively small technical infringement' - the use of the image on that page was not fair-use. It would not be fair-use with rationale, it is not fair-use without rationale. If a non-free image is used, which is not fair-use, then that use of that image is a violation of copyright. The use of these images on Adlertag is ornamental, and non-free images can not be used in such a way. Dapi89. To quote the first sentence under this edit-window: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.". That is hence what happened - the use is not fair-use, it hence is a copyright violation, and hence removed. You were warned that way, but I am sorry, this is an enforcement of a policy, which is built upon a Foundation Resolution, which is built upon copyright laws. The Foundation Resolution is stricter than the law, but this violated the policy, and the Resolution.
@Dapi89, I see you are a very productive editor, a very valuable editor. You are very knowledgeable in this field. But do realise, this use was a clear and plain violation of policy/resolution - pushing to keep the violation stand is never the way forward.
@The ed17: My blocks are not meant to drive away established editors, but my edits are meant to solve problems which violate policies, and my blocks are implemented when I see editors repeatedly violating said policies after being warned. The point is, there is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy/resolution there. That was explained, at first with a note that the fair-use rationale was missing, but then it was determined that it also was used in an ornamental way - non-free material can not be used in that way. I agree, that should be discussed. But such violations can not be left standing while discussing - these images violate policy. I am very willing to discuss, explain, I may even be convinced that I am wrong, or that images are misstagged as non-free - that is all fine. But ornamental use of images that are tagged as non-free is not allowed. The problems first have to be solved, then re-insertion can be considered. I would never have blocked for this long if this was 'just' a case of a missing rationale, but even if it is just that, it is never a reason to edit war. Maybe one does not understand the reason for removal, maybe someone disagrees, but if something is removed with an edit summary trying to explain the problem, then you might revert if you do not understand, but re-removal then should trigger the thought that maybe there is something wrong, and in this case, there was something really wrong.
Dapi89, do you understand that using the image in that way (an image tagged as non-free, used ornamentally) is a violation of our WP:NFCC policy, and a violation of a Resolution of the Foundation? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did not deliberately do anything wrong. I did not insert that image because I chose to do so over any sort of violation. I did not re-insert it with the belief that a block may be possible. I did not believe a block of any kind to be possible as long as no fourth revert was made (and it was not). I do not take any interest in this sort of thing, so I know nothing about it. You assumed that I understood the problem. I did not. I added an image that had been on Wikipedia for months. It was not challenged at GA or anytime thereafter for four months and I did not upload the image in the first place, and still don’t understand why it is still here if it is such a serious violation. Maybe it is important enough to block good editors over its use, and not as important to remove it from Wikipedia altogether. Seems strange.
- Anyway, the issue is moot. I am no longer interested in arguing or reverting over this issue, simply because my decision to retire supersedes it. And that decision is final. I shall return in a week or so to make some withdrawals with regard to my own contributions, and then I shall ask for this account to be permanently disabled. This is just one altercation too many. It is not a petty threat, it is a simple statement of fact and intent from a very tired editor. You give, and you give, and you get clobbered with this. Well, that’s nice. Anyway, I’ve talked enough and I'm starting to bore myself. Dapi89 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bismark1040.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bismark1040.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This sucks
Well, this sucks. I double-checked that you had finally been awarded the Oak Leaves, then came here to offer a congratulations and a thanks for all your high-quality work. I hope you decide to return quickly. :( Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- This sucks "Big Time"! Dapi, retiring is unacceptable, unacceptable is not an option. Come back please. We need you MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:STUKA OVER SEDAN.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:STUKA OVER SEDAN.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Dapi, I haven't had much to do with you but I've found you kind and courteous. I hope you change your mind.Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello dear sir. Dapi89, was with great satisfaction that I saw the aircraft Beaufighter TF X, RD253, ex: BF-13 Portuguese naval aviation, but wrongly you mention that the plane was from Portugal to England in 1965, the truth is that this plane was stolen from the Portuguese people but already in the 1970s in which it was to the RAF museum without this giving anything in return for our museum of AR, in Portugal as such I consider it a theft at the same time was also sent to another museum in Africa South, they in turn will have to change our museum a SPITIFIRE two planes and a de Havilland Vampire, is to be regretted the attitude of the RAF museum to stay with a historic and rare aircraft and not giving anything in return, if I had no-shame on this guy gave back the plane to Portugal where he belongs and has always been ours, it is unfortunate that attitude on the part of the RAF museum shame in the face !!!!
carlos sotero FIREMAN
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
Don't look back
I wanted to thank You for the advice about the book on Kursk and to my surprise I found this! I hope You read these lines. I am extremely sorry that You retired. I hope You reconsider it. What happened show once again the limits and the main faults of a project like wikipedia, or, better, of some people that are allowed the authority of blocking and stopping some of its best contributors. WIth all my support, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
Very Sorry
...thAT You retired! I wanted to thank You for the advice about the book "Kursk" and I found that You retired! I do not know exactly what happened, but I think that in wikipedia there is something wrong if things like that happens! It seems that there are people that enjoy to show their authority or to impose their point of view, something so far from the dialogue that should exist in such a place. I hope You change Your mind
--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mud, Blood and Wood, B.E.F Logistics during Third Ypres
Thanks, Dapi, do you have a reference? Oh, hang on is it here? Fields of Battle: Terrain in Military History (GeoJournal Library) by Peter Doyle and Matthew R. Bennett.At £166 it'll have to wait!Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Crusaders
You make me laugh, crusade! :) But maybe You are right... In some wasy I am a crusaders... Thanks a lot for Your advice, I have and I know that book (actually I have two copies, realizing it only after I hade bought them)... I keep on my crusade privately, and I just released a book with the latest and most updated informations about Lydia LItvyak... some of her victories versus the Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwaders operating in her area (JG 3 and JG 52) beeing not confirmed... have a look there if I do not break wikipedia rules... http://www.calameo.com/books/00079629725fc0c6b5607
Merry Christmas!! --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hermann Graf
Hi How are you doing? I hope all is well. I assume you refer to
- Jochim, Berthold K (1998). Oberst Hermann Graf 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten Ein Jagdfliegerleben. Rastatt, Germany: VPM Verlagsunion Pabel Moewig. ISBN 3-8118-1455-9.
The book is actually written by Franz Kurowski (under a different name). I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***. May I recommend
- Bergström, Christer; Antipov, Vlad and Sundin, Claes (2003). Graf & Grislawski—A Pair of Aces. Hamilton MT: Eagle Editions Ltd. ISBN 0-9721060-4-9.
Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Adolf Galland
I am going to try to bring your work of the Galland article further up the quality scale. I think it deserves a higher than GA rating. I hope this is in your interest as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope that you return to editing
Hi Dapi, I just saw that you'd retired. I hope that you return to editing - you've written many excellent articles (the amazingly good RAF Coastal Command during World War II, for instance). Thanks a lot for your contributions. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Gidday
Hiya Dapi, good to see you back - good work on Johnnie Johnson. BTW worth a laugh Cheers ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)