User talk:Ecphora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

My contributions[edit]

Articles I have written or substantially expanded are listed on my User page Ecphora (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lufengosaurus pics[edit]

Nice addition to the article! Keep up the good work. :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. You might also like the photos of Sinraptor I added. Ecphora (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kraus[edit]

Nice work on Hans P. Kraus, I've added what little I can - for your approval of course. Twospoonfuls (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 4 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hans P. Kraus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of Turkey[edit]

Updated DYK query On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Turkey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stamp images[edit]

Say, can I get you to do two things? One, tag definitely-PD stamps like Image:Sherwin.jpg with {{PD-stamp}} and it will eventually get moved to commons (empire stamps are all crown copyright, so safely PD after 50 years), and categorize the less-certainly-PD stamps like Image:Duloz9.jpg into Category:Postage stamp images so we don't lose track of them. Stan (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do, Stan. Ecphora (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Stan- There are only two subcategories in Category:Postage stamp images, Fair use images and PD images. Many of the stamp images I've posted are PD in the US because they were published pre 1923, but are not necessarily PD worldwide. See Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. These don't belong in either subcategory. Shouldn't there be a subcategory for PD-US on Category:Postage stamp images? Ecphora (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
To me it would depend on how many there are likely to be. If there's only ever going to be a handful at any one time, pending research on countries' stamp copyrights, then I would just throw them in the main category manually, not bother with a subcategory. If they are going to accumulate past 30-40 or so, then a new template/subcategory starts to make sense. I think the former case is more likely, because people in the other wikis are motivated to do whatever work it takes to figure out what images are OK for commons. Stan (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new template- Template:Stamp-PD-US-1923-abroad for stamps issued abroad before 1923 that are PD in the US. I did this because someone created Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States which contains mostly 19th century photographs, and I wanted to separate out the pre-1923 stamps from the other images in that category. I also simultaneously created a new category Category:Stamp images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States and included that in the template. I then made that a subcategory of Category:Postage stamp images because that was getting to be a large group of images. This eliminates the need to categorize such pre 1923 stamps with Category:Postage stamp images. Finally, I made Category:Stamp images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States a subcategory of Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States. If there are other things that need to be fixed, please let me know. Ecphora (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexico DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 26 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Mexico, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beijing Museum of Natural History[edit]

Thank you for pointing out that deletion! I almost certainly would have missed it otherwise.

My knowledge of Chinese characters is scant, but I can assure you that that is the correct place. Some of the initial characters are blocked out by trees on the right-hand side of the image, so it could be that whatever the anon IP address read was incomplete. I left a note on their talk page saying that in future that they should not simply delete something outright, but to at least put a "dubious" tag on it so that the issue can be clarified.

And just out of interest's sake, you might be interested in some of the other dino pics I shot while at that museum, which can be seen here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Captmondo/gallery#Beijing_Museum_of_Natural_History_.28May_2008.29

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your fine photos. As I noted on your page, the sauropod logo at top of the building should have been a clue. Thanks for the great photos. Ecphora (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Very fine photos! But they should be deleted and inserted again because of the wrong text above (wrong place). Greetings from Germany de:Benutzer:Reiner Stoppok --77.134.72.241 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) --77.134.72.241 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) "The greatest traveller does not know where he is going". (Hu-ch'iu Tzu to Lieh Tzu, in: Arthur Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China) --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

sandbox[edit]

A title of WikiProject Philately: Draft article for the American Philatelist was a namespace violation. I have moved the article to User:Ecphora/sandbox which is a perfectly good place for it. You should announce its existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Second sandbox[edit]

/sandbox2

Art Deco stamps DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 27 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art Deco stamps, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Postal history by country template[edit]

Did you remember to add any articles that were not already in the Template:Postalhistorybycountry any of the articles you removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately/List of country articles containing postal sections? I spotted Eastern Rumelia, Madeira & KUT but there may be more. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying, but I can't figure out how that template works; for example, even though I added it to Postage stamps of the French Colonies, that page doesn't show. What am I missing? Ecphora (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Or British Central Africa? Ecphora (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added those two. I do not see that you made any edits to the template. Perhaps you abandoned the idea. Just tell me what needs doing if you are not happy doing it yourself or if there are more I missed. Have a look at the edits I made today and you will see the format to be used. BTW, did you mean to delete Upper Senegal and Niger because there is now no link to the non philatelic article that includes these stamps? I though we were using this page as a holding place until stand-alone articles were done, but you seem to have deleted an article link where the article is still not completely philatelic. Am I confused or missing something there? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I was in the process of creating Postage stamps and postal history of Upper Senegal and Niger when you looked; it's there now. I'll let you know if places need to be added to the template, I'd rather not edit the template itself. Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. BTW, according to the guidelines Wikipedia:BOLDTITLE, the lead section should quote the full title of the article. Do you think it is possible to do that with these? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Kind of hard to work in a title like Postage stamps and postal history of X without using a generic sentence like "This is a survey of the postage stamps and postal history of X," which doesn't add anything. I looked at a number of country articles at random; most did not include the full title in the lead paragraph. Some did start with intros like "This is a survey of the postage stamps and postal history of Estonia." Early on, I included a similar intro which was edited out for being "non-encyclopedic" as I recall. Ecphora (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It might seem a little difficult to work the actual title in but guidelines state: The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence so maybe we can work out a better sounding intro than "This is a survey of the postage stamps and postal history of X." Maybe Stan has some ideas. ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Obock[edit]

Hee hee, I quick-edited the main article in case you were casting an eye upon it. :-) If you're doing Africa, I'll pick some non-Africa then. Stan (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok; I just pick 'em randomly. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stamp images[edit]

I noticed that many of the stamps you uploaded are copyright and therefore need a fair use rational added. The stamp template is Template:Stamp rationale. Hope that helps as otherwise they may be deleted for not having a FU rational. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I did include a short rationale covering most of the points in the upload without using the template. So far, no problem. If someone objects, I'll address this. Ecphora (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There are already three image warnings on this page alone, so I suggest you just do it rather than wait. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Those were all posted when I forgot to add the fair use "license" from the dropdown menu on the upload page (duh!). Once I added that, I have had no problems. Ecphora (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Uploading is not the problem, even if you don't use a rationale during uploading. I usually add a rationale afterwards but there are people trolling around looking for and finding images that don't have a ratioanle and marking them for deletion. That will be the issue for you, but you can address it at that time if you get a warning notice. If not, you may one day find an image is gone and you have to go through the whole upload process from scratch, something I am sure you want to avoid. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not explaining this very well. All my uploads have (where needed) a fair use explanation, although I have not used the template. However, if I don't click on the fair use tag when I upload, bots will very quickly (almost immediately) post it for deletion, even though it contains an explanation. The template includes a fair use tag, so the bots ignore an image posted with it. So far, no one has quibbled with the actual explanations I have used. That's my experience, anyway. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct that each image contain a non-free tag, so that means it will not get tracked down so quickly. However, the inclusion of a fair use explanation is not regarded as good enough these days. Proper use of a template with all parameters filled in is what is necessary nowadays which is why I pointed you to the proper templates. By not doing it as recommended now you will find that eventually the images will be tagged as not having a suitable fair-use ratioanle template, and someone will have to do it later if they spot it. I notice many tagged images being deleted because the original editors have moved on, are offline, or whatever the reason and no one else does it because they have no specific interest in it. This discussion is just a friendly reminder to do it now rather than have to rush and do it later, or go through the whole upload process again even having to replace the images in the article if they have been removed from there also, but what you decide is of course up to you. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. Will do. Ecphora (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All in your own time. For now there is no pressure. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox 3[edit]

/sandbox3

BTW, it's more convenient to have sandbox pages as subpages of your user page, rather than your usage talk page, then each sandbox page can have its own discussion (unless your intent was to make sure that couldn't happen :-) ). In general your requested image page is good; but imho Scott numbers are not a good choice for identification, because a) only US editors are likely to have Scott catalogs, b) the numbers are ambiguous with SG, Michel, etc, numbers, and c) Scott changes them from time to time. The naming scheme I use is <type>_<country>_<year>_<denom>_<additional>, where <type> is usually "Stamp", <year> is four digits, and <additional> is frequently unnecessary, there being only one stamp of that denomination in that year. You can see it in action at User:Stan Shebs/Gallery/Philately. The name is long, but remember, 4 million images plus, uploads overwriting ambiguous image names ever more likely. Stan (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was going to bring up a discussion on the use of stamp catalogue numbers. We may even be on shaky ground using them. I will post about this later on the main project talk page. Otherwise, generally a good idea. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Stan. As may be apparent, I had little concept of how or where to create a sandbox when I set this up. As for the stamp images, I ordered a number of stamps which I'll add to articles. I'll also work on finalizing the images wanted page. Ecphora (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Philatelic category[edit]

Did we actually agree to get rid of the Category:Technical aspects of philately? I recall a discussion but don't recall any decision being made. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was one comment in favor and it seemed fairly non-controversial. Ecphora (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiian Missionaries, Postage Stamps of the US?[edit]

The Hawaiian Missionaries were issued by the Kingdom of Hawaii, which wasn't a territory of the United States until at least 42 years later. It was an independent kingdom, recognized as such by England and France until its overthrow in 1893. A Provisional Government was then formed "to rule until annexation by the United States."Fconaway (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct of course. These stamps were, however, issued in what is now the United States, so it's not technically incorrect to add the Postage stamps of the United States category, much like the fact that Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States is included in the Postage stamps of the United States category. In any event, this is just a question of useful indexing, and these stamps are closely associated with the US by philatelic tradition -- for example, the Scott Catalogue includes the Hawaii stamps just after the US listing. Ecphora (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is true, seen as a matter of custom, convenience and useful indexing, which is a useful way of looking at this. On the other hand, zoologists wouldn't simply classify an extinct animal with the one which displaced it.Fconaway (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather ambivalent on this one but see both your views. Maybe Stan has some thoughts on the matter. ww2censor (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty is a side issue, of course. However unjust the takeover of Hawaii was, it's unlikely that a small island nation such as Hawaii or Puerto Rico could have defied imperial strategy or Realpolitik at the end of the Nineteenth Century. The McKinley Tariff spelled doom for Hawaiian independence.
My real concern is that the postal history of Hawaii is getting lost in the shuffle. We have no article on that subject, although some of it is squeezed into the Hawaiian Missionaries article. The word "Hawaii" doesn't appear anywhere in the article on Postage stamps and postal history of the United States. "Kingdom of Hawaii" does not appear in the list of stamp issuing entities, although some 97 stamps were issued according to Gibbons. Hawaii was not a protectorate or territory until much later. Fconaway (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Floyd you make a good case for an separate Hawaii article that should possible be linked to the USA article. ww2censor (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely we need an article on Hawaii. So much to write; so little time. Ecphora (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stamps of Turkey[edit]

Hello Michael Romanov. I see you are translating the Postage stamps and postal history of Turkey article, which I have worked on, into Russian. Fantastic! Keep up the good work. Ecphora (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for welcoming and encouraging the Russian translation of the article! Actually, the article's primary translator is User:Leonid Dzhepko, a prominent member of the Russian Wikipedia Philately Project. My part is to add some additional info and do cosmetic improvements. If you noticed, we experience a big problem with the images in this article because most of them have not been uploaded at Commons. Is there any chance you can do this for the benefits of all other language Wikipedia projects? I greatly appreciate your contribution and cooperation. Sincerely, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Corrientes[edit]

Are you going to add some stamp info to the Corrientes article? Otherwise I wonder why you added it to the List of country articles containing postal sections when it contains no philatelic content. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to add the Corrientes (province) article, not the city article. I corrected this. Ecphora (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That works. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot that I already transferred the philatelic info on Corrientes (province) to the Postage stamps and postal history of Argentina article. There's too much to keep track of here. Ecphora (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed that does happen, even with a long watchlist. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Postage stamps and postal history of Tuscany[edit]

Updated DYK query On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Tuscany, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cunard (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this was an excellent article! Thank you for bringing it to Wikipedia! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conch[edit]

Thanks for your follow-up on my desperate and clueless Conch edit! I assume you're satisfied, as i am, that your fixes solved all my missteps. I have a section User:Jerzy#The Art of the Stub, and this has me thinking about User:Jerzy#My Most Successful Clueless Edits ... tho i suspect that i'm unaware of most of those.... Pleased to have crossed edits with you.
--Jerzyt 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an interesting example of how good faith edits can go horribly wrong, I've preserved it here:

The Conch article originally had the following sentence:

"At least 65 species of Strombidae are extant, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record."

Some editor apparently didn't understand the word "extant" and changed it to "extinct" so the sentence read:

"At least 65 species of Strombidae are extinct, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record."

This, of course, is meaningless. Jerzy came along and tried to make sense of it and surmised that what was meant was that 65 species recently went extinct, which was a reasonable guess. He modified the sentence to read:

"At least 65 species of the Strombidae family became extinct recently enough for their shells to have been collected without fossilization, and several times as many species exist only as fossils."

Unfortunately, this was incorrect and injected new confusion. Some searching on Google focusing on the "65 species" reference led to articles stating that 65 species of Strombidae are living. Some searching in the article's history then led to the discovery that "extinct" had originally read "extant". More authoritative articles indicated about 74 species are living. The sentence now reads:

"About 74 species of the Strombidae family are living, and a much larger number of species exist only in the fossil record." [with footnote reference] Ecphora (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. WP sucks (in the short run). WP rocks (in the long run). Never occurred to me before that the words were confusable.
    --Jerzyt 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Semicolons[edit]

It's just one of the basic rules of grammar. Don't worry about it, most people aren't very proficient at semicolon use since they're not very common these days. I had an English teacher in an honors-level college class tell us to not even bother with them since almost no one uses them properly anymore, lol.

But in case you're curious, here's the breakdown. An independent clause can be a full, stand-alone sentence by itself. A dependent clause cannot, and must be used in association with an independent clause. A semicolon can be used to join two independent clauses (though they can also be written as separate sentences), but a comma is used to join an independent clause and a dependent clause. So basically, if you can split it up into two sentences, you can use a semicolon. If you can't, use a comma instead. I can give you a few examples if you'd like, but I don't want to get all patronizing if you get it now, or figure that my teacher was right and that semicolons aren't worth the hassle, lol. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Tannu Tuva[edit]

I shortened the article title and tweaked your DYK hook. I hope I did a good job. Also, I think the actual sentence the hook is based on needs a citation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. What an awful standard. I guess it needs to be moved back then and the DYK fixed again. The article title wasn't included in the hook. I would recommend leaving it all be, at least until after the DYK, that title standard is ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand the title form is unwieldy, but it's been the subject of lots of discussion among the 6 or so (!) active philatelic editors. Thanks for the help. I will look for a proper citation. Regards.Ecphora (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I'll take a look at the hook. I guess the standardized title isn't so bad, but it's not the easiest thing to work into wikilinks... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Postage stamps and postal history of Tannu Tuva[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Tannu Tuva, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy of gastropods[edit]

Hello, I would like to hear your opinion at Talk:Classification and Nomenclator of Gastropod Families (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)#Name of the article. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Tuva1935.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tuva1935.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. Chris G Bot (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You've uploaded it to commons anyhow, where it was properly marked as a PD image, so I deleted the local version as a duplicate. Cheers, Amalthea 11:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:US 3766.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:US 3766.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a fair use rationale included. Ecphora (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a fair-use rationale on the main file page of any kind, neither in prose or by template, but I am entirely happy to keep this stamp if you include a rationale. I suggest you complete the template {{Stamp rationale}} and it will be fine but right now there is none. That is why I tagged it, not because I actually wanted it deleted. We did discuss this back in July 2008 and you were going to add rationales at that time but this one must have been slipped through the cracks. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The page with the image contains a discussion with the fair use rationale under the title "Summary". It also contains the template Non-free USGov-USPS stamp. You previously said this image was proper fair use. See User:Ww2censor/Fair use stamps#Properly used fair use stamps in stamp articles. I have changed the heading of the text to "Fair use justification." I also linked the article name where it is used, which was included but not linked. If you think some necessary information is missing from the explanation please let me know. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It is really better to use the template, as I suggested before, because one, maybe more, of the bots that troll through images for missing fair use rationales will better find the template than a prose version that is old style. I have added it myself as I had a bit of time, but right now I am trying to get rid of stamp images used improperly mostly in non-stamp articles. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brain freeze[edit]

I must have had a brain freeze while editing Treskilling Yellow, so you were correct to revert me. Thanks for spotting that. ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Brain freeze affects us all, unfortunately. Ecphora (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Turkey 607.jpg[edit]

File:Turkey 607.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Turkey 607.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Turkey 607.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sibyllenbuch fragment[edit]

Updated DYK query On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sibyllenbuch fragment, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods[edit]

Hi Ecphora, I really like your new Vasum horridum article. Well done! I also wanted to say that we strongly feel the absence of a paleontologist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. I mentioned to the Wikipedia community, and to Jimbo, in my talk at NYU this Saturday, that we need to look for one. We would be delighted to have you associated with us, even in the most loose and distant way! Therefore I am issuing you this invitation:

Wikiproject GastropodsGuilfordiayoka.jpg
I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods?
If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.


All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuphosolenus[edit]

Very nice new article Ecphora, a really worthwhile addition to the project. Many thanks! best wishes Invertzoo (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Block book[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Block book, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image help[edit]

{{helpme}} Thanks for your help. As you can see I am a newcomer. How do I go about getting images without violating copyright? I have identified a few but I'm not sure I can use them bearing in mind Wikipedia's guidelines. Diogenes1066 (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to this by the helpme template, I will reply on on Diogenes1066's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Diogenes1066 has written a couple of other stamp articles that could do with a little cleanup, if you have the time. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Exporta Cotton.jpg[edit]

Sorry I don't like to do this to a fellow philatelists but I nominated this image that you uploaded for deletion because it fails the fair-use criteria WP:NFCC#1 because a free replacement is available. In this case there are actually already four freely licenced images in the article Burelage so it fails the criteria and must be deleted. Unless you can tell me there is something particularly unique that no other free image can show it must go. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the image is justified as fair use because of the fact that it shows how the unique dark and dense burelage actually obscures the image of the stamp itself, a matter that is specifically discussed in the article, and is not addressed by the other images. Accordingly, I have added a further explanation of FU. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I assumed you would have some reasoning but, are there no other freely licenced stamps that shows this feature? If this is your case you must state that both in the fair-use rationale as the purpose AND in the article you must discuss this too otherwise the fair-use claim can be disputed. I really wish you would use the template that I told you about quite some time ago because it really makes matter so easy to see the different required fields and the readability is far superior than a text rationale. The way you write FUR is not good as there are missing required details; who is the author, what is the source, the description is lacking detail, and only now is the purpose detailed, but the article is not. The template is especially useful when, like me, one is looking at many image files for missing or improper details. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will try to use the template. But I disagree with your statement that "there are missing required details; who is the author, what is the source, the description is lacking detail, and only now is the purpose detailed, but the article is not." The explanation gives the source -- it's a scan of a postage stamp from Mexico -- beyond that, I don't know what to say on the "source". (Does it matter that I made the scan or someone scanned it for me?) I doubt anyone knows the "author" if that is distinct from the government of Mexico, which is mentioned. The article it is used in, Burelage, has always specifically been mentioned, and linked, in the image explanation. The explanation also has always stated that the "purpose" was to display the "the specific design style and character of this particular stamp and the unique burélage on it." I have now added the fact that the unique burelage obscures the stamp's design (something that is specifically discussed in the article); I am not aware of any comparable situation with burelage, but who knows? Is there anything still missing needed to keep the image? Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a rationale template and moved all your details into it. Please refine anything that seen missing or unnecessary. I hope you can see how easy it is to observe if all the different required information fields have been completed, which is not possible without carefully reading through a single paragraph of text. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. Ecphora (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

De nada. De rien. ww2censor (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadside[edit]

You're correct. I had it worded 'early American broadside,' but in the interest of space removed 'American.' It's better taking out the 'early' too, as you did. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ecphora. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GedUK  21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Allan H. Stevenson[edit]

Updated DYK query On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allan H. Stevenson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That is odd. It appears fine for me though, maybe its just a server lag (or some other computing term I don't understand). Nice work on the article by the way.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippopotamus[edit]

Restoring the full etymology to the lead makes the lead clunky and difficult to understand. Why not just leave it further down, where anyone who wants to know the etymology will find it without being hit with a big chunk of parenthesized etymology right away? --NellieBly (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the detailed etymology into a new section under "Taxonomy and origins" (which is appropriate as taxonomy articles standardly give the etymology of a new name), but I left the basic "Greek for river-horse" in the lead. I had to make several conforming changes and reorganizations. Ecphora (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mexico C195.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mexico C195.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Siphon - snout misunderstanding[edit]

Hello there Ecphora! I noticed you reverted my edit regarding the "siphon" in the S. alatus image caption in the Strombus article. I feel some clarification on the subject is necessary. Though it may seem similar in shape to the siphons commonly observed in other gastropods (e. g. Volutidae), the Strombidae present an extensible snout (and this is indeed the correct anatomical term), which contains their radula. This structure, differently from a siphon, is not an extension of the animal's mantle, but an actual part of their head-foot. Strombidae do possess a siphon, an independant structure which is usually quite inconspicuous and directly associated with the mantle. I'm absolutely certain that the structure which may be observed in the S. alatus image in the article is the snout. For a very detailed and richly illustrated anatomical study of strombid gastropods, please see this reference: Simone (2005): Comparative Morphological study of representatives of the three families of Stromboidea and the Xenophoroidea (Mollusca, Caenogastropoda), with an assessment of their phylogeny --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. This is between the eye stalks and thus must be the snout. Because other gastropods have similar projections that are in fact siphons, it might be useful to add some explanation to the anatomy discussion. Thanks.Ecphora (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that would make things clearer for the readers. As a matter of fact, I did a brief anatomical description that can be applied to almost all strombid articles in Strombus canarium. Do you think we could use it? There is also a description in Eustrombus gigas, but it is rather specific. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:3471A.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:3471A.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Chile C36.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Chile C36.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Chile C50.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Chile C50.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

King George V[edit]

See note about King George V on Admirals discussion page. GWillHickers (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

To start with, WP:TRIVIA is a guideline. You've only cited an essay. Further, you might actually try reading the essay you've cited as a defense for the restoration of that content: Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references. More specifically:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

  1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
  2. Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
  3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.

Can you answer yes to all 3 of those for each and every item you restored? I don't think so. In fact all but one are unsourced and that's only to a primary source. There is also no evidence of #3 in any of those that you restored since they're all unsourced, same with #1. So unless you can even begin to answer those 3 questions on an individual basis and provide citations they don't belong in the article. These are nothing more than name-drops of the subject. wikipedia is not a list of every time a subject has been name-dropped in a book, TV, or song.--Crossmr (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Frank[edit]

You first removed the link from the section and said it had "nothing to do with Free franks", which I found sort of amazing as the link had numerous examples and brief commentary on the items. After restoring the link and pointing out that it had much to do with Free franks, you reassert the claim, no explanation, and remark that I should take some advice sometime. The remark was uncalled for and certainly inappropriate as I often take advice. If there is a real issue here, kindly bring it to my attention. Now here's some advice. If you want to affect an outcome, you might want to try a little diplomacy first. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the Talk:Free Frank page. Ecphora (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative aspects of incunable[edit]

Hi. Where in the Incunabula Short Title Catalogue of the British Library did you get all the quantitative material from? I can't find most figures in the database. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that information was in the article before I edited it, and the edit you cite was made by User:DavidShaw. However, at least some of these numbers can be found by simple searching on the ISTC site. For example, searching "f" under format produces 8881 results (the article rounds this to 9000). I don't know how other data were derived. Ecphora (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Weasel[edit]

Curious why you reported my changes to Weasel as vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weasel&diff=421404365&oldid=421047432 I got rid of a statement that had no citations, revised it to be more accurate, and added a current link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.124.158 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. But I'm not sure the "Ask Abby"-type newspaper column by you cited qualifies as WP:RS. Maybe you could find a more authorative source to cite. Ecphora (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reggiedamien's revisions to Randy Cohen & Fake memoirs[edit]

Hi-- I removed mention of a self-published book in Fake memoirs, per WP guidelines-- why did you revert it? Besides the fact that it is self-published, I'm concerned that it may be self-promotion, as the user's [[1]] only concern the self-published title (oh, with one other spelling correction). mordicai. (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone else originally added that reference which I felt on balance contributed to the article. It does not violate WP Policy, however, because it is not cited as a source for facts in the book, but rather for the fact that such book has been published, which is permitted. See Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves ("Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves…") Ecphora (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Burelage.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Burelage.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sumanch (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Burelage.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Burelage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sumanch (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed copyright infringement Dooto Redd Foxx discography[edit]

Hey bunkie. Seriously, I am sick of Wikipedians looting my research, posting it without ANY citation and stealing my web-traffic. That list is formatted identically to my discography but is much newer than my list. It can therefore be easily inferred that it was stolen from me. When I posted that back in 2010 it was the only such list on the internet. What's my recourse? There must be a fair process to stop the merciless Wiki-thieving of my research. -Jose Fritz 98.114.246.200 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disputed copyright infringement Dooto Redd Foxx discography[edit]

HELLOOOOOOOOOO? Do you respond to questions about wiki-thieving? Wikipedia stole my research and posted it as it's own. Delete what you stole you bastards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.246.200 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Brosse Nice Poster 1910.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Brosse Nice Poster 1910.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Brosse Nice Poster 1910.jpg needs authorship information[edit]

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Brosse Nice Poster 1910.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

  • If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Ecphora}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
    or use the {{own}} template.
  • If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Philately in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Philately for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder to post some responses to the interview questions about WikiProject Philately. We have one set of responses already, but we'll need additional voices and experiences to make this Signpost article viable. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:James Hampton The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millennium General Assembly.tif[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Hampton The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations' Millennium General Assembly.tif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spanish Forger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Belgium Manuscripts and Illuminations from a European Perspective (Leuven, 2007), pp. 207-227). Catalog raisonné of works of the Spanish Forger.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Stamp catalog numbers[edit]

Based on your participation in this discusssion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8#Catalog numbers as references 3+ years ago you may want to comment on a renewed duscussion on the same topic. ww2censor (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Mauritius[edit]

File:Mauritius stamp.jpg was moved to the commons and you uploaded it some years ago. It says that it came from the David Feldman Mauritius sale in 1993 but when I look at the catalogue it is not on page 31. There is a different copy of the same stamp on page 39 with much fuller margins. I cannot find your stamp with the thin margins in this cataglogue. Can you explain this difference? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The stamp on page 39 is a POST PAID stamp, not a POST OFFICE stamp. For some reason the POST OFFICE one penny stamp is not shown on page 31 of the online catalog (which is blank) but it's there in the hard copy. Same for the two pence (page 33) BTW. Ecphora (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. Oh oh, I must be geting blind or sore eyes from wikiwork. Yeah, page 31 is blank in the online version. I'll have another look around but I don't think I have that catalogue myself though I do have some others from 93-94. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ecphora. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Postage stamps of the United States template[edit]

Last October User:Jax 0677 started this template Template:Postage stamps of the United States (plus some others one of which has already been deleted) but, I think mainly due to his lack of philatelic knowledge and how to construct complex templates, it remains a real mess with terrible structure and essentially useless with links just thrown around any old way. I eventually got some time to make something worthwhile and it is currently in a sandbox of mine at User:Ww2censor/sandbox#Template test. I'd appreciate your input on it and am asking some other philatelists their opinions. Suggestions accepted, such as additional links or formatting, on my talk page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)