User talk:Rodolph/Archive5

Anne Pigalle

Speedy deletion nomination of Anne Pigalle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anne Pigalle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Morbidactor (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of 3D artwork

When you upload photographs of 3D artwork, could you please choose a license for your photograph? See c:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art. In particular, if you could license File:Tomb of Peter, 1st Count de Salis-Soglio (1675-1749) in Coire, Grisons, in 2013.jpg, I'd appreciate it. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which tag then? And what about a 1-D part of a 3-D object? How do you define 3-d, as nothing is 1-d in actuality?Rodolph (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As they are your own photos, {{pd-self}} would suffice or you can licence using {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Nthep (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you all for the good advice.Rodolph (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawley Court, Middlesex in 1929.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dawley Court, Middlesex in 1929.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bullying me?Rodolph (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an estate photo, I find it unlikely this wasn't previously published. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to move it to Commons, at full resolution. Who would own the copyright for the photograph, if it isn't copyright expired. Would it be yourself or another family member who could e-mail in permission for us ? That will get it out of the way of Stefan2's rather over zealous obsession with deleting valuable images. Nick (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. I've sent in to 'permissions'. Rodolph (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi Sfan & Nick, any chance you could please have a look at the deletion of this file mentioned here? It seems sometimes that for all the efforts of trying to do good one gets nothing but the presumption of ill from often very nasty people?Rodolph (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Sfan00 IMG, it has been deleted because I was unable to prove it was anonymous, how is that supposed to be done, an impossible task, as nothing is ever really anonymous, unless perhaps done by God? What makes me so angry is that the enemy had earlier approved the photo on condition of it being made very low resolution on grounds of Fair Usage, but later for reasons of personal animosity towards me had changed their mind and demanded deletion. How does that help anyone? The photo was taken in 1929 and the house sold and demolished the same year. So now we have no house and no photo, well done Wikipedia!Rodolph (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not good, I think you should have a longer word with administrators about this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the encouragement and calm and good advice.Rodolph (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan00 IMG, it has happened again, something even more needlessly deleted : File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg (I don't understand, why do these people get a kick out of destroying clearly ok material?)Rodolph (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point here was that the question over anonymity had been recognised and the file size was accordingly reduced under FAIR USEAGE consideration. So why then was it deleted?Rodolph (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've found out who did it, before or during 1929, so no longer anon. Made by [Uxbridge] GAZETTE PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT, King & Hutchings, LTD, Uxbridge, No. 2368.Rodolph (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, alarming news from Stefan?

see

Conversation continues:

(Rodolph) The photograph of Dawley Court, in 1929 or before, was a professional photo: written on back is: GAZETTE PHOTOGRAPH COPYRIGHT, King & Hutchings, LTD, Uxbridge, No. 2368. When would that be usable here, or is now clear? Rodolph (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(TLSuda) @Stefan2: probably can give you a better idea than I can. He's much more well versed in copyright. One hindrance, though, is that we don't know the date it was copyrighted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(Rodolph) Thank you. The photo was taken and distributed no later than mid 1929, as house was sold in 1929 and demolished soon after.Rodolph (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(TLSuda)::Unless you have hard evidence of the date the photo was snapped, you only have WP:OR. And the date it was taken could be completely different than the date it was published. It could have been published many years later. We simply do not have enough information about this image to ascertain the copyright of it and therefore we cannot host it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(Rodolph)It had to be snapped no later than 1929, as house was demolished 1929/1930, which is hard evidence. As to when published, balance of probability would be 1929 as taken for the local newspaper. Ok I'll ask the Uxbridge Gazette. Rodolph (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(Stefan)Some notes on copyright terms for British photos in the United States:

Photograph taken in 1929 and first published before 1978: copyright expires 95 years from publication (for example, on 1 January 2025 if first published in 1929)
Photograph taken in 1929 and first published after 1977: copyright expires on 1 January 2050 (120 years after it was taken)

This assumes that it was a "work for hire". If it was created by a professional photo studio, as suggested above, then it was a work for hire. If it wasn't a work for hire, then the term may change if the photographer is known. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your Email

I see no reason to restore the deleted image File:Dietegan v. Salis-Seewis (1651-1697), Colonel in Spain.jpg per your request via email as the file is the exact same as the Commons version: commons:File:Dietegan von Salis-Seewis (1651-1697), Colonel in Spain.jpg. If the file is named incorrectly at Commons, you can request the file be renamed there, which it looks like you've already done. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cool, sorry, not long after I made that request to you I worked out that a better answer would be to change the name of the file on Commons.Rodolph (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Uploads

The vast majority of these would appear to meet the criteria (given age) for PD-art (being mechanical reproductions (i.e a simple photo) of 2D works in which the copyright would have nominaly expired. However, because some of these look like they are from a 'family' album, I'm understanding the reasoning behind making them GFDL instead. It would be appreciated if you could review these, and if possible also license them under CC-BY-SA. If these were previously unpublished (commerically), then I would very strongly suggest a note to the 'permission' e-mail queue, explaining their status and that you are prepared to release them, is strongly recomended. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, once again. That's right, I was trying to get them, and the other stuff, to a modest but quasi-institutional level and status, similar to that of the National Portrait gallery or say the PCF/BBC who try to do/get away with similar with their collections of simple 2-d reproductions. The straight forward give-away having seemed too generous, or careless. The above are all (apart from teh two from Frey's biography) from a 1884 album which was sold/given out within the family with a printed key. I don't know how many copies were made, at least 20... Published in Switzerland. I'll brush up the licencing and send in a photo of the album as a whole, etc. Rodolph (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Query

File:Pherozeshah Mehta (portrait).jpg - This is claimed as PD india, but there's no author or date given, any thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a painted copy (uncertain date) of an image made c. 1911. Sitter died in 1915, and portrait uploaded here is in an Indian Parliament building committee room. Parliament web-site says it is by V. V. Oak, but can't find who that is, though there is a V.V. Oak art prize. Not sure what V.V. Oak is, it might not be an artist.Rodolph (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerome, 2nd Count de Salis 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:

[[File:Peter_à_Salis-Soglio_(Casa_Battista,_Schreibstube),_of_Coire,_Grisons_Republic)_(1729-1783).jpg|thumbnail|left|Jerome's nephew: Peter à Salis-Soglio (Casa Battista)(Schreibstube)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:FanedeSalisArmsfromArthurFoxDavies1929.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FanedeSalisArmsfromArthurFoxDavies1929.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this was taken from my photocopy of an UK book published in 1929, written by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies (1871 – 1928), but that arrangement of Arms dates from 1809, and that particular design used in this 1929 book dates from earlier, and the first edition of Armorial Families was 1904. See the File's page for further details. Rodolph (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:KitchenerJellicoe French.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information.Rodolph (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it was still deleted. :( <sigh> . Have a word with the deleting admin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horrid people. So ever so over protective of anonymous and certainly dead images, which with any normal sense of benefit of the doubt would be ok for free use, YET happy to steal photographic intellectual property from David Slater, whose photo of the monkey has been appropriated by Wikipedia.Rodolph (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Treaty of Union 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:

*Dr. Stephen Waller <ref>[[Doctor of Law]], fourth son of [[Edmund Waller]], (''Poems, &c. written upon several occasions, and to several persons, By Edmund Waller, with An

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medal and Honour Decorations

Most of these uploads seem to be UK decorations, and thus I am saying they should be on Commons. (because they are photos of works of 'artistic craftsmanship'. In some cases the design of the decoration might be Crown copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sfan. As all designs in that batch pre-1923, including Bath star which though awarded in 1930s the design is much earlier, thus perhaps free of extra-Crown copyright too?Rodolph (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabriele Ricciardelli View of Drogheda from Ballsgrove c 1750 -1755.jpg

Not that it needs it, but if you have additional information on this it would be appreciated :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added some. Thanks for asking. I enjoyed 'going to' Drogheda.Rodolph (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johann Gaudenz von Salis-Seewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De Salis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture of A. W. Austin.jpg

Can you identify the artist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is: John Wycliffe Lowes Forster.Rodolph (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The sitter doesn't have an article, by the intials though.. so hmm...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Albert Austin, and here.Rodolph (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have put pic in various places...Rodolph (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :). This is why I like Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir" Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath

Re your edit of 25 May, adding "Sir". Is it correct usage to include title of knighthood in this way for an earl? Is it not incorporated into the higher title, as are any baronies etc he held, which are not quoted in his standard name? The fact he was knighted is mentioned in the article. I have briefly looked for comparisons and found for example Debrett's Peerage 1968 "Charles .... Moore, KBE, 11th Earl" (of Drogheda). He received KBE (knighthood) 1964. Not fully comparable I know, but he's not quoted as "Sir Charles .... Moore, 11th Earl". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Good question. I think there is flexibility, but Wikipedia tends not to use the 'Sir' as part of the first line, though I have put it in in the first line in a couple of cases, because these honours tend to get lost, and for say an hereditary peer who has been knighted it might represent his/her greatest achievement in their own right, as opposed to something they merely inherited. So, the Sir should appear somewhere, at least, one hopes, in grerater form than just in the form of the letters KCB, or GCB, or Bt.

On side issue many peers also hold ancient baronetcies that get a bit overlooked, so that should be illuminated. (In similar way they might hold an ancient barony which gets rather lost being trumped by a younger Viscountcy). (I find Wiki could be dangerously homogenising or prone to group think? World War One was as much 1914-1919 as 1914-1918, but the crowd insists it was just 1914-1918). Rodolph (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, a colour postcard from 1913.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, a colour postcard from 1913.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg

Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodolph (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

||This is a usefull image depicting a Russian artist in a studio in London. Will find a suitable berth for it asap.Rodolph 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please could you review this. It was a photo worthy of keeping.Rodolph2 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you review this photograph, taken by me, of Pasha aka Pavel Aksenov. A Russian painter, artist, who lived in London c.1994-2004.Rodolph (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASHA AKSENOV

Info

Visual Thesis Paul Aksenova Posted 13-02-2012 at 02:09 by ART4.RU opened in Izhevsk ; man show Pavel Aksenov, a legendary party trehprudnenskoy commune. In the White Room Gallery of the newspaper "Izvestia of the Udmurt Republic" posted twenty graphic sheets, each of which depicts the work of someone else, had an influence on the artist. In fact, this exhibition - a story about the difficult fate of pyatidesyatidvuhletnego Aksenov. Talk to the legendary commune Trekhprudny, he emigrated from Russia to France in 1993. Soon connection broke off, heard only vague rumors Pasha moved to England, the poor, insane, and was treated at the clinic for the mentally ill. In 2008, he was suddenly deported to Russia and was sent to his native Izhevsk, where he has since lived with his mother in a two-bedroom apartment.

More info ... For the action entitled, Sea of Vodka (Aksenov, Reunov and Ter-Oganian), the magnificent painter Valery Koshlyakov painted a splendid wave on one of the Gallery’s walls, in front of which was placed a table with cups of vodka... Rodolph (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE RESTORE THIS IMAGE. Rodolph (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Pasha: http://art4ru.livejournal.com/324168.html Rodolph (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg restored. Now for the paperwork ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Reading, Berskhire

Are you serious? You really need to let this go. Can you not listen to someones advice. I'm not interested in going to war with you, it's pathetic. Sorry but as it is now, it's not acceptable. Changing the image size to fit your view port isn't done. Image sizes should only be changed for unusual circumstances (which this isn't). Also Wiki isn't a gallery, that what Commons is for, where the image should've been uploaded to. I hope you revert it back to how it was originally, otherwise other experienced editor will. And lastly, I'm fully aware how important the Abbey Gateway (as part of the Abbey) is in regards to the history of the town, but what is the image actually illustrating? Bald Boris 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You are the one not listening to advice. Why does your advice trump all? How dare you call me pathetic. If you look closely at the picture you can see through the arch green fields, which I'd think was a useful picture to have. Yes, do move it to Commons if you wish.Rodolph (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas-Chaloner Bisse-Challoner

Some other editors have pointed out that per the manual of style your article was too detailed. However you correctly identified the use of WP:BOLD. I used the word in the history summary 'obsequiousness' not as an attack on you, I just would like it noted to all editors querying the relevance of the scope of this article, that the article did have some stylistic informality. In short I'd agree with you, Wentworth would not be Wentworth without TC B-C. Also nor would much of the area be as prosperous as it is. - Adam37 Talk 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. How odd, an encyclopedia that does'nt like information?! It is so very strange too, that valuable first class, and unique, information is met with ingratitude. Apart from you it seems a case of 'Pearls before swine, eh'?Rodolph (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you have fxxcked the article and infiltrated it with bilge, and real errors. Why? For example your sentence 'Restricted to those with large enough homes,'.. is a poor way of explaining the situation and much worse than what it replaced. Why have you picked on this article, which has done noo ne any harm, especially as you have made it far worse?Rodolph (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital full patient list May 1912- April 1913.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital full patient list May 1912- April 1913.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

The image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. (See section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
It is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. (See section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital patient list May 1912- April 1913.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital patient list May 1912- April 1913.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Field Expertise Request

s:Page:Life Story of an Otter.djvu/208

This is a painting by an Edgar H. Fischer, whom I've not been able to find much information on. For Commons purposes it would be reasonable to at least know when the artist died. Thanks in advannce. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Sfan and welcome back (what was the legal action?)! Christie's say he exhibited between 1908 & 1933 at places such as: the Royal Society of Painters in Birmingham, the London Salon and Royal Academy. Fischer is sometimes spelled Fisher. Ebay is selling a postcard repro dated 1931 of his painting of a Zebra.Rodolph (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Gauci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castellamare. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helga von Cramm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#FAMOUS_PAINTINGS

This a note to let you know that there is post on the reference desk you may be able to assist with. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

There is an ongoing discussion about your edit to John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley at The BLP Noticeboard. Please participate in that discussion to achieve consensus and do not edit war. Thank you. JBH (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBH, thank you very much for letting me know about this perplexing issue.Rodolph (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Gibralter, watercolour, by Baroness Helga von Cramm.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gibralter, watercolour, by Baroness Helga von Cramm.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Accounts of Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital, published June 1913.jpg

Figured I'd query this one, because it's a simple accounting stament, as opposed to a work containg anythign creative. In the US this is a presentation of simple fact. In the UK , I'm not sure if this wouldn't still technically be under the ownership of whichever NHS trust took on the Hospital concerned.

Perhaps you could look into the stauts of this image a little more?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, thanks for the notice. interesting point. The spirit of the hospital certainly belongs NOT to the NHS. It was a private entity, and the accounts probably belonged to my great-grandfather, who like an Alec Guinness film played most of the non-medical roles of the hospital. Besides, if it was'nt for his, my grandfather, and my father's efforts NO accounts would exist at all. So there is creativity, but I'd argue it was ours rather than the state imposed beneficiary of a compulsory purchase. (The ex-hospital buildings now form a Sikh Temple). Rodolph (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, tagged for commons (historical document). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:View west from Sandleford Priory, Newbury, Berkshire, across a Capability Brown landscape.jpg

Another query... Was this shot directly into Sun? The 'flare'(?) on it is quite overpowering, and is the sort of thing I'd expect to see 'advisory' notes about.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, (btw happy upcoming Shakespeare birth, baptism & death season), yes, it was shot straight into the sun in the west, (not looking through view-finder, you might be pleased to read for the sake of my eyes). Do you think it is not up to the mark? I thought it just good enough because it shows the Downs in the distance, but I should really go there early one morning and take it again. What 'advisory' do you suggest. (and thanks for the historic tag on the accounts-I must read up on the nuances).Rodolph (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advisory note would be one about avioding shooting directly into sun. Shooting an early morning with the sun behind would be better approach, or you could use an appropriate polarising filter on the camera. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Print of Fingask Castle, Tayside, by Alexander Carse. Published by James Knox, Edinburgh, 1831.jpg

What's shown clearly isn't Fingask castle. IS this a Wikipedia glitch or were you intending to upload something different here? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your amazing hard work. Yes, sorry that is a mistake.Rodolph (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAWLPLUGS, Handyman Amateur Mechanics outfit, Made in Great Britain, London, S.W.7.jpg

An unusal find! :) However , I am putting in a license query, because this might also be PD UK as there's no specfic author listed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disapointed.

In my local bookshoop I found this item:- http://www.shirebooks.co.uk/store/Bradshaw%E2%80%99s-Canals-and-Navigable-Rivers_9781908402141 That was written by an ancestor or relation of yours?

which as I explained previously was a work that should by rights be out of copyright.

The publishers have taken a facsimile (they even say so in the front cover notes), but in releasing a new version they've claimed a new copyright for themselves ( for "sweat of the brow"). It is of course legal but I'm disappointed as it means I won't now be able to find scans for digitising it at Wikisource.

Perhaps you could do some checks in your records in order to show that the original is in fact out of copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rudie was my 2nd cousin twice removed who died in 1936...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Charles,_7th_Count_de_Salis-Soglio#Brother

I agree, we must get his stuff on-line and FREE. Rodolph (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he died in 1936 then his copyright in terms of the UK expired in 2006 ( 70 year rule - assuming it wasn't a publisher copyright.). Next step would be to determine if it was published in the US prior to 1923. (This is to check if its technically an unpublished work there.)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My other question would be, prior to 2006 who would have held the copyright? If that rights owner can be traced then certain issues become minor.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look on abebooks and there seems never to have been a US edition, at least not before the 1960s reprint.

I imagine he left everything to his wife and then brother or nephew, unless he was bankrupt?Rodolph (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... That might put the first date of US publication in 1960 :( Bother... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, the reason I asked because if it wasn't published until a specific date in the US (such as the 1960 reprint) then because of some technicalities in US case law, the US term might run from when it was first published in compliance with US formalities (such as registration/notice) rather than the 1904/1914/1928 publications of the original.

On the second point, It would be grossly improper of me to make any assumption as to their integrity. I am not sure if it's possible to search old wills (and presumably probate records). You might know of internal family sources. This is starting to sound like the start of one of those archive hunt shows on the BBC. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll order & check his will. If he did'nt make provision for intellectual property, what is the line of descent? Suppose to his elder brother's eldest son, eldest son, etc.Rodolph (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1969

I don't know. You'd need to find someone that's qualified in that area of English probate and estates law, which I'm not. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, as he died in 1936, use of his works in UK is fine, so America/USA can go hang?!Rodolph (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite.., I am being cautious (and given the views of certain unnamed people with good reason).. In any case the the US reprint in 1969 was by (Augustus_M._Kelley), their article suggests F&W Media International (as David & Charles at the time). Given at that time the work would have still been in UK copyright, you would have expected them (D&C) to have kept a record of what the status was. (and in 1969, a work published in the US would still have had to comply with US formalities, unless being a pre 1923 work they weren't followed.) F&W are still trading the contacts page being http://www.fwcommunity.com/contactus). It's looking promising, but it all depends on when the US first publication was, (and when if a 95 year term runs from).

Possible scenarios:

First US publication is prior to 1923 then PD (and known UK PD) -> PD A Scan from the original would be OK for commons
First US publication is prior to 1923 but being cautious --> 1904+70 (1974) or (1936+70=2006) (1904+95=1999)-> So would be PD I think.
First US publications is the 1969 reprint, then PD-US if treated as mechanical reprint of a pre 1923 work, excluding new material -> PD
First US publications is the 1969 reprint, but no US Compliance -> PD
First US publications is the 1969 reprint, and compliance at that time --> Potentially 1969+95 = 2064 and it can't be scanned from the original.

Scenario 5 is the one to conclusively disprove, meaning that somehow the first US publication needs to be determined.

An expert on the US side of things is needed :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#H._Blacklock_.26_Co If someone finds a 1904/6 original then then it should be US/UK OK :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. £95 is the cheapest at the moment for one from 1904.Rodolph (talk)

File:Block of flats on Strokins Road, Kingsclere, Hampshire, UK, April 2015.jpg

Research note - You might want to ask about the sign... Yes, there are people that are obssessive about old signs :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingsclere's_main_signpost,_August_2014.jpg

How old is this? It's not a current design, and it looks to be pre-Worboys, so mid 20th century perhaps?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodolph Fane De Salis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bassano. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artist ID needed

Probably a trick one to pin down but it would be nice to add an artist to File:Ava army.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Temple, Inwa, Burma

see page 70, photograph by Captain Tripe and drawing by Captain Yule (1855), aka Sir Henry Yule KCSI (1 May 1820 – 30 December 1889), Henry Yule & Linnaeus Tripe (1822-1902) lithography by Day & son, published Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1858.

Thank you ! Added a note to the image, and talk page :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conservatory front of Teffont Manor, Teffont Evias, late nineteenth century.jpg

Do you have the rear side of this, to check for an author? (Tagged for Commons regardless as I assume good faith).

If no author can be found then given the date it may well by PD-UK-unknown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, William de Salis died in 1896, and was born in 1812. Thanks for all your work. I'll look on the backs. The conservatory front I think would have been before 1900, and probably before 1896.Rodolph (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of a certificate awarded by the Home-Grown Timber Committee, September 1916.jpg

Was the source document of this Govt issued? (If so it may be PD-UKgov)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was a Quango, at least, possibly more see: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313004/Home_grown_timber_advisory_committee___HT__doc__2_.pdf Rodolph (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:M. le Colonel de Salis, CARTE DE SEMAINE Exposition Universelle de 1867 A PARIS valable jusqu'au AVRIL 23.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:M. le Colonel de Salis, CARTE DE SEMAINE Exposition Universelle de 1867 A PARIS valable jusqu'au AVRIL 23.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're questioning this photograph from 1867?Rodolph (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodolphus Johannes Leslie Hibernicus de Salis (general), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alma and Balaclava. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chitarra-italiana.jpg

Technicaly unsourced, but given you've tracked down some obscure ones, thought it was worth asking if the artist was identifiable.

Was stated as an unknown artist, but there can't be that many 16th century artists whose work is in collections...

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the artist could be Pietro Paolini (3 June 1603 – 12 April 1681), or Angelo Caroselli (1585–1653).Rodolph (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this for comparison.Rodolph (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cabinet photograph of Rodolph Fane de Salis (died 1931) after the oil portrait by George Spencer Watson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Cabinet photograph of Rodolph Fane de Salis (died 1931) after the oil portrait by George Spencer Watson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rodolph Fane De Salis (1854-1931), a photo of George Spencer-Watson's 1920's portrait.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rodolph Fane De Salis (1854-1931), a photo of George Spencer-Watson's 1920's portrait.jpg, 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. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is fine, Spencer Watson died in 1931, Rodolph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.71.21 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Query, Was this a commissioned work ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a commission. I think George Spencer Watson did two copies of him and one of the wife (exhibited in RA, 1928). One of him is in the canal museum Gloucester and the other is somewhere like in the wardrobe of a cousin, and the deleted black & white photo is in an album.Rodolph (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because it might affect who "owned" the rights in the work, and you might want to ask Stefan2 to clarify if that might be relevant in this instance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! What also still perplexes me is why that 1920s photo was deleted of a work by an artist who died in circa 1931, while much work by artists such as Picasso who died 40 years later remain relatively unmolested!Rodolph (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such are the mysteries of Wikipedia copyright policy, I don't know either.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Barn of Shackle, Harlington, Middlesex, October 2014.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Barn of Shackle, Harlington, Middlesex, October 2014.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please why was this deleted?Rodolph (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was deleted was because seemingly there was another image which was thought to be of higher quality, of the same subject. If the images were different than I would suggest taking it to a Deletion Review on those grounds.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Photograph of Dawley Court, Goulds Green, Hillingdon, Middlesex in 1893.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Photograph of Dawley Court, Goulds Green, Hillingdon, Middlesex in 1893.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please why was this deleted?Rodolph (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Tounge in cheek) I refer the honourable contributor to the answer given in respect of the previous notification.Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Nomination of Count de Salis-Soglio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Count de Salis-Soglio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count de Salis-Soglio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage articles

(Copied from my user talk)

Hi Sfan, forgive me writing to you, but I think this is a battle worth noting you of. Some folk want to delete two useful, I think, articles of mine. Salis-Soglio, and Salis-Seewis. Rodolph (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking for confirmatry sources in the older copy of Burkes someone put on Wikisource?

I tend not to get involved with article content issues, but on the first one you mentioned, it's at present mostly a stub with a gallery. The gallery portion should be on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In respct of the section "Royal Licence granted to the 4th Count on 4 April 1809, reiterating in English the 1748 Imperial patent" - This is a source text and should be included only by reference (I'm not sure when crown copyright on a document like that would expire.) but as a primary text, it shouldn't be directly in article.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm assuming it can go on Commons, it's also a source text (similar to Letters Patent) and so could assuming there's no copyright could be ideally transcribed on Wikisource. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for great guidance and astute analysis, and Wikisource nudge, Rodolph (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] also. I sadly don't have a Bodleian Library card.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Thank you.Rodolph (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artist ID

File:Catherine of Aragon as younger woman.jpg, Any thoughts on which artist this is? I was wanting to add an artist so I can update the filename accordingly (it was eclipsing a file on Commons.) . Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, it is by or a copy of the portrait by Juan de Flandes which you found on Commons, in the Thyssen -B collection in Madrid, the same or a perhaps better version of above mentioned painting seems to be already on Wikipedia, viz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Flandes#/media/File:Juan_de_Flandes_002.jpg . I'm not sure that helps, but I think it is basically the same as the one it eclipses. The Thyssen one seems to have been brightened & spruced up, which is a common thing in that collection. I'll think more. Best wishes, Rodolph (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cf: compare Rodolph (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rodolph. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Trevor, 21st Baron Dacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Romney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource item

s:Index:The_Complete_Peerage_Ed_1_Vol_1.djvu

Not sure if you have any time for typing practice but there a complete 1st edition here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GENIOUS, thanks for the prod!Rodolph (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harmondsworth Great Barn

I note you uploaded a photo of this, Do you have other connections with the conservation efforts? (It was my understanding the barn might need to be "documented" before the Heathrow expansion gears up again.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, I don't have any connections. Yes, the land around it needs to be documented. i think the farmer was on BBC radio 4's Farming Today recently. (The barn was re-tiled & the sides fixed last year, so English Heritage must see a future). That village is like a time warp; it feels like the heart of England. Yesterday I inspected another threatened & condemned landscape at Sandleford, Newbury.Rodolph (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artist for File:Blanche I of Navarre.jpg.

It would be nice if I could add the artist before Commons transfer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, I can't understand your near namesake Stefan having deleted an image of a portrait of Rodolph Fane de Salis (a great-great-uncle) in a UK public collection (on BBC/PCF) from Commons whilst not deleting 10 or so by same artist also on Commons? See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:George_Spencer_Watson: Rodolph (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could call it 'Spanish school, C15th' ? Rodolph (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Montagu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allan Ramsay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love_in_a_Tub.png

This is a very old upload, and for some reason it was uploaded without a source.

I'm not sure if you know much about 17th/18th(?) century engravings or woodcuts, but given past answers I felt I'd ask.

At the very least it would be useful to identify the illustrator/engraver.

The play concerned dates from the 17th Century, but this illustration may be later.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, so far, I think it is the frontispiece for the 1725 edition.Rodolph (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Bonomi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry III. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colossus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of crest

Hallo, Rodolph! The identity of the family crest is bothering me. What written evidence is there that the winged figure is Bellona and are there other examples of such figures outside the family? Iconographically it seems similar to depictions of the harpy, while most Renaissance figures of Bellona have arms and hands in which weapons are held. I'd be grateful of your help. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's part of the answer. Below refers to the crest & de Salis in UK publications:

A Demi Woman Proper Crowned Or., The Hair Flowing Down The Back, Winged In Place Of Arms, And From The Armpits Azure, Out Of A Marquis Coronet., Burkes General Armory. (The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; comprising a registry of armorial bearings from the earliest to the present time, by Sir Bernard Burke (1814-1892), 1884, page 281.)

Out Of A Marquis's Coronet Or, A Demi-Woman Ppr., Crowned Or, Hair Flowing Down The Back, Winged In Place Of Arms, And From The Armpits Az., SOURCE: Fairbairn's Book of Crests, 1905 edition. Rodolph (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! & thanks. A half woman, but no mention of Bellona so far. A look at a book on artillery from the start of the 18th century has alerted me to the association between Bellona and the winged form of Victory. Probably the De Salis family would not want a harpy for a crest, but they might well choose Victoria. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Montagu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abingdon and Wallingford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandleford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Highclere Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lismore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Query File:Barbara FitzRoy.jpg

No information given on the artist, any thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan, best wishes, for today must be a big day for you?! At first glance that portrait could be Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth by Henri Gascars (1634/5 – 1701) [see http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03623/louise-de-keroualle-duchess-of-portsmouth]. I'll look further. Rodolph (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know who it is , which is the description given, if you think the description is wrong, LMK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasing

Yes, thank you. Sorry, I did mean Wasing, Berkshire, or as it is also known 'West Berkshire'. It is about a mile from the border with Hampshire.Rodolph (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Bigg-Wither.jpg

File:Harris Bigg-Wither.jpg Sorry to keep coming up with puzzles for you , this one is another portrait ( the photo of it given is seemingly B/w). Can it be determined as to who it's by?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a crayon/chalk drawing, in black/white or brown/white, or lithograph. By someone like George Richmond (painter).Rodolph (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Vice-Admiral de Salis

--Hartmann-Luzein (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)I wonder if the photograph of Vice-Admiral William de Salis in his uniform is known. It is out of the book "De Salis Family, English Branch" by Rachel Fane de Salis. The book was published in 1934, the photograph is from around the 1920s. I suppose that it is an official governmental photography, so that the copying is legal (Crown copyright expires after 50 years, when photograph is taken before 1957). But for the upload onto WikiCommons the photograph has to be published before 1923 (US public domain). Wasn't the photograph uploaded because of these restrictions?[reply]

thanks for asking. I'm not sure which of the three you mean? The scans are from the original photos rather than the 1934 book. Hope that helps.[William_Fane_De_Salis_(admiral)]Rodolph (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the unclear question. The photograph shows William de Salis as Vice-Admiral (taken ca. 1920), my question referred to a not yet published copy in Wikipedia. If the photograph is unknown, I can upload it (I assume that it was made before 1923 but can't prove it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartmann-Luzein (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Biography query

This painting: File:West view mellor muslin mill2.jpg is attrributed to a Joseph Parry, a Manchester artist, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article. Perhaps you'd be willing to look into whether they meet notability requirements for inclusion? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi, they were good enough for the DNB, so probably ok for Wiki , see.

Stubed at Joseph Parry (artist) based off DNB entry at Wikisource. Feel free to expand :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good work!Rodolph (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dating query

File:1Canaletto-Wien-Belvedere.jpg - Known artist, but no date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this, not Canaletto, but dated 1758/1761.

Thanks, by an artist also called Canaletto (Bernardo Bellotto) but not the Canaletto. Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice one!, yes I think one was the nephew of the other.Rodolph (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rodolph. 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)[reply]