User talk:Richard Harvey/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive 1 - Please do not edit this page

Contents

[edit] Image:CSgt Wayne Mills02.jpg

Hi, I'd just like to check the copyright status and original source of the photo of CSgt Wayne Mills. Is it a work of the British Army from the Archives of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment? Is protected by copyright? Is it released under a licence compatible with the GFDL, allowing free use? Thanks — Zeimusu | Talk 06:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the link now. Dysprosia 11:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Link fixed — Zeimusu | Talk
Also, would you mind tagging or listing source information for Image:The Wellesley.ogg
Done; Though actually it's Media not an Image.

[edit] Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Brig Arthur Valerian Wellesley KG LVO OBE MC BA DL 8th Duke of Wellington.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that it took a while to reply. Thanks for adding the additional copyright information. --Ellmist 04:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:33rd Regiment.jpg

Image deletion warning The image Image:33rd Regiment.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, I am a little confused. What licence do you release them under? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 12:41, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Public domain = no restrictions what so ever (commericial, modification). If you release your images and non-commercial and non-modifications, then unfortunately, they are non-free and they are going to be deleted. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 13:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright and attendant fun

Oh yuck. Assuming you work for the UK gov, any images you create as part of your work in probably Crown Copyright. So those images need to be tagged as such. Images you created while not working remain your own copyright, and you can choose what you do with them. Also, logos and other things fall under different copyright, and there are specific tags for them.

Therefor, maybe we should create a subpage of your user page where we list every single one of your images, and sort them out one by one. That is a great deal of work, but it is worth it, in the end. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 15:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Anything that was is copyright the Regiment is Crown Copyright, and we need to figure out what the restrictions the UK DoD places on them. I will also delete those images you listed. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:53, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .

Is the problem the title, or the presence of an image? I am unsure of the Wikipedia policy on using titles, unfortunately, though it looks like the image presence issue has been resolved... Dysprosia 7 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

It is best that the caption be editable, however, so the cropping is a good idea in the long run. Again, I am unsure of the Wikipedia policy on titles, so I don't think I can help you in that respect :(
In response to: "In any event his alteration of the original image is a violation of the originally uploaded image, which technically is Crown Copyright." I am not a lawyer or profess to be an expert on copyright law, I am not so sure this is correct -- if a copyrighted work is modified, the result is a derivative work and derivative works are usually permitted (though the copyrights are not strengthened or weakened), but I do not know if Crown Copyright expressly forbids the creation of derivative works.
Dysprosia 7 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
I see; that is a problem then. You may want to go through the copyright problems process then for the modified image, or find a more freely licensed image -- which is desirable in any case since images should ideally be available under a free license comparable to the GFDL. Dysprosia 7 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
It's a shame that John Kenney is resorting to personal attacks and that is not acceptable at all; and you may want to consider going through mediation or arbitration in the matter if the situation can't be resolved more civilly. It's good to see that more third parties are getting involved so you have more independent points of view into the dispute as well. Dysprosia 9 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Wellesley image

(I am commenting because you left a message on my talk page.) It looks like John Kenney uploaded a nearly identical image to separate the caption from the image you uploaded. The changed version is in the Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington article now. This allows users to change the caption by clicking "edit this page", rather than uploading a new image with a new caption. Is this a problem, Mr. Harvey? --Ellmist 7 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

I have changed the image copyright tag on both versions of the image to {{CrownCopyright}}. --Ellmist 7 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

You are completely disgusting, you know that? The original version of the image which you uploaded didn't have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn't defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. john k 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I feel that I ought to point out that Wikipedia no longer accepts images "with permission", but only those released under GFDL or more free licences, or those that can be used under the fair use doctrine.[1] This is because such permission is often for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, and is therefore burdensome to downstream republishers of Wikipedia content. I can't see any specific description of "with permission" on the image in question. Can you point me at where you describe the terms of use? Thanks, Bovlb 2005-07-07 17:19:49 (UTC)

I notice you're whining because I've deleted a bunch of images you put up. Reupload them without the embedded captions and let users argue over what the appropriate caption should be, and I have no problem with it. You have no right to demand that the caption for an image has to be what you want it to be. The captions you put on have nothing to do with copyright, even if you can hide behind that to prevent anybody else from getting rid of them. john k 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse. You might want to try other steps in the dispute resolution process, rather than jumping straight to Laird Jimbo ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be a dick...

I agree that john k's insults were out of line and that it should be above any admin to say such things, but I feel that he's not who's looking bad right now. Your display of excruciatingly pointless bickering over a matter you are clearly wrong about is just the start. That you've gained a trusty ally in the indomitable Sam Spade is just a very good sign thay you're up to some very unwholesome rules lawyering. While john's reputation might suffer and perhaps he'll even receive a punishment for his outburst, it won't ever suffer even half as much as your's.

For your own sake, consider dropping this sordid affair and settle for an apology from john. Your crusade is just too petty for anyone to respect your for it. Except for Sam, of course.

Peter Isotalo 13:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Duke of Wellington

I don't think that Yurikbot's edit is problematic - if you (or I) had a computer that was configured to view Japanese characters, this wouldn't be an issue. It's just that most computers aren't so configured, so it looks like nonsense to us. But I think it's a perfectly legitimate Japanese wiki article. As to what Yurikbot is doing - it's a bot. Which means that some user programmed it to go through articles and add interwiki links (that is, links to the article in other language wikipedias). I'm not sure what Allan Hainey is up to - there is, indeed, no text on the wikisource article on the Duke of Wellington. It's not vandalism, but it bears watching. If that page remains blank for the next few days, I think it would be appropriate to remove the {{wikisource}} message.

Neither of these is vandalism, though. For an example of vandalism, see here, where somebody replaced the entire article with the word "bitch." This is pretty simple vandalism. Here's a more insidious (but probably not ill-intentioned) bad edit where somebody dewikified all the dates for some reason. Not vandalism, but a damaging edit worthy of reversion. john k 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Hello, and sorry!

Hello there - Petesmiles here - I hope I haven't offended you by editing the 8th Duke of Wellington page - having left my thoughts on the talk page for a fortnight or so, I took the wiki advice to 'be bold' and made the changes i thought best. I agree with Sam Spade's take on this, that the article is clearly much better with the picture - but i don't think the community at large will accept the caption as it was, really just because it simply doesn't look very good. Incidentally, I completely support your assertion that the Duke's official title (and hence the caption) be maintained. Having a look at the Crown Copyright issues, it seems possible that we might be able to use the picture, acknowledge the Crown Copyright, and claim 'Fair Dealing' - would you support such a notion? As someone who became interested in this article simply through the RfC that was put up, I'd like to reiterate that the image really is a significant contribution to the article, and it's a shame for it to not be available to all...... best regards - Petesmiles 05:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation

Hi Richard, I've cleaned up the requests you left at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation and would like to remind you of Wikipedia's image use policy;

  1. every time you hit the Special:Upload button, you are presented with links to these policies which describe what types of images you may or may not upload.
  2. not for commercial use type licenses are NOT allowed.
  3. don't upload anything without appropriate licensing.
  4. add the appropriate copyright tag after uploading.

Please read and understand Wikipedia's image use policy before uploading any more images.

All images have been removed per your request except Image:Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley KG CCB GCH CoR 1st Duke of Wellington.jpg which might be in the public domain.

--Duk 05:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

76-0169C_1858_76th_Regimental_Sergeants.jpg has now been deleted, my apologies for overlooking it.

As far as Image:Field_Marshal_Arthur_Wellesley_KG_CCB_GCH_CoR_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg; photos of paintings who's copyright has passed into public domain, are also public domain. That's why I didn't delete it. I though the painting's copyright might be PD because of its age (and therefore the photo), but I'm not sure. You can re-list the image at WP:CP if you believe it's not PD, it will get a better review there.

--Duk 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I took the photo and I'm quite happy to make it PD, I just needed to be sure I was not creating a problem by doing it. Richard Harvey 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I would tag this image {{PD-art-life-50}}, unless you happen to know the date of death for the artist and its greater than 100 years, in which case I'd use {{PD-art}}. (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain_art).
--Duk 20:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DWR.jpg

Hi Richard. I can't delete this image without it first being listed at either Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

I am also allowed to delete the image if the uploader requests it, and the image is unused. (It looks like you notified the uploader and asked that he do this).

Since you are the creator and copyright holder, and assuming that the uploader doesn't request its removal, I would list it at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You need to explain the different versions that were uploaded, there seem to be two in history, are they both copyright violations? And you need to explain that one or both are derivative works.

Also, the uploader has claimed fair use for the image, so some people might object to its removal on those grounds. However, if the image is technically incorrect as you say, and therefore unused, then there is no fair use rationale. If this is the case then mention it in the listing. --Duk 16:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image has been deleted. --Duk 15:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DWR1.jpg

This image has been tagged with the {{no source}} tag and will be deleted in seven days unless the source is identified. The image-vio notice, however, identifies [2] as the source. But this doesn't seem right, even with the background removed and the image darkened the two don't seem to match, as near as I can tell by looking at the reflection patterns in the metal.

If the image source is identified, then it will still have to run its course through the copyright violation process (WP:CP).

--Duk 20:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Duk, I Got your message. I've had a look back at the images in my files. I feel you will find the image is one from the list that you previously deleted a few weeks ago ie:- Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_small.jpg. If you check the history of the image you will find it to be identical to that. Richard Harvey 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I've reviewed the images which were deleted a few weeks ago (I kept copies). There were cap badge graphics but no photos. The source of the image needs to be identified before it can go through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. On the other hand, there are new criteria for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and if the source isn't identified in seven days then the image will be deleted. --Duk 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've updated the imagevio notice and the listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21 --Duk 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_Brass.jpg

Hi Richard, I'm not quite sure about this image. Did you take the original photograph and are you the copyright holder of the original photograph? If so then the license tag looks good, but I would note that you are the photographer/owner (in addition to the person who scanned it).

I would also appreciate your 'experienced' feedback on this new website: Well, I'm not quite sure what particular experience I have that you are talking about, but the website looks very nice. In particular, it loads fast (I'm on a slow dial-up connection) yet still has good graphics, even the Galleries load fast :) I wish everybody took the time and effort to make websites this efficient. Seems well organized too. --Duk 17:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield

Richard, you wrote:

Chris, I have reformatted the page, by moving the images around, to get a more stable layout, without overlapping boxes. Which I trust you will feel is more suitable. I've also removed the cleanup tag. Like you I also use firefox, though with some websites it does cause problems as the other user noted. I think the main problem is with having the large infobox at the top of the page. If you add together the pixel width of that plus the pixel width of images which may fall beside it, dependant on various screen res's there is bound to be a problem.

Thanks. That is fine now.

As for the anonymous user who reckons it is just the fault of Firefox, and also reverted my previous changes with a quite meaningless comment, well I'm afraid I don't agree. No doubt if (s)he had their way, we would have a nice little "Powered by Internet Exploder" box on our Main Page. -- Chris j wood 17:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield popualation

Replied. Can we sort this out on talk before we do any more changes? If you aren't happy with page as at moment, just remove the population figure entirely. Morwen - Talk 23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me the URL for the figures you got and I'll be able to say. I've been websearching and look at Kirklees's census site and can't find anything. Forgive me if I'm a bit brusque - just returned from having arguments at the pub.  ;) Morwen - Talk 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Aha, searching for the actual number worked. I find documents giving that number as the population of a "South Kirklees" (ie presumably the half that isn't in or near Dewsbury). Would wording saying "the population of the former county borough was X, but that of the wider South Kirklees area was Y" do? Morwen - Talk 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Where does "Original Huddersfield District" come from though? I don't see that in the PDF. Is that your wording? Morwen - Talk 00:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have great difficulty believing that. I have in my hands a copy of the 1972 Local Government Act that has a table part of which looks like so
(1)
Name of county
 (2)
Area by reference to existing administrative areas
... ...
West Yorkshire District (d)


The county boroughs of Dewsbury and Huddersfield
In the administrative county of Yorkshire, West Riding--

the boroughs of Batley and Spenborough
the urban districts of Colne Valley, Denby Dale, Heckmondwike, Holmfirth, Kirkburton, Meltham and Mirfield
... ...

Ie it went straight from having 11 districts to having 1, with no intermediate stage of 2 districts as you are suggesting. Morwen - Talk 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodnight!

Um, regarding what you were saying, I think your recollection of events may be faulty (ie you are talking out of your hat ;). I may not have been around at the time, but I've done my research here.

In law, the county boroughs were entirely independent of West Riding County Council, whilst the other boroughs and the urban districts elected a local council, as well as electing people to the West Riding County Council. None of these areas had parish councils, which existed only in rural districts.

The idea that other districts were precepting on behalf of Huddersfield seems very unlikely but not impossible - but if it was happening it was being done informally. Maybe they pooled rates to pay for transport improvements, that sort of thing. I think this would be interesting to find out.

Re : population. In the text, we should just give the population of the former county borough (smallest), the ONS urban sub-area (in between) and the larger "South Kirklees" area (the biggest). But we certainly shouldn't say that the population of the "town" is the latter figure, and it shouldn't go in the infobox, because are trying to keep constitency of populations between articles. Can you imagine what would happen if every town was allowed to define its own area? Morwen - Talk 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'll see about doing that. By the list at List of English cities by population it would be the 10th, after Reading, Dudley, Northampton, Luton, Milton Keynes, Walsall, Bournemouth, Southend, and Swindon (this is using urban sub-area figures since they are the only comparable ones). However, this a bit of a tricky comparison, as we have discovered that "towns" has no clear definition. Morwen - Talk 11:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I grew up in Huddersfield, and was in my late teens at the time of the '72 reorganisation. My recollection certainly fits with Morwen's research. Prior to 1972, the local authority was Huddersfield County Borough Council; after 1972 it was Kirklees Metropolitan District Council. There was no Huddersfield District intermediate stage.
The HCBC covered quite a large area (someone once told me that it was the largest County Borough by area), but I'm pretty sure it didn't include any of the boroughs or urban districts Morwen listed above. On the other hand, I most of the location s you listed (Almondbury, Birkby, etc) strike me as locations within the old County Borough. Colne Valley West and the two Holme Valley's made me wonder, but these could well be HCBC wards that were just the bits of the two valleys within the borough, and not to be confused with the urban districts upstream.
The above is 'original research' and hence doesn't belong in Wikipedia itself, but hopefully it helps to clarify/direct your research. -- Chris j wood 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your note. I don't see any contradiction between that news report and what I was saying above. Yes, parish councils make a precept which is collected by district councils within a parish. The bit you specifically quote was my expressing the doubt that Huddersfield County Borough Council was levying a precept on properties outside Huddersfield County Borough, which is what you were claiming. Morwen - Talk 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see any contradiction. There were no parish councils in boroughs. The parish of Holme Valley containing Holmfirth et al, is not within the former area of Huddersfield County Borough. You can see a map of the area here, the area shaded red is Huddersfield CB. Morwen - Talk 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The specifics here (from vision of britain, and from Youngs, Vol 2), are that
Holmfirth was created an urban district in 1894 by the Local Government Act 1894, containing the parishes of Austonley, Cartworth, Upperthong and Wooldale. These were all marged to form a single civil parish of Holmfirth in 1921. (It should be noted that as these parishes only had a nominal existence until then, as only parishes in rural districts had parish councils). This was in the administrative county of West Riding of Yorkshire, outside Huddersfield CB.
In 1938, the urban districts of Holme, Honley, New Mill, South Crosland and Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas were abolished added to the urban district of Holmfirth. The expanded Holmfirth UD continued with that name. see the map - this is the same shape as the map depicted on Holme Valley, and you will note that it includes areas wholely outside the other map. In 1974, Holmfirth Urban District Council was abolished, and it was replaced with the Holmfirth Parish Council. The territory was made part of the Metropolitan District of Kirklees, in West Yorkshire, with Kirklees MB Council taking over most of the functions of Holmfirth UDC, and West Yorkshire County Council taking over from West Riding County Council.
At some point between 1974 and now it appears that the Parish Council has changed its name to be Holme Valley, instead. Morwen - Talk 18:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. There are a number of circumstances I can think of that that would happen

  • a parish council for a low population parish might decide to disband, whether formally or not
    • so it might stop working as an effective institution, whether or not it legally had to exist
  • if a parish was added to an urban district or borough, its council would be disbanded
  • two parishes might merge, or one parish might annex another
    • these two options would require intervention by the county council in the old days, the district council nowadays

Since 1974, some parish councils have sometimes requested to be abolished (without being replaced). Birtley, up in Gateshead, has done that, and is scheduled to be abolished on April 1, 2006. Morwen - Talk 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And yeah, by the 19th century civil parishes were quite different to ecclesiastical ones. The parish vestries (which were an ecclesiastical body but it depends entirely upon the parish in question as to how they were run), were stripped of their civil function in 1894, and replaced with elected parish councils, more or less like today's. I haven't seen any ecclesiastical parish splits being automatically followed by civil parish splits after the early 18th century, and changes to civil parishes after then was done by Acts. Morwen - Talk 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/User_talk%7ERichard_Harvey_Archive_1_1ea1.html"