User talk:80.255

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older talk can be found in: Archive the 1st, Archive the 2nd.

Any comments posted on this page will be responded to on this page. Splitting exchanges between two talk pages is silly and unnecessary!

Contents

[edit] Shipston-on-Stour

Thank you for your note on my user page. I've edited the intro paragraph, as I felt that your lead-in gave undue prominence to the traditional county - for instance, describing it as a county, while not mentioning that Warwickshire is a county. I hope this is acceptable to you. Warofdreams 17:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Warof; I do find your version acceptable. G-Man's, however, is not. I have no objection with describing Warwickshire as a county - it is, an administrative county; in fact the term administrative county is used in the wikipedia policy in question! Refering to traditional counties in the past tense in not acceptable (not to mention completely non-sensical - Shipston is in the traditional county of Worcs, and was in the administrative county of worcs). The examples given in the policy make this clear. G-Man is deliberately breaching this policy. When I have time, I shall revert the article to your version (incorporating any subsequent new information). I hope you can see that this is an entirely reasonable position - it's your edit, after all! 80.255 12:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which part of we do not take the minority position that they still exist do you not understand exactly. Let me explain the policy too you shall I. No administrative or ceremonial county of Middlesex exists, therefore it exists purely as an area name, it is therefore acceptable to refer to it as a traditional county as it exists purely through tradition and nothing else. Middlesex and possibly Yorkshire are therefore honourable exeptions.

How convenient! Honourable exceptions eh? Funny that this isn't mentioned in the policy; anyone would think you just made it up in an attempt to rescue your dismally failing argument!
The point you miss is this: just because diferent entities share a name does not make them the same entity. You have admitted that Middlesex "exists as an area name" - it certainly does, and that's also how it existed from the 5th century up until 1889 (and continuing to the present day; no legislation has ever sought to abolish it). There was certainly no 'administrative county' or 'county council' during this time; I suppose you'd like to claim, using your logic, that it actually didn't exist at all, and only started being 'real' in 1889!
So off you trot, G-man, to edit all the county article to state that each of the counties never existed at all until 1889 (1890 in Scotland). It's what your 'logic' demands...
No, Middlesex existed as an administrative entity for centuries before 1889, I'm sure you must know what Quarter Sessions etc were. In fact as I'm sure you know the counties (or Shires) were originally created as administrative sub-divisions of the Saxon kingdoms. The only thing which changed in 1889 was the means and scope of administration. Importantly however, Middlesex and all the other counties existed in a practical form for centuries before 1889. In 1965 it ceased to exist in any practical form, and now exists purely as an area name. It is perfectly encyclopedic to report common usage of something unnoficial as an area name, even for things that are completely unnoficial such as Banburyshire.
It is utterly pointless however, to insist upon using traditional counties even when most people are unaware of their surposed "existence" and they have fallen out of use, and their inclusion just causes confusion. Which is what you appear to want.
As for your arguments regarding the suposed continued existence of the ancient counties. I assume you understand the difference between de jure and de facto. The point being, the fact that something may in theory exist in law and on paper, does not neccesarily mean it exists in practice. I think that sums up the traditional counties perfectly. It is my opinion (and probably most people's) that an encyclopedia should concentrate on what is de facto. G-Man 23:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In all other cases where ceremonial or administrative counties exist which share names of historic ones, that includes Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Lancashire et al. We treat the counties as entities which have changed over time, as is made perfectly clear in the policy. Perhaps this should be made clearer.

But you don't, because you treat administrative and ceremonial counties as different entities, not 'the same entity' (unless it's a quantum county, being in two states simultaneously, which was, if I remember correctly, an objection you yourself raised against historic Counties!), so that's that tower of piffle blown right out of the water. You can't have it both ways. Either counties are 'entities which have changed over time', or they are not, and different types of county with the same name can coexist!
Most wikipedia articles appear to treat them as slight variations of the same thing, which although not technically correct seems quite sensible, and more in tune with common usage. It appears sensible for example to say that for example "Derby is part of Derbyshire for ceremonial purposes, but is administered by a seperate authority". The fact also remains that many ceremonial counties still in practice have some administrative function, for example Derby is still included as part of Derbyshire for many practical purposes such as policing, fire service, NHS trust, tourism etc, which it runs jointly with Derbyshire County Council. So the distinction between administrative/ceremonial county is in practice perhaps not so clear. G-Man 23:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is therefore in most cases perfectly acceptable to refer to historic counties, but not in the present tense. Refering to them in the present tense is and will remain completely unnaceptable to the vast majority of wikipedians.

A spectacular non sequitur. You're getting better and better at them! Having established that your "treating counties as entities that change over time" and that "no two counties can both exist and share a name" are both a load of nonsense that you ignore when it suits you, you completely discredit any conclusion that relies on it.

If you disagree with this then I suggest that you raise the issue at Wikipedia talk: Naming conventions (places) and try to convince people that your scheme is correct. G-Man 19:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I were to succeed in this, would you follow it? Is Hell getting chilly? 80.255 05:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


[edit] Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

  • Image:Donisthorpe.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:44, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also ...

  • Image:Proctor amherst suite.jpg
Fair use for both ("Unique historical images which we cannot reproduce by other means " apply). 80.255 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

  • Image:EUDofCofHere.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also look at Image:Huntingdonshire.gif thanks BrokenSegue 15:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The image of the entity that is properly called the English Unitary District of County of Herefordshire is gfdl, although it appears no longer to exist.
I shall check on Huntingdonshire.gif 80.255 06:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights of images

Hi. I see a few people have already asked you about the copyrights of the images you uploaded. If we can't determine the copyright statuses of your images, they will soon be deleted. They're good images, and we'd like to keep them around. Please let me know the source and copyright information for the images people have asked you about above. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oswald Mosley

Well done on this page, I didn't have time to do it properly... Cheers, Smoddy (t) (e) 17:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Mabbett

Hi: Although I understand youyr frustration with Andy's repeated deletion of your comment, I do not think it appropriate to move these diffs to your userspace unless you are using that space to prepare an RFC or an RFA, in which case you could mention that at the head of the page. —Theo (Talk) 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello; I moved my comments to my own userspace because I thought it was unfair to User:Nick Boulevard to allow his talk page to develop an edit war as a result of my comments. If User:Pigsonthewing wants to start such a revert war, he can do it in my space; as this developed into a dispute between me and User:Pigsonthewing, it didn't seem to right to use someone else's talk page for it.
The alternative to moving the comments would be to continually revert them at User_talk:Nick Boulevard, which, I considered, could inconvenience other users posting there; as it also isn't my userspace, it would be something that I'd feel happy doing, either.
Secondly, I intially posted links to the diffs on User_talk:Nick Boulevard, but user:pigsonthewing deleted these too. Whereas I have, at the moment, no intention of issuing a WP:RFC, I have noted User:Pigsonthwing's behaviour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, just below his complaint about his not being able to censor my own comments in my own userspace.
If you can point me towards a specific injunction against using userspace in ways such as I have done at User_talk:80.255/potw, then please do, and I will reconsider whether to keep it, or perhaps list a request for comment based on it. Many thanks, 80.255 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trad county material from Buckinghamshire article

I've moved it to History of Buckinghamshire, which is where it belongs. --Concrete Cowboy 22:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with cluttering the main article for a county as it presently exists with excessive material about previous boundaries, same as I would if it were a disproportionately large segment on "Ley lines of Buckinghamshire", "mediaeval trackways of Buckinghamshire, "disused railways of Buckinghamshire", "Buckinghamshire roads before the coming of the motor car" or other deep interests. The unique selling point of the web in general and wiki in particular is that encourages people to drill down and drill sideways. That is why I am content with your desire for Buckinghamshire (traditional). But I certainly not content with any plan to rename the current Buckinghamshire article as Buckinghamshire (Administrative). --Concrete Cowboy 15:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is reasonable and I take your point. I'd be perfectly happy to see a Ley lines of Buckinghamshire article, and, similarly, I think that a Buckinghamshire (traditional) article would benefit the encyclopaedia.
The trouble is that current policy says "Articles about counties should not be split up". With your last comments in mind, would you support me if I were to propose that this sentence be removed from it? 80.255 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this. We already have History of Buckinghamshire as separate and more detailed (about the history) than the main Buckinghamshire. I would lead the rush heave "ley-lines of buckinghamshire" into another article. So the policy certainly needs to be clarified. Middlesex (cricket) is separate from Middlesex and it would be insane if it were otherwise. [Was this policy determined because of Huntingdonshire? I can see the traditionalists going apopleptic if the stuff about the old county were "relegated" to Huntingdonshire (traditional) - certainly the article as it stands is a dog's breakfast.] I'll need to reread the policy in this light, but on the face of it, yes I would support a change. --Concrete Cowboy 15:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still struggling with this. Take for example the policy statement
Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire
This to me is completely reasonable. But I would expect the Coventry article to read
Coventry is in the [[West Midlands]], and within the [[Warwickshire (traditional)|traditional borders of Warwickshire]]
so if I wanted to drill down I could go directly to an article about the historical boundary. But I suppose it would be possible to append the material to the main article and in that case, the line would read:
Coventry is in the [[West Midlands]], and within the [[Warwickshire#Traditional County|traditional borders of Warwickshire]]
provided that it was at the end and not at the beginning as if it had equal status with the current boundary, and didn't swamp it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd support the second option. I think it would be preferable all round to have information on the traditional county in a seperate article. This could either be seen as ensuring such information doesn't "swamp" or be given "undue prominence" the administrative article, or alternatively ensuring that it is not "relegated" to the end of it or "buried" in the middle of it! I agree that the Huntingdonshire article leaves much to be desired at the moment, and think that effecting this suggestion would certainly be a positive step towards sorting it out.
You might, if you support this notion, want to comment to that effect on the policy page. 80.255 17:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A question

In your belief, do hundreds still exist? If not, what year were they abolished in? Morwen - Talk 13:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting question, and one I have thought about before now. In order to give you a definitive answer, I'd have to root around for several documents not available online. In a purely legal sense, it is arguable that some were definitely abolished and others weren't definitely abolished. Not all Hundreds have/had the same common law status. Practical boundaries have also changed a great deal more than county boundaries; in some cases the previous boundaries were purported to have been abolished, in others new boundaries were simply created on top of them that were then to be deemed to constitute a new hundred. Of course, not all counties were administratively divided by hundreds anyway, some have been for over a milennium with little change, and some were divided in this way very late on indeed.
As far as I'm concerned, hundreds are simply areas which can be spoken of as such; the areas themselves clearly still exist (it makes no sense to refer to what is merely a piece of land as not existing when it's still there), but the corporate body component of the subdivisional system, which gave a more concrete palpability to any hundred, is clearly long gone.
The existence or non-existence of hundreds per se is not a sticking point for me. 80.255 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, [1] is a case in point I happened upon shortly after writing the above reply. I should point out, however, that I have no intention of going through ever hundred article and changing the tense; only in specific cases like the above, where it was clearly nonsensical from a logical standpoint as it stood. 80.255 01:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
On the A1 you still see signs for Richmondshire wapentake, which is the Yorkshire equivalent of a hundred. 194.203.110.127 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hill Infoboxes

I believe that template:Mtnbox_start allows either feet or metres to go first. We have recently had discussions (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General) about integrating the British hill infoboxes with the general template, and the current layout is the result of this, though I will admit that the use of units did not come in to the discussion. I stand by the decision to use metres first - the foot measure is simply the metre measure multiplied by 3.2808, thus the definitive figure should go first. The OS have surveyed only in metres for decades now. Grinner 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I take your point regarding OS, in the US I dare say hills and mountains are measured in feet, and thus the same argument can be applied. Either way, this isn't going to lead to consistency. However, if you're multiplying by 3.2808, the difference is going to be very slight in indeed, so I don't really see any harm in putting the ft. measurement first, if only for uniformity of info boxes throughout the encyclopaedia. However, I'll have a look at the discussion page you've posted before altering anything else. Perhaps the measurement used in the actual surveying could be italicised, or similar, but the order kept constant? Just an idea.80.255 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem with using a slight inconsistency, I see it as similar to the use of both US and British English on Wikipedia. If you feel that all mountains should be consistent this should definately be discussed at the appropriate project page. For what it's worth I suspect that such an approach would lead to metres first, only US peaks seem currently to have feet first. Also I've just checked and (for example) all country pages give the area of that country in km2 first, with the exception of the US. Grinner 09:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

User:80.255 - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Unionists/White nationalists

Have you a link to the speech? A newspaper article I read gave me the impression the reference was to certain events in Dublin, rather than the northeast.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Story

Hi: The story on your user page seems to me to be a personal attack on G-Man. If you agree, could you find a more appropriate way to ask G-Man to address inconsistency? —Theo (Talk) 09:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The 'story' is my opinion of two of User:G-Man's edits, communicated in a light-hearted way; it is not, and is not intended to be, a personal attack on User:G-Man; it does not actually say anything personal about this user, but only draws attention to his edits - it is entirely ad rem and not ad hominem. I have, in the past, asked User:G-Man to address or explain such perceived inconsistencies as this one, relating to his edits on various county-related articles, but to no avail. The purpose of the 'story' is to ensure that I do not forget about the two edits in question, in case they might prove relevant in ongoing discussions. I do not feel that it is inappropriate. 80.255 12:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your position. Perhaps I should explain that I find the story funny but would understand if G-Man felt assailed. —Theo (Talk) 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The Pigsonthewikipedia had me ROFLing, and "The Story" made me smile. That kind of thing appeals to my sense of humour though, it's so difficult to convey humour in the right way on the net, I could understand G-Man taking it the wrong way. Anyhow, the reason I came here is because I don't understand the whole traditional county thing. Why do they matter nowadays? Sometimes I wonder if it would be nice to have a Nowipedia and an Historipedia. Ignore me, i'm just pontificating. :) Leonig Mig 13:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place infoboxes

Rather than making tables by hand, you can use the templates Template:Infobox England place, Template:Infobox England place UA, Template:Infobox Scotland place and Template:Infobox Wales place. Owain 19:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

For Castlethorpe I modified the version of the infobox in Woolwich, largely because it included the term "borough", which none of the others seem to (and the Milton Keynes UAA is found at Borough of Milton Keynes).
I've replied to your question re this on my talk page --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
On this specific info-box, the Castlethorpe people will get upset if it doesn't say "District: Borough of Milton Keynes". As it is they are worried by the risk to their three mile wide green belt. --Concrete Cowboy 12:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Easy enough - just change [[Milton Keynes (borough)]] to [[Milton Keynes (borough)|Borough of Milton Keynes]]. Owain 13:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The flag's rather silly, too. I imagine some people could get upset when it appears beneath entries for places in Cornwall, for example. The english royal standard might be more appropriate. 80.255 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history for those particular templates you will notice that I removed the flags, but they were added back in! I made the point that they are unnecessary and add to clutter and may cause offence, but they seem to be satying for now, even without any consensus. Owain 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English grammar

You're obviously a regular Wikipedian, so I'm surprised that you're vandalizing the English grammar page. Not even the most reactionary elderly Englishman honestly believes that only "shall" is correct for the simple future tense. Please stop vandalizing the article with a 19th century England POV that you know is just ridiculous. Thanks. Babajobu 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, it doesn't suit your POV, so it's "vandalism". How original! Pull the other one.
It is POV in the extreme to portray "will" as being a grammatically correct simple future in the first person. It is (mis)used for this purpose from time to time, but that doesn't make it correct. In an article about English grammar, grammar should be correct. If you want to note non-standard use of 'will' in an article about nonstandard use, be my guest. But I refuse to let this article give the false, misleading and POV impression that the use of 'will' in this way makes grammatical sense, because it clearly doesn't. P.s. Fowler's modern English Usage agree with me. 80.255 17:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Very well, I retract my accusation of vandalism. I considered your changes vandalism because I didn't accept that you actually believe that use of "will" for simple future is incorrect or nonstandard. I'm gobsmacked that you actually do believe it. So it's an issue of POV, rather than vandalism. My apologies. Regardless, it is absolute poppycock to suggest that only "shall" is standard in this context. The Scottish and Irish long used "shall" to express volition, and "will" to express simple future; the Americans followed this pattern, rather than the opposite usage once dominant in England. And today, among the very large majority of the world's English speakers, "shall" has passed from ordinary usage altogether, with "will" being used in all contexts. I have a hard time believing that Fowler's still sticks with the antiquated prescription of "shall"; certainly Edward Johnson's The Handbook of Good English, the dominant American arbiter of English usage, dismisses "shall" as stiff, formal, and mostly historical. Please remove the assertion that "will" is nonstandard from the English grammar article. Thank you. Babajobu 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
P.P.S. Fowler agrees with you, 80.255, if you choose to read only the "traditional rules in the standard English of England" (section 1 of the shall and will article in the Third Edition). If you read section 5, "the standard English of countries outside England", you will find that "the absence of shall and the omnipresence of 'll and will are very marked". So which standard English are you proposing that Wikipedia describe? --Heron 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTW

PigsOnTheWing RFC

Thanks Nick Boulevard 12:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Highland council area

Greetings.

As the admin who routinely closes out discussions at WP:RFD, I am attempting to determine the best course of action with regards to your recent nomination of Highland council area.

Firstly, the nomination should have gone to Requested Page Moves. I mention this not because I'm a stickler for process, but simply because I felt you'd wish to know. The talk page at Highland (unitary authority) does seem to indicate no opposition to the move, so I am happy to resolve your issue even though it is not strictly an RFD issue.

However, there seems to be something of a tangled mess of redirects and conflicting pages. It looks like the [Highland council area]] redirect was indeed deleted by someone else on December 25, shortly after your nomination was made. However, that redirect was recreated a day and a half later by User:Mais oui!, who seems to be involved in Wikipedia efforts relating to Scotland.

I'm hoping you can help me clear this up. What is the status surrounding Highland council area? If Highland (unitary authority) is to be moved there, do you prefer it to be moved to Highland Council area or Highland council area? (Note difference in capitalization.)

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:BanffshireTraditional.png

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BanffshireTraditional.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Buckinghamshire_Traditional_Numbered.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Buckinghamshire_Traditional_Numbered.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 12:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] all your base ;)

hi, in the article Auguste-Henri Forel, the phrasing 'In the field of his psychiatric work he was also are great import' struck me as odd. i guess it should mean 'of great importance', but i found it strange that it went through two years of editing without disappearing, so i thought i'd ask ;) cheers -- Sarefo 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Warwickshire.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warwickshire.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz S. (Talk) 17:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your User Page

Your map of the British Virgin Isles seems to have disappeared. --Scorpios 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:William_Morton_Wheeler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:William_Morton_Wheeler.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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)