User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately societies homepage and Edmund Hall (the writer of the material used as a source) an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Hope the break did you good. Nice to see you back old chum. Narson (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some italian troops fought well and what not, but the verifiable accounts are those of Rommel condemning the italians, the British condemning the Italians....everyone thougt they were piss poor, deserved or not. Narson (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone remember where it says whether we should use "Argentine" or "Argentinian". Ryan4314 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse return

I reported Generalmesses new socks: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Generalmesse (2nd) --noclador (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:A-4C Tte casco.jpg

Hello! Images moved to Wikimedia Commons will be available as if they were uploaded in Wikipedia, using [[Image:Example.jpg]]. If the image moved remain with the same they had when upload in Wikipedia, like this image, when the image on Wikipedia is deleted, the image on Wikimedia Commons is automatically available by the same name, but if they don't the same name, [[Image:Example.JPG]] is different of [[Image:Example.jpg]]. A practical example, Image:A-4C Tte casco.JPG is not the same of Image:A-4C Tte casco.jpg, therefore moving images to Wikimedia Commons should respect the original name if possible, otherwise all article have to update the image name. In this case, these two images have the same, so there is no need to update articles that use it. Best regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg

Sorry to bother you with this spin-off of our discussion, but you mentioned you used a non-free component image in this gallery montage. Now, I guess the Antelope explosion image is fine where it is used in the Antelope article, but having it additionally in a gallery where it is not even mentioned in the surroundings at all is very clearly against our rules. Non-free images in galleries is a no-no. This one is so clear-cut I would handle it through speedy deletion.

Can you please make a replacement version of the gallery without that item? (Just compare the gallery at WWII, where I'm sure people would have loved to use some more "memorable" pictures instead, but rightly restricted themselves to the free ones.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have extremely clear policies and practices in this respect. Non-free in a mere montage or gallery is out, period. No room for debate here. Image will be gone in 48h. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt you acted in good faith there. I saw the discussion in one of the Falklands War talk archives, I guess that's what you mean. The advice you got just happened to be wrong. The thing you probably worked on was the wording of the exception in WP:NFC, where it says under "unacceptable use": "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war". That's right, but the "unless..." is really incomplete. The exception applies only if and where the image, because of its special status, is the object of encyclopedic discussion in its own right. It most certainly doesn't give carte blanche for using these particular non-free images anywhere and as often as one likes. There is no such discussion relating to the infobox picture on the main Falklands page, so it's out. The practice of excluding non-free items from galleries of this kind is really very strongly anchored in consensus and policy, and deletions based on that are absolutely routine.

And sorry, this is not some kind of retribution because of our other debate. It's just that you brought the image to my attention, so I couldn't help looking at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:FalklandsWarMontage.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh!

Wikistalker!!! J'Accuse! ^.^ Narson (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an artile that needs waching. Funny how people from both sides want to argue it was a win. When serious historians can't really work it out/agree, lets not be silly enough to think Wikipedians can ;) Did you see the bot trimmed all mention of the Conqueror image from the IFD page? Narson (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox page

Sorry to keep pestering you, but just a few notes on your draft at User:Justin A Kuntz/Iconic photographs of the Falklands War:

• As long as this page is in your user space, you can't have the non-free photographs on it. There's a very strict rule about that at WP:NFCC. Please replace them with inline links for as long as it's a sandbox; you can insert the actual images back in once you move it to mainspace.
• Please note the rule at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use, #I5: Once you have a main article dealing specifically with a non-free image, the image shouldn't also be kept in other articles without some very good special reason. This way, your new article could actually "backfire" on you and force us to remove the images elsewhere.
• However, the page as it now seems to be developing would probably hardly survive AfD anyway. You get a massive WP:OR problem unless you can actually source, for each of the images, that it is regarded as "iconic". Also, unless you have a very good story to tell about each (and not just the story of the war event pictured, but a story about the image itself), you'll probably get in conflict with notions of what is "encyclopedic". If the page is just a pretext for having what basically amounts to a mere gallery of non-free images, deletion is almost certain.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the images by ()'ing rather than square bracketting, Justin. Narson (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Yomp"

By the way, would (sorry can't link to it due to spamfilter) images.suite101.com/185696_picture2.jpg be an acceptable replacement for the image currently used at Yomp? It's claimed at its source site to be public domain (though unfortunately without an explanation why). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to but in on Justin's talk page again, but I quite like that pic. Though I think Yomping refers to the Royal Marines? Not sure if that matters (or whether the chaps in the free pic or marines or not, the fact they are marching with helmets on means I would guess at not but that would only affect whether we call the caption yomping or tabbing) Narson (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How many Falklands images has Fut Perf removed now? There's obviously some bad blood on both sides while this Conqueror thing is still going on, shall we have a vote on the task force, to request that a different admin check all our images? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The taskforce is a taskforce, Ryan. To get review of FutPer's actions you'd need to take it to ANI or get him to agree to recuse. To be honest Ryan, there are a lot of issues with using non-free media as much as the Falkland articles do (The nature of the war being so remote and crown copyright being used). I don't agree with how FutPer has chosen to go forward with it, but, I can't see what he has done wrong that would warrant action. I could mention AGF, but instead I'll use a bit of logic (It isn't just for getting +2 to your Chess rolls). If FutPer isn't out to screw with the articles, then letting him be avoids looking like a ginormous tit. If he /is/ out to screw with the articles, then he still hasn't done enough to warrant any action so give him some rope. Personally I would rather believe it is a case of overzealous application of the rules. Narson (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're paras, they're wearing the Para steel helmet [1], which was only issued to the Parachute regiment. Paras "tab", Marines "yomp", so no it wouldn't be a suitable replacement. Getting it wrong would likely incur great vengeance and furious anger. Justin talk 00:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to e quite a different kit too, and attitude (Paras wonder around always ready for battle, yomping is meant to be this slightly forlorn and dreary march with nothing much to do I believe?). I still like the pic though. SOme of the detail, like the entrenching tools (It is a shovel, Jim), is nice. Narson (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, point taken about them being different units. But, since you're currently trying your hand at treating "iconicness" of images, could you perhaps first of all fix that article? As the article stands right now, I'd have to (again) remove the image for being replaceable. If it's just to illustrate what "yomping" looks like, any photograph from some navy exercise could do. If you want this particular image because of its iconic status, then you need to write about its iconic status. I see you've collected some material to that effect, so I have some hope it might actually be marginally possible in this case. (Like, talk about how the press later researched the identity of the guy, and so on.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I would like to do that, will you give me a chance to do so? Justin talk 11:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And thats done, and now I'm taking the dog for a walk. Justin talk 12:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Iconic images

Good idea, man, despite all this mess about copyright status. For an Argentine perspective, try this link to the most iconic picture of the war in my country. The naval commando in custody of the Royal Marines was a corporal, he came to Government house when things were nearly over, after having stormed Moody Brook's barracks. Earlier, this guy and his buddies had captured eight FIDF members at the racecourse during their march towards Stanley. He is the subject of interviews every year since. At that time the commandos were based at Mar del Plata, my hometown, and still they make some training operations here. Another interesting photo I came on is this. They are GADA 601's soldiers taking position around a WWII bunker near Stanley. There are also pics of the 25 Infantry Regiment at Goose Green, one of them shows 1º Lt. Estévez pledging allegiancy. He was killed in action a couple of days later. I promise to upload this and other photos to wiki commons as soon as possible. Good luck.--Darius (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

UP vs Arg

Been looking into it, it is even more complicated. Argentina was first used in a constitution of 1824, but they still used UP normally. I think we should use Argentina post 36 though, as you suggest, because it is when it was used exclusivly and without confusion (wasn't Uruguay part of UP too until the end of the war?) Narson (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentine Copyright (Part I)

Hi man. Iam aware of the ongoing discussion on free-images from Argentina. I was reading the law and I was thinking about possible solutions. I think there are some legal 'gaps' (both in Argentina and US) that could be helpfull in order to maintain those pics in public domain. Iam very busy right now, but I promise to post some interesting things I found later today.--Darius (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentine Copyright (Part II)

I was reading the law and was thinking about two possible solutions:

1) Legal gaps regarding photos in the Argentine law (By the way, most of the law deals with printed stuff):

Article 34=Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación. (The 20 years deadline).

And then, something of high interest for us: Debe inscribirse sobre la obra fotográfica o cinematográfica la fecha, el lugar de publicación, el nombre o la marca del autor o editor. El incumplimiento de este requisito no dará lugar a la acción penal prevista en esta ley para el caso de reproducción de dichas obras.

Translation= "The cinematographic or photographic work should be branded with the name of the author or the editor. If this requirement is not met, no legal suit could be made in case of any unauthorized copy of the work."

The latter left some of the photographs in a legal limbo, particularly those taken by military units during the war. These pics were profusely reproduced by several books and magazines in the years after the war, but the authors were anonymous servicemen of the army, air force, navy, etc. In any Argentine publication I found, however, the credit is loosely attributed (if attributed at all) to the respective branch or military unit, not to individuals. I cannot assure whether it means that the images were in the public domain at the time of their publication, but if this was the case, then those pictures were already PD in Argentina by 1º January 1996, the US date for reentering in private domain if still under legal copyright in the country of origin. Even if no equivalent to PD-USgov in Argentina, this legal gap could have the potential for a future claim of free use of pics taken by the military.

Complementary, US legislation prescribes that those images published after 1977 with no explicit reference to its copyright (and this seems to be the situation of those pictures taken by servicemen) and in PD in the country of origin, are also in PD in the USA. Then, if I am not wrong, we will need a Commons template citing the specification of the article 34 of the Argentine law, and the US provisions about the lack of copyright notice plus PD status. In en-Wiki, we have already the following template:

This file is believed to be out of copyright in its home country, as well as the US. If this is confirmed when checked, it should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, unless the file is tagged {{Keep Local}} .

2) Query to the Argentine military:

Given the PD of those images in Argentina, another solution could be that people of the foundation, may be Commons admins or village pumps, contact the websites of the Argentine military (army, navy and air force) to request permission to upload the images under a copyright-free template. I suggest:

.

I guess that things will become more complex for those pics taken by professional photographers, as unfortunately seems to be the case of some images of the Argentine invasion. But we still can claim fair use for these ones.

A third way could be a Commons template combining the PD-AR one (regarding the 25 years deadline) plus the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike protecting any potential copyright claim made in USA.--Darius (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedman and Falkland Islands

Actually if you have some books (or peer reviewd journal articles) to recommend that deal with the origins of the conflict in more depth than Freedman, and if u could give me authors/titles that would be very welcome :). My university library is a little narrow in its coverage of the Falklands (official history, signals of war, voices from the falklands (personal narratives) and some weird theoretical work which i have found highly dubious). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, I'm looking through the "getting it right" pdf right now (which has some interesting stuff but seems as biased as the pamphlet it's arguing against. I mean, it's hard not to laugh at their attack on colonialism on page 4), but will get onto the other stuff soon :). (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Stikeouts

Why was this done: [2] Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is standard wiki practice not to edit other users' edits, much less their signatures. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentine PD photos - I've found a way ahead, just in case

Good news. Even if the guys of Commons delete all Argentine post-1971 public domain photos in the near future, I have already found the correct tag to upload these photos again (at least those in the hands of the military). I have almost completed the process for GADA 601 images (remember, their base is at my home town), and I probably can apply the same recipe for the pics of the invasion in the following weeks, given the proper contacts. Stay tuned :).--Darius (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm

Probably best off not getting involved man. The chap is a bit single purpose. Narson (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Only place I came close was on my talk age...where 3RR doesn't apply, Justin :) Narson (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I generally stop at two reverts on an article, gives me one spare revert for egregious stuff. On your user talk, 3RR does not apply, nor do the usual rules about removing commens from talk etc. Narson (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pembroke Lighthouse

Hi Justin, I just want to notice you that I've uploaded a pic of the lighthouse from Flickr. I learned that the Falklands work group was requesting an image for the article, and I found this on Flickr under the proper licensing. Enjoy it :)--Darius (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Journal Articles

Sure thing, I'll send you some of the more interesting .pdf's I've found. Just give me your email on my talk page, and don't tell the copyright people I shared them with you :) (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Re:ARA Almirante Irízar (Q-5)‎

No problem; I read the online Clarín everyday, so I even knew where to get the reference. It took me just 30 seconds to wrap it up. Mariano(t/c) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Users Talk Pages' comments: Thank you!

Thanx for your support on Mzajac page, mate :)--Darius (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 1st Baronet

100% wrong. Not one of my ancestors. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one

Nice one! How'd u find it? I've actually found a load of info on those pesky "interwar years" that hindered me at FAC, I haven't added it yet coz I'm still working on the FF incident. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's pretty amazing u found this, I would've never of found this! Already E-mailed Ken, I'll make sure I'll give u cred. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Image:Lt Clayton.JPG at Deletion review

After some to-and-fro I've listed my closure of this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 15, and as a participant in the IfD I invite your comments - Peripitus (Talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10