User talk:HoneybadgerWIKI

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Woody woodburne CNavy.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Woody woodburne CNavy.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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:Non-free content, 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Crew S98.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Crew S98.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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:Non-free content, 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback reply

Posted here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_14#User:HoneybadgerWIKI.2FLambert_Jackson_.28.2522Woody.2522.29_Woodburne. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes; hit the History tab and use the "differences" engine to see what I changed. Also added WikiProjects on your Talk page. If you haven't done so, once you publish I'd drop in and introduce your article on the projects' Talk pages. I cleaned up one of your citations; note that if you have a GoogleBooks link, the automatic citation maker at http://reftag.appspot.com is easy and does great format for gBooks. There's still some tiny copyediting (mostly punctuation errors, or footnotes placed on the wrong side of a period, or an extra space, etc). That aside, I'd say you're ready to publish. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thing: footnotes go after punctuation marks, and you'll want to spell out abbreviations like "B. Mil" if they're not commonly-understood or wikilinked terms (same with SAAF). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just changed footnotes to before (aarggh....smile). Did address SAAF, will fix B.Mil.

--HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should've been more specific than just "wrong side", my bust. That aside, article is looking cleaner and cleaner. I don't suppose you happen to be in contact with him or his family, in order to perhaps acquire a photograph from them to release to Creative Commons for the article? Alternately, if you know any Public Affairs officers at the SADF, perhaps they can be convinced to release a photo? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article looking good thanks to your attention to minute(!) detail. I will contact SA Navy News magazine for pics and use/copyright permissions. Am not in contact with Woody or family but maybe this article will encourage others to update details for other SA Navy admirals. Do know that his medals list is incomplete since pics show more medals than my sources reveal. Lastly, I do have a scanned photo that I got from my dad from 1972-4 (uploaded File:Crew S98.jpg) which I could also use I think... will chat soon, thanks again. --HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if the photo is the intellectual property of your da, you should be able to use it just fine, you just need to very carefully read the upload form to check the right sourcing and copyright options. IRT categories "South African navy personnel" vice "South African admirals", the reason the other articles aren't in "Admirals" is that I just created it today. By moving Woody to "SA admirals", which is a subset of both "SAN personnel" and "Admirals", so he'll be found from two different directions. I do advise we move him to "SA admirals", but then also move any other articles in "SAN personnel" to "SA admirals" as well. Putting articles in the most specific cat possible enhances their discoverability, since categories on Wiki, unlike folders on MS Windows or a paper library card catalog, are part of a large interconnected network. I'm about to get real busy, but if you could lend a hand for 3min and move all the SA admirals into the new category, that'd be a help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done moves of the 2 admirals (Biermann and Halifax only) to SA Admirals. Added link to List_of_South_African_military_chiefs in first line. This would be article that I would insert link to page on Woodburne. So, where do we go from here? (when you have a moment) Many thanks. --HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to publish at this point. Do you have Move permissions (in the drop-down menu between the search box and the star at top of your screen), or shall I do it for you? I would also suggest we title the article as just his name, but include the nickname in the lede. Once we publish, we might also want to glance around for whatever term pages like List of South African military chiefs use for his name, and if they don't match your title make sure they WP:Redirect to your title. But definitely well-qualified to publish, though a good photo would be great as the opportunity arises. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will change title and do Move. I have the move permission it seems.

--HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move done and edited a few related pages to direct to this article. All tested and do work. Will keep on at photo. Many thanks again for your help. Very excited this side of the PC. ;-)

--HoneybadgerWIKI (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the first one is always a bit of a slog; now three years in I occasionally run across articles I wrote in my first six months, smack myself on the forehead, and improve them. I was self-taught, but the way you're using internal feedback assets is giving you a far stronger start than I had. I imagine your next article will be a good 90%+ from the outset. It does get smoother and faster with each article, I just knocked out sruti upanga (an indigenous Indian bagpipe in Tamil Nadu) in little over an hour from scratch, with multiple footnotes and image. Always feel free to drop in to Request for Feedback or to write me personally, though after a couple articles you're probably best to write into the WikiProjects, since you'll need precious little formatting feedback, and more need support/analysis from the larger community of subject-matter enthusiasts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]