User talk:JonRoma/Archive 20120101

Thank you

David, you appear to have started the discussion about the proposed rename List of German concentration camps → List of Nazi concentration camps. I wanted to be sure you were aware that the discussion has morphed...

Thank you for the above, JonRoma; I had forgotten I had made this suggestion as I had forgotten to add List of German concentration camps to my watchlist. (Ditto "Final solution" → "Final Solution".) I have now belatedly made a contribution to the discussion.

Best wishes, David Kernow 03:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm OK with the move as it stands (after Nightstallion's rename and your subsequent rename). The wording meets my criteria of specificity.

Thanks for letting me know. I have, however, returned to favoring "List of Nazi concentration camps". Though I appreciate it is not very specific, I feel it is sufficiently specific – try asking a few folks what they would understand it to mean – and it seems to be in use just about everywhere else on Wikipedia (Nazi concentration camps, Category:Nazi concentration camps, etc). I fear, though, that asking for another requested move would only serve to irritate people. Yours, David 23:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ingrid of Sweden

Why the heck did you put Ingrid of Sweden in as Queen Ingrid of Denmark? Firstly, WP articles never use King or Queen in article titles. Secondly, WP follows standard royal naming rules in placing deceased consorts in under their maiden name, because their lack of ordinals means that it otherwise is impossible to tell them apart under consort names (hence Catherine of Aragon, Blanche of Castille, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Mary of Modena, Mary José of Belgium etc. As a Swedish princess, Ingrid's maide name/title was Ingrid of Sweden so that is why she is under that name here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The page as it was originally was Queen Ingrid of Sweden, which was patently wrong; when I moved it, I substituted Denmark without remembering that I should have also removed the Queen. I wasn't aware of the rule/guideline about consort names. I have moved the corresponding talk page as well, in order that it matches the moved page. — JonRoma 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Did it not follow? It should have! (This damn system sometimes!) Re highest title: monarchs regnant go to highest title. That can be done because they have an ordinal so you can tell Henry VII from Henry VIII. But consorts cannot do that. Without an ordinal, for Henry VIII's wives you'd have otherwise Queen Catherine, Queen Anne, Queen Jane, Queen Anne , Queen Catherine and Queen Catherine!! It is unworkable. So historians and genealogists always return consorts to pre-marital name or title, meaning that we have Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard and Catherine Parr. Historians now refer to the late British queen mother as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as does Wikipedia. Ingrid on her death also reverted to her maiden title, which was Ingrid of Sweden. (The lack of Princess indicates she was a queen somewhere.) Doing it that way also makes it easier in terms of genealogy to show maternal ancestry. So King George VI is usually referred to as the son of King George V and Mary of Teck, not King George and Queen Mary (as there were other Queen Marys, eg. Mary of Modena.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that's somewhat complicated but your explanation makes a fair bit of sense, even though there weren't as many Ingrids as there were Catherines or Annes! It seems like a good system to follow.

Anyway, as I noted, the page originally was Queen Ingrid of Sweden, which was wrong on two counts; first, she was a princess and not queen of Sweden, and second, the title should have been removed. My change was well-intentioned (to correct the country of which she was queen), but I failed to remember the rule about omitting royal titles even though I normally take those out when I see them. I definitely didn't intend any harm and should have simply did as you did and take out the title. You're right about the "damn system" — it gets downright messy and I'm not sure the rules are all clear or in the same place! Regards. — JonRoma 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Railway Signalling

Thank you for your huge contribution. Was it really called Automatic Train Control in 1906?? The section now looks as if it needs breaking up with images - and particularly for a section on signalling - diagrams! Benet Allen 11:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The term ATC seems to indeed date from the original installation, and seems to have been very much ahead of its time. The railroads of the United States had similar systems — some using the same pickup method as the GWR and some detecting electrical pulses through the rails with or without display of signal indications in the engine cab; some of the North American systems were/are called Automatic Train Control as well. Some of the earliest US systems did date to the same period as the GWR's installation, but cab signaling, ATC, and the like really didn't really hit full stride until the Twenties.

This reference to North American systems points out the pitfalls suffered with some of the Wikipedia railway articles: There seems a tendency by the authors of these articles to parochialism — the natural tendency to describe those practices with which one is familiar. As a result, some of the rail articles are UK-centric, while others are US-centric. I am, I suppose, just as guilty of this as the next Wikipedian, but in my recent edit I have tried to qualify some of the statements made as being pertinent to UK railways only, or provide information on the corresponding North American practices. Needless to say, the rail systems in the UK and US have significant differences in practices (not to mention terminology!), and that neglects some variation in the rest of the English-speaking lands, not to mention the rest of the world.

A goal for this article might be to broadly describe the key purposes of any railway signalling system (anywhere in the world) without getting into specifics. Specific practices might better be relegated to sub-articles such as Railway signalling (United Kingdom), Railroad signaling (North America), Railroad signaling (France), and so forth. This might be a challenge, but I don't see that a visitor to the basic Railway signalling article should have to wade through all the arcane national/regional descriptions to get at the meat of the the question "What purpose does railway signaling serve?". Thoughts? JonRoma 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bold thoughts. But your final question is answered in the first line of the article, and while the whole thing is a little over-long, contributors have been careful to attach language and practice to the relevant country. It would benefit more from a severe pruning than redistribution! The section headed 'safety systems' contains a lot of redundant material - even the section title, and its first line - and like I said before, the whole article cries out for diagrams! These can be requested here. Jump in and take charge! Benet Allen 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GustafVISwedenLate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GustafVISwedenLate.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 11:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo:

I don't have the photo from which this image was scanned, but I found another online scan of the same work. The composition and style of the print (the latter trait is visible in the external site, but not on my Wikipedia contribution) lead me to believe that the original work was a publicity photo released by the royal photographer, which could possibly put it under fair use. There are several web sites (antiquarian bookstores, collector sites, etc.) that have the king in similar settings, but not this identical shot. This is a good faith guess, but perhaps isn't good enough to be conclusive about whether the image can be legitimately used under the umbrella of fair use. Incidentally, I found an English translation of Swedish copyright law and though there are pertinent references in sections 9, 16a, and 49a, I don't feel confident interpreting law either in the general sense or in relation to this particular photo. Thoughts? — JonRoma 04:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:William_Shirer_in_Rome_1939.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:William_Shirer_in_Rome_1939.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I

Apologize if you felt insulted by my remarks, but limiting the war crimes to "Fight against communism"(which obviously could be seen as attempting to present them as justifiable or even in good faith) gave me revisionism alert. --Molobo 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Papen

I reinserted "putting a frame" as the translation of the verb that's usually used in English for this occasion. In German it is "einrahmen", which means putting a frame around something, e.g.a picture. But you also "einrahmen" someone by putting people or things around him.

I am afraid I haven't seen a transcript of Papen's speach.

Cheers, Str1977 21:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have googled and found the speech here, alas only in German, so I don't know whether you can read it. Str1977 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jon, please don't remove the framework of the narrative. After your edit we suddenly jump from Papen's marginalisation to Röhm's demands. However, these demands are only relevant in this article because of their relation to Papen and his assistants.

As for the "conspiracy", I don't have any details. However, there were talks about it (and the articles says nothing more). But soon all this was cut short by Hitler's siding with the military. Str1977 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am content with "box in". Str1977 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What I felt I was doing was to remove the part about the conspiracy for which I've not yet seen much documentation in any of the "classic" material on the Third Reich or the four books I've recently read about the period 1930 to 1934. We know that Papen was marginalized, but I haven't seen any reference to a "plot" to oust Hitler in which Papen was involved. Shirer writes that Papen's speech was given in response to Hindenburg's dismay at the deteriorating situation and indicates that, upon meeting with the president shortly thereafter, Hitler's fears about Hindenburg's attitude were confirmed. Other sources have varying accounts of the conversations, but in any event, I think one can agree that after learning of Hindenburg's displeasure firsthand may have made Hitler aware that he must honor his agreement with the Army to put down the SA.

But perhaps we ought to be talking about this on the article's talk page! I'll leave your change alone even though I think the statement that Papen conspired against Hitler is ambiguous. I will, however, fix a couple spelling errors in the meantime. Regards. — JonRoma 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Authors register their copyright while writing or on completion in particular to protect themselves when they submit sample chapters or whole manuscripts to prospective publishers/agents and the like. For Shirer, 1959 is the copyright date but the publication date is 1960. You can verify publication dates at the U.S. Library of Congress. See: [1] Hope this explains it satisfactorily. Karl Schalike 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler under attack

Dear Jon, could you please have a look into Adolf Hitler, which is currently under serious POV attack. Help is appreciated. Str1977 16:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the corrections on the Streicher page. I'll see if I can figure out the peculiarities of Wiki markup and save such trouble in the future Bytwerk 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Bytwerk

Was tue ich im Ernstfall

I actually have a section of that translated on my site:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feindpro.htm

Talk:Signal box

Good day professor Roma---given that you are No.1 American railroad switch tower maven, you are definitely needed right here. Looking forward to hearing from you, --JackLumber 12:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Potsdamer Platz circa 1961.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Potsdamer Platz circa 1961.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 media, consider checking 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Neue Reichskanzlei exterior color.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Neue Reichskanzlei exterior color.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-no-disclaimers}} 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 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Svencb 10:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wilhelm Groener.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilhelm Groener.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pichpich (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)