User talk:Miguel.mateo/Archives/2008/August

Question

Hello Miguel.mateo, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting easier for you? Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, either by using it to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war, can lead to it being removed. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, thank you for being so thoughtfull. I have more than 500 articles in my watch list, and the list is growing, if I ever see vandalism on those articles of course I revert. I have also learned to use WP:RfP when needed. Can I take a look at some documentation on how to use this tool you mentioned to see how will it help me? If it makes my battle against vandalism easier of course I want it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I grant it then, the page for information and practice is Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. The tool is very useful, I can assure you. Acalamari 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't wait ;) so I searched for it, I am already there, very useful indeed, please grant me the rights if possible. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) Be careful, and have fun. Acalamari 01:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried in the "New Admin School" page, very cool and fast indeed, thanks a bunch! Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, is there any tool out there to automate the "warning process" like I manually did in User talk:165.228.236.45 I typically try to warn users before taking more actions and there gotta be something to get this done more efficiently. Thanks in advance, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be Twinkle, I think, but be aware that only works on certain browsers. The fact that tools like Twinkle and others didn't work on all browsers helped contribute to the rollback feature being introduced for non-admins, as rollback is part of the MediaWiki software, and works in all browsers (it's also faster than other revert tools, including Twinkle). However, rollback was, as the name implies, only meant for reverting. Acalamari 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at it, you have been very helpful today, way for me to start my day! Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Happy editing. Acalamari 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Austrian coins

I haven't forgotten your article Miguel. Unfortunately people keep playing politics at an article I'm involved with and time gets wasted wading through accusations. I try not to let it stop me from helping others, but the fact is that it does.

I'll try to stop by and copy edit another year's worth of coin descriptions. That "flowery" comment is a bit harsh, but I can understand it. I really liked your lead to the article because it was "no nonsense" straight forward English, with simple words and grammar. The descriptions certainly are more "flowery", but some of that suits the topic. It's precisely the language one finds in coin-dealer's books.

Anyway, I'll bear that reviewer's comment in mind while editing, though I might leave a few "flowers" in the garden, I like a few. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(: Thanks! (: Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, I am really sorry for this; I'm sure two failed FLCs in a row are quite disappointing. It only needs a little more work for the list to meet the criteria. I meant to follow up on my comments, but the last few days have found me with various engagements and Internet-connection problems; I did not remember that nominations close so fast there. I shall continue the improvement process and leave comments on the talk page when needed; meanwhile, I suggest continuing with the next list in the line-up (I wonder which one it is). As the topic is a large one anyway, the whole set will take a long time to complete, and experience from later nominations can benefit the former ones, as they are all really one topic. Waltham, The Duke of 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why it closed, everything I was told to do it was done, I will ask TRM for advice. My next nomination will be Finland, which I am working on it now. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

TDW, reading the FLC process, I think we can ask for extra time, since I do think this is almost there. do you know how to do that? thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, sorry I wrote an extensive reply and then the database locked and I lost the lot - good old Internet Explorer. The quick answer is that the fair use issues must be resolved before this is resubmitted at FLC. Fasach Nua was in opposition to the list being promoted, and only the good Duke showed any likelihood to support it so really it didn't have the sort of backing I was looking for. Besides, it had become a little "too long, didn't read" because of the peer review-style comments going on there. I'd work on it off-line, get Fasach's blessing on the FU stuff and then resubmit. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TRM,

Do not get me wrong, but this is so dissapointing. The only editor that opposed to it was based on the fact that the images tags were incorrect. In his talk page I explained what I found, he agreed that there is no problems with the licenses (he also said that in the FLC discussion) but the tags must change; he proposed that he will create a new tag but that never happened see here. I am the one that have to change close to 200 images and I have been waiting for this new tag. It is unfair that only his voice is used not to promote this article (this is not actually your problem, IMHO there is a lack of FLC reviewers in general, I am currently a bit frustrated at the process). The Duke sent an apology, because he was without internet for these past days and he couldn't cast his vote, but he is supportive to get it promoted.

How can I get back to the motivation state needed to continue nominating pages? The articles that we are producing are definitely FLC material, I am sure you recognize that, but I do not really know if it is worth anymore to go through the process again, since other editors seems to try to push their agenda (last time "market value" attribute, this time tags on the images) and there are not that many reviewers to support. This is not your fault, but I just lost the motivation ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mateo, I'd be glad to help but I"m not sure how/what you need. Does Rambling Man provide any example of what he considers "flowery"? It seems that 'One mans flower is another mans Weed. lET ME KNOW..aDIOS...--Buster7 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Buster, forgot to reply you. You can find the comments here right in the middle TRM made a few comments with samples that I already changed. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. So, a number of things.

1. The list had no support at all. Not one support. The Duke had said after he'd copyedited it, he might support it.
2. The list had one oppose.
3. The fair use licencing issue must be resolved. I've made my feelings plain about WP:FLC deteriorating into WP:PR - the discussion needs to take place outside the FLC process.
4. As for "floral" descriptions, this phrase seems to have been taken a little personally by a few people - to say it's "harsh" I found very odd. I was barely a tenth of the way through the list and had picked up five or six instances of what I would consider over-the-top descriptions. I can still see more examples of language which needs tightening up:
   1. "Theatre slightly behind the " slightly?
   2. " God the Father " just God is fine.
   3. "Leopold easily recognized his son's unique musical gift, giving him the proper instructions and guidance. " - relevance?
   4. "stretches off back to the right." - reads very clunkily.
   5. "In 2006 the world celebrates Mozart's 250th birthday, this coin joined this celebration. " - reads like an advert.

I read your comments above, "The articles that we are producing are definitely FLC material" - no, they're not. They become FL quality after a lot of work is put in during the review process. Ideally this work should be done at a peer review. "...other editors seems to try to push their agenda ..." this is a problem with Wikipedia and reviewers who come and go - each reviewer has an area of expertise which they want to see correctly implemented before they'll support. This time it was fair use issues which are actually quite important. "...only his voice is used not to promote this article..." - no, mine too. As you can see from the numerous examples from a short section of the list, I'm not happy at all with some of the descriptions. That's why you need to take it away and copyedit, or, better still, have someone else copyedit.

I know you're disappointed but there's no rush here. The list is just not ready yet - sort out the fair use issue with Fasach Nua, carry on with the copyedit and really work on tightening the language up (remember it should read like an encyclopaedia, not a sales brochure) and then bring it back to WP:FLC. Feel free to get back to me if this isn't clear. All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a once-over-again...later in the week. I usually work with what the author creates. I just re-word it a bit, get rid of run-ons, instill brevity, etc. TRM's comments are not out of line regarding my edits. I know Alastair will look in. A different way of looking at it may be "the cat's meow"...I will be on Holiday for a few weeks beginning Friday. Have you looked at User:Buster7/Wikiknights yet. I invite you to join --Buster7 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TRM, honestly I appreciate it. Since it is obvious that grammar is not my forte and grammar is very important in the FL process, I think I will better give up to get this and the other articles promoted. Thanks a lot for your time.

Buster, enjoy your vacation! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving up is the last thing I want you to do. Get the prose copyedited - you have a couple of volunteers, and learn from the things they do so you can improve subsequent nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day, your section on the rfar evidence page should consist of evidence, which requires that any "facts" are accompanied with diffs. As with all editing, readers must be able to "trust, but verify" - without diffs, your aasertions cant be verified. I have started a discussion at evidence talk about this, and will keep an eye on it, but you are also welcome to ask questions here on your talk page and throw "{{talkback}}" on my talk to grab my attention and I will try to help. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

Miguel, Whats the story with the Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) article? whats preventing it from becoming featured? Kevin hipwell (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, two things:

1. The ussage of the images is ok, however, there are policies that says that so many non-free (although fair-use) images should not be allowed. In this topic two things are happening:

• a) I am trying to get permission from the Euro Information Website to use the images, they talked to the Austrian Mint and they may get permission (same applies to Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, San Marino and Vatican city); they need to do some changes in that site (in the euro information site). This sounds very promissing, but we have no guarantee that we will receive permission for all countries yet.

• b) A wikipedia administrator is challenging the policy of fair-use images list, specially for articles like ours that we are describing the images. I sent you a link to the discussion in your talk page a couple of days ago. That also sounds promising, but I do have the feeling that months will pass by before we see any results.

2. There is a need of a copy/edit to the prose of the article. That can fairly easy be done by volunteers; but I have not focus on this part yet since I want the previous item to be fixed first.

I know you are keen to have all the articles finished, I am currently wiki-linking Finland, but I have almost no time these days due to my job. I still come to Wikipedia "to relax" but after fighting vandalism, answering some of the discussions and seeing recent changes to the pages I am watching, I barely have no time for the articles; but it is my best intentions to work on them.

If you do not mind, please go ahead creating the articles that are missing, like Greece, Germany, Netherlands ... I will be behind you slowly, backing you up, adding the information that is missing and putting them ready to be promoted. What do you think?

Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Miguel, I understand you have been busy recently and thank you for your response, I'm just a little confused about what you are saying, if you can clear it up for me that would be great.

Sorry to have put my questions so bluntly .

I am trying to get permission from the Euro Information Website to use the images

You have permission from the Euro Information Website to use what images?

I have heard that The Euro Information Web Site will have soon a section for euro commemorative coins, although the layout has not been decided, it seems like the information there will be smaller than the pages in Wikipedia, by my opinion. The good thing is that you know where the information is coming right from the source, including the images. The idea behind is to get free access to that content and that will be explicitely said in that web page. As a result we can donwload the information we need from that site (or the Austrian Mint, which ever is a best source) and reference the Euro Information Website in our texts. That would be all. The same would apply to any other country that a respective section is created in the Euro Information Website.

they talked to the Austrian Mint and they may get permission (same applies to Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, San Marino and Vatican city)

Do you mean that they can now give you permission because they have permission?

That is not clear, I hope I can refer The Euro Information Website same as the circulating coins, or get some sort of license from the use of its content, those images most likely will be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, so all languages of Wikipedia can use them.

we need to do some changes in that site

What Kind of changes

I do not have all the details on this one yet, but seems like there will be a new section for non 2-euro commemorative coins, the coins that we are talking about.

but some countries condition was to see the results of the countries that I just mentioned

What do you mean?, we can use Austria Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, San Marino and Vatican city only if we get every countries permission.

I meant to say that it seems like they already got permission to carry on with their project in the Euro Information Website (from now on EIW), once those pages are built and online, we can use that information as much as we want to continue our work in Wikipedia. I do not want to stop from what we are doing. But they need to "officialize" the images, and the simpler solution they found is that the images are downloaded from and referenced to the Euro Information Website. I assumed that they will also add some descriptions to the coins, like weight, size, ... etc; but they may not be able to comment on topics like market price for example. So the information in this new section of their site will be smaller compared to what we are doing. I do not have too much details on this part yet; this is just an assumption.

As a result, EIW is getting permission from all countries yet, and some countries may say that they want to see results. So on the first phase, you may see just a few countries in this section of the EIW, like the ones I just mention, starting from Austria.

A wikipedia administrator is challenging the policy of fair-use images list, specially for articles like ours that we are describing the images

If we have permission why do we need a fair-use license?, would we not use a public domain licence?

That is another angle of attaching the problem of non-free fair-use of images in list. There is a policy that says that fair-use images should not be used in list, and there are some proposals in that policy that none of them apply to us. So this administrator is basically pushing for a change in the policy, to allow articles like ours to have that many fair-use images. This can be useful for us for those countries that we have not received permissions yet, for example Ireland, Finland and France articles are almost finished, just need a few touches. But if we do not have permission for free-use of their images, then we will never be able to promote them to FL. If the policy changes then this will no longer be a problem.

There is a need of a copy/edit to the prose of the article

from what I have read copy/edit is rewriting the prose using correct english? btw, writing the prose is not one of my talents, thats why I'm glad you are so good at it, although I do understand the necessity to fix the image problem.

Well, the people at the Featured List and Feature Article committee are experts on the topic of copy edit, you have seen the comments they have made, that only after I see the comment it makes sense to me to change the text. They simply want others to give the texts a more "encyclopedic" shape and form. Austria is a big article, maybe the biggest, that is why it is difficult. Belgium we did not have a big issue with it, the others should be the same. I will ask for volunteers (I have done so in the past, there is a list of volunteers somewhere) once the issue with the images is solved.

If you do not mind, please go ahead creating the articles that are missing, like Greece, Germany, Netherlands ... I will be behind you slowly, backing you up, adding the information that is missing and putting them ready to be promoted. What do you think?

I have recently found myself drawn to working on the articles, I hope to do as much as I can within my limits.

I do appreciate that, I wish I have more time, because I do have dedication and enthusiasm to these articles. do whatever you feel more comfortable with, maybe we should indeed finish all countries in a minimum layout, put the images, and then later start working on the small details like the prose, the market values, the promotions ... it may be an idea.

P.S I believe MASEM is right in what he says:

"Under uses, we call out: Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject., clearly the case of these articles. "

Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about this, but that is what allow us to use the images. There is another policy in [Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles] that can be used against the amount of images used in our articles. This is the policy that the administrator is trying to change in our favour.

I hope is clearer now, sorry for the previous incomplete answer I did that from home rushing to get to work. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Miguel, what you have said is very clear to me now.

I think changing the wikipedia policy is definatly a step in the right direction,

I really hope the administrator is sucessful in changing the policy (who is he/she?)

I have one question regarding the Images taken from the EIW,

If these are to be uploaded onto Wikipedia Commons has there been any discussion regarding the license and copyright tags to be applied. Kevin hipwell (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're always welcome Kevin. The administrator is Carcharoth and the discussion in question can be found here. Feel free to ship in, as you are one of the most important people that can comment on this topic.

I have not asked yet what license or copyright tag will apply to these new images, but I am in touch with the Photo submission group in Wikipedia about this topic; I am positive they will appreciate this effort and they will tell me one of the free tags that I can use, most likely {{money-EU}}.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Miguel. Sorry for the delay in replying. See here. To expand on that, I think you said you were in touch with some Wikipedia photo submission group. Do you mean OTRS or Commons? If they are free, talk to the people on Commons and see if they can help you. Once the images are accepted there, and the Austrian list is polished up a bit more, you should be OK for going back to WP:FLC. But do make sure you get another copyedit done first. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fair Use for Currency Images Question

I think the nature of currency means that no one ever actually says whether the images are public domain or not- that's why our currency notice is extremely vague, saying "this image may be in the public domain". Works produced by government groups are sometimes automatically placed under a free license, but the national mints have a varying degree of independence from the government. I honestly think your best bet would be to email the Austrian mint website, and ask. I know the designs of coins are already copied fairly widely (for plastic toys, for sweets/chocolates, and in places like this/coin collectors' books) but whether the mint actually expressly allows that or not, I don't know. Sorry. For wider input, the media copyright questions board may have some thoughts, but it isn't frightfully reliable. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, then it comes the second question. Although the Austriuan Mint website does not have a "legal" section per say, they do have sentences all over their site that says that iamge of coins can be freely used. I can quote at least a couple of internal webpages and obviously sent a mail, which I hope they will answer positively. But what next? What to do after that confirmation is received? How can I convert them to free-images?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the licensing information that they give you in the email, you then change the image copyright tag to the appropriate one, and add a note somewhere on the image page to say that confirmation of the image's licensing has been sent to OTRS. You can then forward the email, with a note about the images that it applies to, to the OTRS address given here. After a little while (a week at most, I suspect) one of the OTRS volunteers will verify the licensing information, and give a link to the OTRS ticket so that other Wikipedians can verify the licensing. Could you provide a link to where it says that the images may be used freely? It is possible that the notices allows the images to be used 'freely' by Wikipedia's definition and so we will not need to worry about forwarding emails to OTRS. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

JM, I wrote to this online catalogue (http://www.euro-master.eu/Mainpage/Mainpage-e.htm) which is a reviewer of a French numismatic magazine. I have a mail from him authorizing me to use any of the images on his website in Wikipedia unconditionally (obviously I will reference the site back as the provider of the information). This is not only for Austria, but for all countries of the Eurozone. The images are high quality scans, as I have never seen, not even in the mints web sites. I am sending the mail to the address you mentioned. What else does it need to be done before starting to change the images tags to free images? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just add a note to the image pages saying that licensing confirmation has been sent to OTRS. You're sure that the email allows anyone to use the image, providing they attribute the source? Permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi JM,

I am quoting the latest mail I got from the person that created this work:

Question: I was commenting to one of the copyright administrators in Wikipedia. Can you allow anyone to use the image, providing they attribute your web site as the source? Permission for Wikipedia only to use the image is not enough since people can download the image from Wikipedia for their own use. Is this a problem? I still give you my word that every single image we use from your cite will be referenced back in the article we use it. I can give you updates of the articles we have built so you can check it out if you are interested.

Answer: I don’t have any problem with the fact that people download my pictures from Wikipedia. If you see a copyright warning on my website by right-clicking on pages, that’s because when I started this site, I usually found my pictures on other sites the same day or the day after, without mentioning the source. Since then, I changed my mind and I have no problem with this. My site is, at first, an information site about euro coins. Of course that’s my own work, but now I find that everyone could be free to use what he finds on the web for his own purpose. That’s why I told you that you can use my pictures. If you have troubles by downloading, feel free to ask me the original picture. I think that Wikipedia is a good way to learn quickly about a lot of things, and I’m happy to know that I will indirectly contribute to this. I will be interested by articles updates, just to see how my job is valuated…

As you can see he is fully granting access to his amazing database of euro coin pictures. He will be giving me the original copies so I do not need to download them from his site, which is a bit cumbersome. I have sent this information to the mail you provided. Any other suggestion?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, that looks very much free- the webmaster says that he is happy for people to use his images for "their own purpose", provided they attribute the source. The best license for this would be {{attribution}}. Yes, I appreciate the talkback messages on my talk page- I'm not watching this page. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While the owner may of this website will own the copyright of the photography, the subject may also be copyrighted, just because you take a photograph of Image:SalvadorDali-SoftConstructionWithBeans.jpg doesnt mean you own the copyright of the subject, this counts as a Derivative work and you still need the original copyright holders permission, ie the Austrian mint. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasach,

I got the following answer from the photo submission team in Wikipedia commons:

"First of all, you should make sure we don't already have images of these coins. You can fine Euro coin images at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Euro> and commemorative Euros images at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Euro_coins_(commemorative)>.

If we do not already have these images, then please upload them to Commons and use the {{Money-EU}} licensing template. We do not need the permission of web site because this is a faithful reproduction of the currency and is therefore the copyright on the images is owned by the European Central Bank, and not this web site."

This clearly stipulates my original point about these coins. I will go ahead and will change one of the licenses to see how it looks like and then I will upload as many as we need in commons. Hopefully this should close this point and put this issue to rest for a while.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

JM, RTM, you have been involved in this issue in the past, giving my last finding with the Wikipedia commons team, what do you think? Can I proceed? Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The licence on those is wrong, the European central bank owns the copyright to the common side, and the local mint owns the copyright to the national side. These are images of national sides, so the ECB doesnt own the copyright, I dont know where you could find the copyright information, I do not speak any German, so I cannot help Fasach Nua (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That did concern me somewhat, but I thought it would be best to go with that and see if anyone raised an objection. I wasn't aware that the side copyrighted to the EU was free, so that means that at least some of these images are free. I honestly think that the best way to proceed would be to contact the mint website- if they say that images of their coins can be released into the public domain, then that will remove all ambiguity. I've never headed down the photographing coin route (despite having a rather extensive collection from when I was younger) because I've never wanted to try and grapple with the copyrights when uploading the images. J Milburn (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What Irony, copyright law was created in order to protect ones work, now with the advent of the net were all in quite a knot, copyright issues seem to be like hot pieces of coal, nobody wants to get into it because its a complete mess, even the Austrian Mint sound like they don't have a clue. Maybe it is simply I that don't understand copyright law, but whatever it is nobody can ever seem to give a straight answer.Kevin hipwell (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not leaving this unsolved; I have sent a mail to the photo submission team in Wikicommons again, because I think that Fasach, although a pain in the back, he is right and the information I got from that group is wrong. I am working with them in a different angle, let's see what they say.

Also, just FYI, I am in direct contact with the department of International Education of ECOFIN and ECB. They are very aware of our goals in Wikipedia and they do want to help (they are mediating to get the approvals from the different mint houses and local banks). I have got official approval from them to use the Austrian coins images in Wikipedia just yesterday (and now working to get the approval for Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Vatican City and San Marino, since those are the "easy ones"), but there is a fair condition that need to be met first and I will be working on that over the next few days/weeks. I hope all this work is worth something. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too, it would be a terrible thing to see these great articles collapse under there own weight.Kevin hipwell (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like really positive stuff, there is an essay Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission, which might help, ideally they should use the WP:OTRS system Fasach Nua (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Wasn't aware of this disussion. I've raised this independently (after reading the archived featured list nomination) at WT:NFC. See my note below. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of commemorative coin images in list articles

Regarding the discussion here, I raised the issue here. I'm notifying all who participated in the featured list disucssion, and will note that at WT:NFC. If you comment there, please say that I told you about this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Flags at European Union

You might be interested in this edit, which remained unopposed. I agree, that the flags are nice, but I did not consider it as important enough to start a debate. If you think it is, you will have my support, but I expect that this user might also have some good reasons to having removed them. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I completely over saw it, I undid the changes and put a comment in the talk page, feel free to ship in if you like. Thanks again! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Euro 2008 coins

Look, I'm sorry if I came across a bit arrogantly. In no way do I believe that the decision rests entirely with me. Nevertheless, I will express my opinion on the situation, and my opinion is that the tournament article should be kept exclusively for information that relates directly to the tournament itself. The match balls, music and mascots come under this category, albeit tenuously, but a series of coins released at the time of the tournament simply isn't relevant. It's possible that such information could go in UEFA Euro 2008 miscellany, but not in the main article. – PeeJay 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? The link is red ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the link is red, but I do intend for that article to go into greater detail than the main article regarding such things as the match ball, and even the coins. – PeeJay 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, applying your concept of relevance, how relevant is the coverage failure then? Just looking for consistency Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the television coverage failure was particularly notable, but consensus has dictated otherwise. The same can apply for the coins, so maybe we should take this conversation to Talk:UEFA Euro 2008. – PeeJay 23:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, will bring it to the talk page of the article, I will also bring the coins back to the main article so people can see what I am talking about. If in five days we have no consensus or no responses, I will remove it myself. I hope this approach is OK with you. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay2003, a few things

• Where are you from? I thought you would be sleeping at this time ...
• We were editting the talk page at the same time and we created two sections, I will try to send all editors to my section to yours, and let's try to keep the opinion there.
• Apologies for putting the coins on the top, I jusr reverted one of the changes and left it like it is.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay, it has been a bit over three days with little response. The only proposal was to keep it, change the whole section to "Promotions" and do some other clean up here and there. Shall we wait a bit more or go ahead with the changes proposed? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should probably leave it for a couple more days, as I think very few people still look at the UEFA Euro 2008 talk page. I will add a link to the discussion from WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I like the "promotion" angle that can cover some of the official stuf that the govermnet did to promote the games, but sure no big deal waiting a few more days. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that consensus was to include the information about the coins in a different article, and not in the tournament's main article. Suffice it to say, the coins are NOT official promotional items distributed by UEFA. They may be done with the UEFA licence to promote the tournament, but their connection to the tournament is tenuous at best. If you removed the names of the tournament venues, the coins would simply be images of football and have no connection to the tournament at all! I will make this reasoning known to other editors, but information about coins is not required in an article about Euro 2008 or the 2006 World Cup. – PeeJay 08:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay, that is your view, and I will be very concerned if you expect the article to be just about what was official for the UEFA, for that we have an UEFA web site. IMHO, these coins where minted because of the games, and people like me collected them to remember the games. They are real and sourced. The information does not take too much space in the article since they are in the see also and miscellany section, I really do not see what is the big deal to leave them there. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto

I translated your motto and got this "With Kinosita of the big chestnut, you me, you will play chummily"

I don't understand whats "Kinosita of the big chestnut", I'm guessing "you me, you will play chummily" means "to co-operate"?. is Kinosita some kind of Japanese hero?Kevin hipwell (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously laughing outloud :)) "Kinoshita" means "under the tree", the literal translation is "Under a big chestnut tree, you and me, will play in harmony", and this is a very famous Japanese kindergarden song that my son is singing everyday! Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, I have left you a msg in the euro information forum ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)