Jump to content

User talk:Weiterbewegung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Weiterbewegung! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Advice

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Benjamin Hick and Sons, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Ferr deptford alt.gif

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ferr deptford alt.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gardner Logo.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gardner Logo.gif. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moving forward

[edit]

Its great to see you taking so much loving tender care on these historically important firms. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The improvements are very welcome, although Seddon Atkinson is now crying out more than ever for a split into three articles! (That will keep you busy for a bit. :o) )
As you are fairly new here, please watch out that you don't accidentally remove existing 'standard formatting'. For example, in John Musgrave & Sons I have restored the Infobox. Also, I note that you have added {{TOCleft}} in several places. I used to do this when I started editing here, but the preferred approach is to let the TOC position itself. When considering article layout, it is worth remembering that the user may make the browser page narrower than 'standard', change the font size, use a wide-screen monitor, or change the default size for images. All of these play havoc with any careful layout applied by editors -- so most editors just let the browser do the layout and concentrate on the typing instead.
Cheers - EdJogg (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC) -- just got the heading joke Clem, very good![reply]
Hi, I just wanted to agree with Clem Rutter, and say I've added some Greater Manchester Project Banners to the talk pages of your articles. It is great to see someone taking an interest in the industrial history, I'm having a go at coal mines, very slowly though.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should simply delete any graphics that you don't like.Weiterbewegung (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The message above was posted automatically by a bot: it won't notice that you have replied (nor will it care). It's not a case of the bot "liking" or "disliking" the graphics; the bot merely checks to see if the graphic file's associated description page carries certain essential information or not; and if not, it issues a message like the one above, and also marks the description page to show that it doesn't meet relevant policies.
The thing to do is to fix the image description page so that it carries the appropriate licensing information, as per the notice above. There are also various help pages and policy pages on images, but in particular, see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - This particualr graphic is my property. 2 - As I was uploading it, Wikipedia glitched out. 3 - I have not used it. 4 - The graphic(s) I have used have all been correctly attributed. 5 - Are you suggesting that I am flouting copyright law? Weiterbewegung (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. Go to the image. Edit.

{{Information

|Description = Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward
|Source = Wilkinson Sward
|Date = 18:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC) **** Change to the date the image was taken that was March 2008?
|Author = Unknown **** Change to Weiterbewegung
|Permission = Public Domain **** Optional
|other_versions =

}}

{{untagged|month=December|day=10|year=2010}} **** REMOVE
Now Add these two lines
== Licensing: ==
{{PD-self|date=December 2010}}

That will keep the bot happy!!

But you have already succeeded in uploading the other file- so another bot will be coming along suggesting you remove one of them. The server has been crashing out over the last few days- and that does cause strange behaviour. Any way it is a good image. I hope you have a lot more. Any further problems just drop a message on my talkpage.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Ferr deptford alt.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bolton

[edit]

Hi, I notice that you were a Bolton Univ. student; and that you had webspace on the machine named "basil". I was a student there in the 1980s, when it was still Bolton Institute of Higher Education, and it might interest you to know that that the original "basil" was installed while I was there, circa 1985. It was a DEC VAX-11/780 and had an identical twin named "sybil". At the time there were also machines named "polly" and "manuel", one of which was a 1970s-vintage DEC PDP-11. "major" arrived not long after. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, Smith & Grace

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dean, Smith & Grace, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lathes.co.uk/dsg/index.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, Smith & Grace again

[edit]

I've taken the tag off as you seem to have dealt with the copyright problem. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use answers.com as a source - not only not a Wikipedia reliable source, but an unreliable source altogether... Peridon (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for DSG and I used to know Monarch quite well too. I 'know' a lot of things about DSG, but without a resonable source or two, all the things I 'know' are merely anecdotes. In its industry segment, DSG was world famous, so maybe someone with some good primary and/or secondary source materials will find this stub and help. Please correct me if I've got it wrong, but isn't that how its supposed to work? Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but without some claim to some sort of note, someone'll put a db-inc on it. Here's a bit of later info: http://www.machinery.co.uk/article/16084/Dean-Smith--Grace-has-new-owner.aspx or you might get some bits from http://www.lathes.co.uk/dsg/page2.html Good luck. Peridon (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, they didn't teach us that kind of stuff in the MA in History course at the MMU, nor did they mention it when I did my History PhD either.

Nonsense

[edit]

File deletions - how can this clearly fallacious stuff go on?????Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Anyway, the best solution is to not have any graphics at all. OK?

Please don't take it personally - the messages were placed by bots, which are largely automatic. They check the image description pages for various items of information, and if that information is missing, incomplete or inconsistent, they inform the uploading editor with a standard message, such as the ones below. It's best to follow the advice given in those messages, since if you don't, your image may well get deleted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a pity that you don't have a 'largely automatic' device for detecting shoddily researched and badly written history as well as plagiarism.Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rydermatic.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Rydermatic.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wizard191 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tommy Ryder.jpg

[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Tommy Ryder.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wizard191 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Game?

[edit]

Now I understand. Its all about deleting. Easier to destroy than to create.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the box that I put at the top of this page, particularly the links under "Policies and Guidelines". When we create, we must show our sources; this is done in articles by means of referencing, and on images by the use of various copyright tags. As it says when you edit any page, immediately beneath the edit box, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
We don't destroy good-faith additions willy-nilly - but we might delete content that violates the policies and guidelines; whoever deletes info should use the edit summary to link to the applicable guideline. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine my work on here you will find that it is ALL properly cited.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles perhaps; but I don't have time to look at all of them. However, judging by the various standard messages posted elsewhere on this page, there have been problems with some of the files which you uploaded.
See the five pillars of Wikipedia, particularly the fourth. Rather than getting angry, the best thing to do is to sort the problems that have been mentioned; if you don't know how, ask a question (see the very first box on this page). We do want to help you: we were all newbies once, even Jimbo Wales, our founder. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can a photograph taken in the 1870s not be in the public domain?

[edit]

Even the litigation-mad Americans don’t expect to be sued for showing such a picture on a website like this. Have a look at this, for example:

About US Copyright Law

Under English Common Law, ownership of the copyright of a photograph almost always resides with the person who took the photograph (the artist). Moreover, British photographs taken before 1945 had copyright for 50 years from the date of taking. So all such copyrights would have expired on or before the end of 1994.

What, therefore, are you doing deleting a photograph that was taken in the 1870s? Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward in London - Over 100 Years old and still in use.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward in London - Over 100 Years old and still in use.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. NtheP (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph was given to me by the company Wilkinson Sward for inclusion in my website. If you delete it I will delete all my work from this place.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down - you've posted the same photo twice, this is just a request to remove one of them. There's no arguement about copyright, permissions or anything else, just that the same shot exists twice. NtheP (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Hugh Gardner.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hugh Gardner.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 22:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, lots more where these came from. Happy deleting, its christmas!!! Weiterbewegung (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the licence tag I've changed to, should solve things but it would be useful if the info said whose private collection the photo came from. NtheP (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to understand the complicated situation regarding Wikipedia and photographs, but that does not mean that I am anywhere near grasping its procedures. The companies I have studied are all long-gone. I’ve been given shoe-boxes full of all sorts of stuff, including photos, by widows, sons, and daughters of dead ex-employees. Most of the time they don’t know exactly where they got them from, and some claim, quite plausibly, that they were rescued them from a skip. In so many cases the descendents of deceased ex-employees have no idea what they have been bequeathed: I’ve seen spare bedrooms filled with stuff that would make some local history libraries look trifling, but its difficult to persuade people to put them in a proper archive. The Hugh Gardner picture was in a collection held by Dion Houghton, who was a director of Gardner, but he died in 2008. His son was not at all helpful, but I know that the photos ended up at a museum – the wrong one of course. They are generally referred to as ‘The Dion Houghton Collection’. I have others.Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labyrnthine doesn't even start to describe it, but the main point is proving that the stuff is either public domain or that where copyright still exists that there is permission to publish. If you have been given the stuff then there is a lot there to work with and it should be possible to make out PD for a lot. have a look at commons:Category:PD license tags to see how many PD licences there are. For stuff donated to you commons:Template:PD-Heirs might prove to be useful. One thing that might have been confusing some times is that when you upload an image and it wants you to insert the date - it means the date the image was taken (approx if not known exactly) not the date you're uploading it. NtheP (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll have a look, but not today. But how do (did) you get around the fact the Hugh's pic was taken in 1975 (and clearly still protected) but by someone unknown? As I understand it, its not the person who has possession of the photo, nor the subject, but the person who took it that owns the copyright. Life + 70 is a long time.Weiterbewegung (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too many Gardners. The one I've sorted is Thomas. There are ways for Hugh, non free use as suggested by Clem Rutter is probably the one. OTRS is another - less likely but possible. NtheP (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hugh Gardner.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hugh Gardner.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Courcelles. Look like I'll have to upload it twice. Either that or you and Rodhullandemu will have to arrange a joint delete.Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The response to an annoying tag on fair use is to quickly create a stub article, to hold the image. an article such as Hugh Gardner
[[File:Hugh Gardner.jpg|thumb|Hugh Gardner]]
Hugh Gardner was a prominent citizen of [[Eccles]] and [[Patricroft]] in Greater Manchester.
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== External links ==
{{stub}}
This keeps the wikignomes off your back long enough for you to complete the task in hand. When the time is right you can then place the image in the intended place in I presume, L. Gardner and Sons, and tag the stub article to {{delete}}. There are stories I can tell you about fair use stupidity.
Have you discovered the program Commonist it is just so much more efficient in uploading related photos. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Much appreciated.Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I did just what you suggested, but the sub-article was deleted in MINUTES.Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always a risk, I'm afraid. NtheP (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Machine Tool Company

[edit]

Hi, is there a reason you want to delete this article? The company appears notable and I've found quite a few sources in Google Books I could add.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but do you know of any sources that deal with its pre-1970s, pre-Alfred Herbert activities? Without such sources this article is dead in the water. Weiterbewegung (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the two links/references, but I have to say that showing that Herberts bought Churchills and then shut it down is well known in economic history circles. To make the article useful, it needs some narrative regarding what happened between, say, 1920 and 1968. Who ran it, what they made, hown many did they employ - what were its contributions to industry and society? Weiterbewegung (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find out how the company went from being taken over in 1972 to still be existent today. If we leave the article, may be other editors can contribute? I'm not sure there is a need to delete it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here Arms-to-Iraq for some of that story. After 1972 it was owened by Alfred Herbert. Notice the Coventry connection, but where is the Manchester connection? That's where the gap in knowledge lies. Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ps, the Matrix-Churchill thing fails to mention that that company was the successor to Alfred Herbert. Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Rodhullandemu, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not abuse other people's goodwill greetings. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who is complaining and why. Rodhullandemu has a 'season's greetings' box that mentions Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia. This clearly downplays the Christian aspect of the season – ‘xmas’ indeed – which is a celebration of the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. If you consider the name of Jesus to be some kind of abuse, then I feel deeply sorry for you.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do not consider the mention of Jesus Christ to be abusive at all, no. But trying to force your beliefs into someone else's message, in whatever form, is an abuse of that person's message - you do not have any right to try to make other people's messages "more Christian" if that is not what they chose to do. If you wish to offer Xmas messages of your own, please feel free to do so - but please do not make changes to other people's messages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making was that 'xmas' is itself a depreciation of Christmas – see xmas – and something of an affront to a Christian, especially when presented in a list. He should have written Christmas. Anyway, point taken about altering his box.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, I get your point too, though I don't think there is generally any offense meant by users of the term "Xmas". Anyway, I wish you a peaceful and fulfilling Christmas. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise - frohe Weihnachten und ein glückliches neues Jahr.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read the article on Xmas.freshacconci talktalk 18:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might just get into the spirit of whatever.Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Licence tags for images

[edit]

hi again. I've looked through the other images you've uploaded and here's what I think we need to do with each:-

  1. File:Lancia Bus 02.gif - I've seen this image on another website (Nottigham Uni - Barton centenary?), if there is an original publication date anywhere then {{Anonymous-EU}} will apply.
  2. File:Barton Hall Works in 1906.jpg - you have this sourced as David Whitehead, is this the original photographer or the person who gave you the image? If the former, if he died before 1940 then this image could be transfered to Wikipedia Commons using Commons tag {{PD-UK-known}} If he is the person who gave you the photo there are various other possibilities depending on how he got the photo.
  3. File:Lawrance.gif - Was this taken from the book Gardners of Patricroft? If so the book should contain details of the copyright enabling it to be published in the book.
  4. File:Churchill Grinder.jpg - Obviously from a book. What's it's name and when was it published? If it's old then probably {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies if the photgraphers name isn't known.
  5. File:A Ryder Forging Machine circa 1867.jpg - is this from a book, it look quite grainy? if so then similar considerations to Churchill Grinder apply.
  6. File:Musgrave Engine.jpg - all we can tell here is that the photo is older than 1969 (the date of the works closing) which isn't a lot to go on. Until there is more detail the best bet is fair use.
  7. File:S z de ferranti.gif - does the original at MMOSI give any details of photgrapher? If not then as he died in 1930, and the photo looks a lot older than that, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} will be a reasonably safe bet.
  8. File:Ferr deptford alt.gif - you have this sourced to Hick Hargraves & Co? How do they have the photo. Same lines; age of photo, name of photographer if known etc needed.
  9. File:DSG Lathe 01.jpg - problematic this one. A recent photo taken from Practical Machinist and attributed to Michael Moore. Unless Morre has given his specific consent then it's not Public Domain. Options here are a) get permission from Moore via the OTRS system or see if he will upload it with a Creative Commons licenses.
  10. File:Flexible Manufacture.gif - similar problems to above but more difficult as no author indicated.

If you can supply more info on any of the above then we should be able to make some progress. NtheP (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you need any help writing Fair use rationales, I can give you a hand, just leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Musgrave & Sons

[edit]
[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John Musgrave & Sons, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from source(s), and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John Musgrave & Sons saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Rothwell Cars

[edit]
[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Rothwell Cars, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from source(s), and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Rothwell Cars saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Weiterbewegung (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean, Smith & Grace

[edit]

Hello there, I've responded to your challenge here to try and improve the article. I can see that you're cross about the deletion if images that you have contributed, and that it seems contradictory for one part of the WP community to remove what I agree is useful, illustrative content while others refill it with unsourced trivial text. However, Wikipedia is what it is - a diverse community of all sorts of people! Some are indeed mindless spammers of trivia - but each individual doesn't stay here long. Others spend time patrolling for copyright problems in text or images. I know this can seem destructive if the text or image was provided by you in good faith, but it is an essential part of protecting Wikipedia as well as ensuring that its content is freely distributable. It's not personal, but it is part of the natural ecology by which Wikipedia articles grow.

Look at the DSG article now: you started it with what may have been a copyright violation but was done in good faith. You added a good image but unfortunately without full sourcing details. People noticed and placed templates on the article, or removed the content. This caused you to get understandably cross and you tagged it for deletion. But this action itself called the attention of other editors and now the article is longer, more reliably sourced and will undoubtedly be kept. The processes at WP can seem cumbersome but they ensure that editors must collaborate and collectively the community winnows out the articles that can't be improved and polishes up those that can. Wouldn't you agree that the article is better now than when it started? But of course it wouldn't have started without you!

I patrol new pages now and again and you wouldn't believe what a small proportion of them are genuinely encyclopaedic. Yours certainly was and I'd urge you to stay, create more articles, learn the rules and conventions here and find ways to negotiate them so that your knowledge can be added here, rather than be lost. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:ANI. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has now been archived here. It makes interesting reading -- particularly when trying to understand what has been going wrong with the system. Let's hope lessons may be learnt and procedures improved. Quality editors are few and far between and we don't want to be frightening them off...
(Incidentally, I have read a little of the referenced thesis -- while researching the related edits. It would be extremely useful as a reference source.)
EdJogg (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sympathy

[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry that you're having a hard time, especially with the image licensing problems. Take heart-- you're hitting a bunch of standard newbie roadblocks. Image licensing is an area where it's easy for newcomers to make mistakes that can get the whole project in trouble, so the different systems that monitor such things tend to overreact to anything with the slightest hint of a problem. You're a highly promising editor so I hope you'll stay around long enough to get past this stuff.

There is a lot of crap and bogus conflict in wikipedia, but there are also a lot of very good articles and editors. You might like to visit some of the WikiProjects in your areas of interest: WikiProject Engineering and WikiProject Trains come to mind, and I'm sure there are others. Those are good places to connect up with other editors working in those topic areas.

Note that any account whose name ends with "bot" (like Sinebot, above) is usually a bot (short for robot), i.e. it's a piece of software that does maintenance edits automatically (such as leaving those notices). It won't notice if you answer it.

Regards 67.122.209.190 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just want to offer you some encouragement and support. I was alerted to your plight by User:ClemRutter, who is a respected editor working in the area of cotton mills amongst other topics. I note that you are also at ANI at the moment. Wikipedia takes a while to learn all the various rules, policies, guidelines etc. Copyright is probably one of the most important of these, which I suspect is why you've had so many problems with images you've uploaded. Copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia in certain circumstances (historical importance is one), but we must identify that the image is copyrighted and being used under "fair use" rules. A Non-Free Fair Use Rationale (NFUR) must accompany each use of a copyrighted photo, with a separate NFUR for each article if the image is used in more than one article - see File:Barham Black.jpg for an example.
If you haven't already done so, please read the pages linked from the welcom notice that Redrose64 left you. They explain quite a bit about what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. Any question please ask on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I know we have locked horns a bit, I too am happy to offer any support or guidance with Wikipedia if you need it. Most users will happily lend a hand if use leave a civil message on their talk page, and there is always the help desk or new contributers help page if you need it. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Weiterbewegung. Greetings from a very snowy Montreal. I am very sorry indeed about the difficult and frustrating start that you have had here. While there are reasons why some issues needed to be brought to your attention, I can absolutely see that at a certain point you started to wonder why you were bothering to try to contribute article content and photos.

Though maybe it hasn't seemed that way, this encyclopedia wants and needs people with your knowledge, expertise and resources. Readers worldwide will benefit from your contributions if you can see your way clear to try again. People have given help above and on other pages, and you also have several new offers of assistance and support. I am happy to join them. I will watchlist this page. How about you let us know below what you hoped to do when you first started editing WP. What were your plans with regard to content, including articles and images? That way we can start to get move towards the goal, and try and knock out the obstacles on the way together. --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to establish some boundaries

[edit]

To whom it clearly concerns. At 17.22 GMT on Wednesday 29th December 2010 I, known here as Weiterbewegung, am under siege. At least eight Wikipedians are attacking me on a number of fronts, and its time to consider the situation and bring it to a conclusion: I am thoroughly sick of it all. Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry that you feel under siege and attacked. Not good, and not what any WP editors are aiming, I'm sure. I totally understand your frustration though. What kind of help can I offer to help end this? I see various options; one of which involves you simply leaving and not posting on WP ever again - not my preferred option, or that, I venture to predict, of any other editor here. The other is trying to help you to be able to work through the current problems you are having, and to contribute more effectively now and in the future. As I said, I would be happy to help in this process. WP is a complicated place, and can be especially so for someone with academic training, because the guidelines and policies are at times at variance with those we have been taught for university based research and writing. As someone with experience both areas, I'd say that there are justifications for why things need to be different here, and why they are needed for building an encyclopedia in this fashion. It does take some adjusting to, but the learning curve is worth it, I have found. Enough blather. What is your preferred way end to this? Don't feel that you need to answer quickly. We have plenty of time here and there is no rush to decide. --Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am not "attacking" you. The AN/I listing is as much an opportunity for you to clear the air and for us to try and reverse the poor experience you've had so far. Your comments there would be appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that I am by no means attacking you, and I see no evidence that anyone else is. You need to learn the differences between questioning, disagreement and attacking. For someone who claims to have a PhD your inability to accept requests for clarification and/or evidence without characterising them as attacks is rather surprising. Surely it's the job of any PhD advisor and examining board to question, so you should be used to it, and know how to respond to it in a civil manner. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, Res Ipsa Loquitur - or 'if the shoe fits wear it'; especially you Mr. Badger. Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weiterbewegung, we are trying to help you here. It is unfortunate that you've been bitten somewhat. Please feel free to ask any questions you have either here or on one of our talk pages. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've earned this!

[edit]
A "cuppa" for you!

I hope you'll accept this as the friendly gesture it is meant to be. It's sometimes used here as an attempt to clear the air and to recognise that even when in dispute with someone, it is possible to appreciate their contributions. Yours collegially, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W & J Galloway & Sons

[edit]

Hi. You captioned the image of the engine in MMoSI. Can you explain what you mean by '... extraction engine'? While I am not familiar with this particular engine it looks from the image very much as though it has trip gear operated drop valves with oil-filled dashpots. This would not constitute 'hydraulic' valve-gear. Are you sure of your terminology here? Globbet (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1419251 - Delete? Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the author of the photo knew what he was talking about when he uploaded the photo to Geograph, either through personal knowledge or what it says on the exhibit at the museum. Until something different is definitely shown, leave the caption as is. In any event it should not be removed from the article as it illustrates what the company produced (even if we are not quite accurately describing it at the moment). NtheP (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the MoSI's description of the engine. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before we clutter Weiterbewegung's talk page up much more I have moved this conversation to Talk:W & J Galloway & Sons. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Machine Tool Co

[edit]

Hi, I'm curious as to why you started an entry for Churchill MT Co, worked on it for a bit and then nominated it for deletion. It seems odd to me that the instigator is also planning to be the executioner. I understand that a picture can be worth a thousand words (not always, though, eg: airbrushed celebs!) but whatever the picture was in this instance surely did not add a defining amount of weight to the entry? What exactly was the significance of it that has caused you to suggest the entry for AfD subsequent to its removal?

FWIW, I've done a bit of work on the entry overnight and there is plenty of potential for more. Does this make you any happier? Best wishes, Sitush (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of the WP:ANI discussion linked from this section (above) for some clues to what's going on. Weiterbewegung is relatively new to WP and is having some difficulty adjusting to the way a collaborative editing environment works. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Weiterbewegung, come back please. You've been stung more by robots than humans. Sitush (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mia culpa Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

[edit]

I'm not sure why you added the material from this thesis in the first place, if you are now removing it all. Was it that you didn't fully appreciate the rather annoyingly stringent copyvio rules here? Anyway, I've done some quick checking and not all of the material you've removed from L. Gardner and Sons for example appears in that thesis. So much of it can in fact stay, unless it's been copied from another as yet undiscovered copyright source. How do you suggest we proceed? One option would be to (rather more systematically than I have) check each line of the article against the thesis to see if it is a direct lift. If it's not, then it can stay; if it is then it must go of course although this would be a shame as it strips a full and interesting set of articles right back to stubs. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this? On Wikipedia the emphasis is entirely on verifiability. In fact it has been said that WP cares more about verifiability than it does truth, and will happily publish verifiable untruths and delete unsupported truths! WP is definitely NOT in existence "to direct researchers of the future towards other sources". Thus a source which verifies that firm A was a subsidiary of firm B is very welcome and appropriate. As to what it is that Weiterbewegung thinks he understands but hopes he does not - until he enlightens us we must remain in ignorance. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, ‘verifiable untruths’ is most certainly a contradiction of terms. If you have a dictionary that includes some etymological information, you will find that ‘verify’ means to prove the truth of, confirm or to substantiate. It derives from the Latin words vērus (true) and facere to make. The truth, as I have previously asserted, is not a matter of opinion or something that is decided upon by a majority vote: the truth is eternal, whether we know its nature or not.
What I thought I understood then, and what I certainly understand now, is that Wikipedia is a small, exclusive, illusory cyber-world, inhabited by groups of precious, xenophobic, snobby, arrogant, conceited, condescending, supercilious, patronizing, pretentious and singularly elitist individuals. Like that bunch of old men that regularly gather in the pub, they don’t like strangers and they know the truth about everything; ‘so don’t come here with your fancy university-educated b…..s’.
The collective motto of the Wikipedian could well be something along the lines of ‘where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise’ for the plebs or, ‘never hire anyone smarter than you’ for the Gauleiters. What one contributes to such cliques is far less important to them than the perceived potential threat that ‘newbies’ pose to their individual and collective satisfaction with the status quo, and to their hopes and aspirations vis-à-vis the inflexible hierarchy.
Thus, it’s acceptable for some to accuse me of lying, to use scornful and sarcastic language, to derisively reject assurances of good faith, to rebuke me for pointing out errors and to accuse me of bearing malice when doing so, to vandalise my contributions, to arbitrarily threaten me with debarment, to invite me to ‘stay off my page’, to call me a offensive names (twit), to subjectively and arbitrarily threaten me with expulsion on fabricated and biased grounds, and to openly insinuate at my true identity. Perversely, their individual and collective behaviour contravenes Wikipedia rules. Rules that are enforced with rigour against the individual ‘newbie’; but that the establish faction can flaunt.
I tried Wikipedia because I thought it could be a good place to acquire and disseminate knowledge. It has been a chastising experience. I shall not comment on individual incidents, but the ridiculously severe and inflexible rules regarding the use of old – and not-so-old – graphics is folly in the extreme. Someone – a Gauleiter I think – advised me that it was up to me to prove (not just wiki-verify) that photographs, even my own photographs, were publishable: a stipulation so limiting – I have many very old photographs that people have give to me over the years – that it effectively prohibits the use of the vast majority of elucidating illustrations.
The official Wikipedia view on plagiarism (the written version of copyright) is only slightly more casual; ‘Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.’ Defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “To take and use as one’s own the thoughts, writings or inventions of another”, plagiarism has many facets. It is not (take note, Mr. EdJogg) confined to simply ‘lifting’ complete sentences, paragraphs, sections etc from a published work: it includes paraphrasing in all its guises, as well as collusion and/or conspiracy. Simple put, you can buy a book but you can’t copy parts of it and publish them as your own work: ‘free and open access’ only allows you to read it for free; not republish it. Remember, plagiarism is theft.
Another quite annoying and frustrating aspect of Wikipedia is the very mixed standard of the historical articles: of content, language and of literary style. This, of course, stems from the nature of the regulatory system and on the quality of those exercising ‘power’. It seems very clear that much of the ‘research’ consists of subjectively typing words into a search-engine, seeing what comes up, and grasping hold of those ‘facts’ that fit the preconceived opinions of the editor. Pointing this out and asserting the benefits of objectivity, triangulation, and thoroughness is regarded as ‘attacking’, and soon attracts one or more Gauleiters’ admonitions. Even pointing out small, but nevertheless essential, flaws and omissions have resulted in peevishness as well as, for me, an entirely contrived and unnecessary warning and the threat of expulsion. No need. I’ve read somewhere that on Wikipedia one never gets to read the sentence of death pronounced upon one. I can’t find an escape pod, so I’ll just log-off, and bog-off’.Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two things :) One, please don't 'log off and bog off'. No ones issusing a death sentence, your talk page is littered with friendly offers of help. Two, with regards to the plagarism problem/issue, you're right, this is an area which does need to be understood by more editors. Its not in the boilerplate copyright sentence (Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously blah blah blah) because plagarism is not, technically, a copyright violation. If it is close paraphrasing, its an unauthorized derivative work, but plagarism is just that: plagarism. Not a crime, but a moral offence. However, we do have a guideline on plagarism, which may interest you. If you need any help, leave a message on my talk page or reply here, thanks and Happy Editing :) Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed your edit to the Dobson & Barlow article. Is the only copyrighted material the stuff you added, or do you think this version of the article had problems? Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio complaint raised by Mr W relates to information added by Mr W himself. I would suggest you simply revert to the previous version you noted, as that did not use the reference source added by Mr W, and hence is not covered by the copyvio notice. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To whom it may concern: the plagiarism issues with the Dobson and Balow article start with this: name=stmarks>http://www.stmarks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wpdobsonbarlow.htm Dobson amd Barlow history. The creator of that site lifted the page on Dobson and Balow from page 9 of the MA Dissertation 'The Impact of Conflict and Political Change on Northern Industrial Towns, 1890 to 1990' published in September 2001, and ClemmRutter lifted it from there on 9th October 2009. The www.stmarks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wpdobsonbarlow.htm has since been deleted because the author of the original work pointed out the creator that its contents was a blatant infringement of copyright. You will therefore need to revert to 9th October 2009 version prior to the lift. Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a copy of The Impact of Conflict and Political Change on Northern Industrial Towns, 1890 to 1990 online that the old version of the article can be checked against? If the intermediate site (www.stmarks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) lifted the content from the dissertation, it should be possible to check the article against the original to see if there's a copyright problem. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but yes there is.[1]. I've already checked it and Weiterbewegung is right that the earliest versions of the article contained was a copy and pasted paragraph from it. I've dealt with the matter by reverting and removing all the infringing material. Slp1 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back at AN/I

[edit]

Following your three copyvio taggings today on your own additions, I've re-raised this at WP:AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-opening_Weiterbewegung.2C_Maurice_J._Halton_and_revocation_of_licensing_for_posted_text

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tagging

[edit]

Good morning, I'm sure you're aware that there has been an ongoing conversation at WP:ANI (of which you were notified above) about your tagging your own contributions with copyvio templates. Can you tell me what your goals here are? If you'd like to assist in removing your copyrighted work from Wikipedia, I'm confident there are more efficient ways of doing so. For example, you can make a list of your copy/paste contributions here and I can look through and remove them. If you'd like me to show you how you can make your copyrighted work available to Wikipedia, I would be happy to do that as well. As you've no doubt discovered, simply implying permission here on Wikipedia is not sufficient.

I understand that you began here making good faith contributions and have become frustrated with "the system". I wouldn't hold that against you, and you wouldn't be the first or even thousandth person to be thus discouraged. However, we can't have you making edits that the community deems disruptive, which might cause you to be blocked outright.

I'm hoping I can help resolve any concerns you have and answer any questions you might have about the situation. I recommend that you stop placing templates for now and post a list here of problem articles that administrators can examine. That is the best way forward. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dobson & Barlow

[edit]

I see that you've tagged this as being a copyvio.

Obviously these articles need to be cleaned up. Are there any more affected that need to be looked at? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

[edit]

Your user name suggests that you might speak German. If so, you will realise the importance of the Commons, the place for images so that all wikis can share them. Please upload all PD and free use images to the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Magnus' tool to upload images from Geograph. When you uploaded File:Galloways Engine & Boiler.jpg, why did you re-compress the image? Please upload images in their original state - Wikimedia seems unconcerned about disk space or bandwidth. As for File:Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward.jpg, this is almost an insult to Wikipedia. If you took it, give us the original size; this version is ridiculously over-compressed; it should have been on the Commons and the company name is Wilkinson Sword! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales comments on plagiarism

[edit]

About a user who plagiarized a few sentences from two movie descriptions:

We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least.

There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.

Take note all you Gaulieters, your Fuhrer ha spoken!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 January 2011

Might I remind you of the message presented to you whenever you edit Wikipedia:
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.
It's right there in the first sentence. I would also like to draw your attention to the policy document Wikipedia:Civility. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weiterbewegung is understandably annoyed, but is engaging in constructive dialogue which will result in copyright violations being removed and hopefully the relevant articles being improved. The last sentence of Weiterbewegung's message above sounds like one of exasperation to me, and while it wasn't necessary I really don't think we need to beat Weiterbewegung with another stick for being human. Dealing with this copyright situation is probably stressful enough without having to worry about WP:CIVIL. Nev1 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Constructive dialogue"? All I'm seeing is argument ad Jimbonem, an invocation of Goodwin's Law, and a particularly nasty bit of trolling to blame another editor for an innocent use of content from a 3rd party site, whilst still conveniently ignoring the vast swathes of the thesis that they posted themselves.
I would like to see an indef block of Weiterbewegung. Not for copyvio, but for their behaviour since, the disruption they're intent on causing to the project and their complete failure to engage with any policy or editor in a co-operative manner. As they have invited themselves, "We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy". Editors have fallen over themselves to try and assist this valuable and highly-skilled editor with the exceptional academic background that we're so unworthy to even dream of working with, but what are we actually talking about here? The next Tom Rolt, or just an MA from Bolton Poly and no visible publication history since? Enough's enough. We should stop wasting the time of editors who want to contribute, not just cause trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forbid you try to put yourself in Weiterbewegung's shoes. Trying to highlight another potential problem regarding copyright is trying to help. Weiterbewegung is a relatively new editor and has made some mistakes; how about we see if these mistakes can be sorted before reaching for the pitchforks. By all means, Andy, if you think your time is being wasted you're free to do something else. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Andy, I think it might be time to leave this to other editors as we seemed to have reached the point of more heat than light. --Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Weiterbewegung's shoes" Do you mean failing to read the licensing agreement before posting my own thesis, then trying to revoke this licence by denying my own identity? No thanks. The first part is forgivable, their hammering by bots always deserved an apology, but their behaviour over the last few days and simple refusal to discuss anything in a reasonable manner is just childish. For a student youngster we wouldn't be too surprised, but I was genuinely surprised to find out how old they are — one would expect rather more maturity. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weiterbewegung isn't the first editor to be in this position, and he won't be the last. His efforts are not that deeply embedded. IMHO we will all come out of this quickest and cleanest by working with him/her to clear what he/she regards as copyvios. We can only do that if we know exactly what the concerns are, and the place for that is the articles' talk pages. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferr deptford alt.gif listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ferr deptford alt.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ryder Forging Machine at Wilkinson Sward.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Harry Gardner.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thomas Harry Gardner.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Ryder Forging Machine circa 1867.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Ryder Forging Machine circa 1867.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musgrave Engine.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Musgrave Engine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1911 Rothwell 15HP Tourer.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1911 Rothwell 15HP Tourer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Hick.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Benjamin Hick.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weiterbewegung&oldid=1142695013"