User talk:Ww2censor/Archive29

Talk page • Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 • Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 • Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 • Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 • Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 • Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 • Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30

Tony Hogan (spiritual healer) PROD

Hi Ww2censor, I saw that you left me a message. I'm not a regular wikipedia editor so I'm unsure of how to respond, I suppose this will do. Your message claimed that I removed a 'Biographies of Living Persons PROD', emphasis on living; I did not, as the man in question is dead. I'm assuming this action was automated given the speed of the revision.

I myself was looking for information on him as he is a name I recognise from the past, and the page here on wikipedia is the best source of free information available on him. The page serves a purpose to people like me and I believe it should stay. I'm therefore rolling back your rollback of my rollback (so much rolling, it's worth it just to be able to type that!).

All the best, Some guy who's IP you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.70.165 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You just follow the prod instructions as clearly stated in the notice at the top of the article page. I presume you can read them. Do not remove it again because you may be blocked from editing by an admin if you continue. ww2censor (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who suggested this article for deletion. As per WP:PROD "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." (taken from the page as I left it [[1]])

95.45.70.165 was ok to remove that message, as he/she dissagreed.

@Ww2censor: if you wish this article to be deleted, you can propose it for deletion as per WP:AFD

I have looked into the topic further and believe it is notable. I should not have tagged it in the first place. Deunanknute (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes you are strictly correct and I may have been hasty in restoring the prod tag but I don't see any action by the anonIP, though as you say none is actually really necessary, other than a drive by removal. I could not find anything reliable on the subject so, in that case will consider a nom myself. Personally I think your initial reaction was indeed correct. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Hogan (spiritual healer) and deleted. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

Hi Ww2censor, Having recently deleted some flagicons on F1 drivers after spotting your edit on J-P Beltoise I then received the following message from another editor:-

"At the moment, after long discussions, there is no consensus that WP:INFOBOXFLAG applies to F1 drivers. The concept of sporting nationality was widely debated, but the upshot was that there's no agreement to remove flags from F1 infoboxes. Some other sports (tennis, golf) are in a similar situation. One point is that there was no real support for flags in articles about drivers who do/did not compete in F1, i.e. lower formulae drivers should probably not have flags."

So now we know.... :P Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion was here a little while back. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash and Bretonbanquet: I'm not going to get into a debate on this issue with you as it appears impossible to get past the entrenched position held, so if I happen to miss the fact that someone is also an F1 driver and remove the flag you can decide to revert it or not. It's a pity I did not know about the recent discussion though it seems those favouring the removal of flag are greatly outnumbered by the keepers.

However, what concerns me is that your arguments are not really totally honest because you don't really want or need to show the person's nationality with a flag appended but want to display their nationality as shown in FIA F1 Super Licence they hold. So my question would be, why not call a spade a spade? Instead of attaching a flagicon to the name of the country of birth, don't call it Nationality but call it what it really is FIA Super Licence nationality with a flagicon and leave the personal details section with place of birth free of the flagicon, as is usual. To me that might even be just about acceptable to the WP:INFOBOXFLAG enforcers. It would be similar to the Allegiance link and flagicon for a military person, such as we see for Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein that uses the template {{Infobox military person}}.

Another problem for me in this regard is that the link from the word Nationality to which a flagicon is appended in the F1 infobox, such as with Fernando Alonso, links to FIA Super Licence#Nationality of drivers which is a completely unsourced section, so we have no verification this is true. I think you should fix that. Anyway you have the numbers, so will no doubt continue on the same path a heretofore. Anyway that's my 2¢ worth, good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree with everything you've said there. I would prefer a separate field as you suggest, to show sporting nationality, replacing the existing nationality field. I like the comparison with the military personnel infobox. You're right about the unsourced nature of the superlicence explanation, and this has been brought up before. I did actually think it had been addressed, but apparently not. I hope you don't think I/we are just trying to steamroller our preferences here; but getting anything done in the F1 WikiProject is usually very difficult, particularly with regard to flags. I'm going on a Wikibreak but I'll start a discussion there and raise the points you've made. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ww2censor @Bretonbanquet: I don't really feel I know enough to comment properly on the issue, (I was just passing on the info I received) but my twopenny-worth is to draw a comparison with Wiki football pages where a player's nationality is defined by the International team he is eligible for, rather than where he happens to be born. However I agree that there are anomalies there (& here) which probably should be addressed. For what it's worth I like the "flagicon" appearing in pages but wouldn't worry too much if it was discontinued...the nationality would still appear...and the debate would go on, on a slightly different level. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the missing source in the Super Licence article. Tvx1 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet:, thanks for the info and please do drop me a post if there is a discussion on this some time in the future. Thanks for the citation with page number for the super licence @Tvx1:. I was pretty sure that did not just drop out of the skies. And @Eagleash: I'm not sure football compares directly. There are several UK born players on the Republic of Ireland national football team but I could not find any with flagicons, so I think the point is somewhat mute, however, I am sure there must be other examples around that compare with the F1 and military allegiance. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I've started a discussion on it already, which is here, which seems (so far) to be heading in the right direction. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That was fast. Looks interesting though I am sure you will need a bit more input before a final decision is made. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor. Agreed the International football teams pages do not show flagicons against players but club pages show the relevant nationality in the squad lists etc. so it's perhaps not entirely moot...just a comparison... (Crikey, never meant to start a major debate about this :P) Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a New Zealander, Michael Bent, playing rugby for Ireland but his was the only one with flagicons and they will likely be removed, so moot (oops above) seems appropriate. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that (Bent) doesn't make sense really. I was just making a comparison...if you check football *club* pages, e.g. CPFC all the players have flagicons next to their name. But the discussion is off & running now so I guess we await the outcome. Best, Eagleash (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsa Cladera de Bravo

Hello, I wonder if you have deleted a picture from my article "Elsa Cladera de Bravo" The picture: File:013."Sucre,May 1971.Teachers National Conference.Elsa summarizes the discussions before the creation of the "Asamblea del Pueblo". jpg is not more in the article. What was wrong with it? Thank you for your answer. Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please post sequentially at the bottom and don't remove other posts. We are a cooperation, so there is no such thing as "my article" even if you did all the editing. Now, as I am not an admin, I do not delete images and cannot find the image you refer to above I can't tell you why it was deleted because it never existed here. See my response at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/January#Foto: Elsa Cladera de Bravo. However, according to this commons page c:File:013."Sucre, May 1971. Teachers National Conference. Elsa summarizes the discussions before the creation of the "Asamblea del Pueblo".jpg an image by the same name was deleted on the commons because no copyright tag was provided. Sorry but I also note that some of the other image in that article are likely copyright violations and will be nominated for deletion as was this one. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation and information. But why do you write "my image copyright information page" if there is no such thing?

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The link above works but here it is again and it does work: my image copyright information page. If you can't see it you must be doing something wrong as I've checked each link twice. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Lecanvey / Leckanvy

When I edited this article it seemed odd that the same place has two names in Irish and two names in English, and are the different forms pronounced differently as well?--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you refer to the Irish government archival records for this village you will see that, as with many other Irish towns and villages, over time there have been several different spellings of the names and it only seems logical that the pronouncation will be different for different spellings.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cork (city), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Statistics Office. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Invisible rail

I believe you mistakenly removed my contribution, I am putting it back --Naytz (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people on stamps of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Davis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Temba tsheri

Hi Ww2cesor. Thanks for your help. you msg me something. how to solve that problem. tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Inch Island

Hi Ww2censor, and thanks for adding the talk page to the new article. Just a small remark: infobox & pics were already available, so I fixed the template.--Pampuco (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First flight cover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User talk:Mouthny

Hello, Ww2censor. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mouthny".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User talk:Mouthny}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Willow

I would value your advice on this: Talk:SS Irish Willow (1918)#Lucky - is it too trivial? Lugnad (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

re Signal : ............

Hello, Ww2censor. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Lugnad (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I reckon that you were correct, about excluding the name from the list of notables. The only notability, that I can see, is the sports scholarship. trinity give 60+ scholarships [2] and then there are other colleges. So, imo, the article should not exist. However I'm not going to do anything about it, when there are far worse articles. Example: Leprechaun traps - regards Lugnad (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wheels infobox?

You tagged Comstar wheel as needing an infobox. I'm not aware of what infobox would apply here. Could you suggest one? — Brianhe (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: I assessed the article and expected to find a suitable engineering type infobox template that would apply. Having a look around I surprises me that could not find one easily, so I suppose it will have to do without unless your search is more fruitful then mine. Perhaps there should be one to cover mechanical or engineering design products. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. – Brianhe (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Louis Ducos du Hauron's picture : Agen vs Angoulême ?

Good morning,
Sorry, my english is a bit rusty.
I just check your changes on this page. Due to family reasons, I know Agen quite well. Visited some hundreds of times. The picture you assess being from Angoulême shows many elements that perfectly match to Agen's local geography, being :

• the picture is shot from a spot of which coordinates, according to Google Earth, are 44°12'33.58"N 0°36'56.47"E, alongside the road to the port. This road runs alongside the hill overlooking the city.
• On the foreground, the river-like green ribbon is in fact the Canal du Midi.
• At the foot of some trees, you can see (difficlut), the railtrack, the main Station of Agen being a few meters on your left.
• In the background, on the left are shown the hills north of Agen and Bon-Encontre, east of the small city of Pont-du-Casse.
• On the right of St Caprais church, at the horizon line, you can see the slopes of the region of Caudecoste, Dunes,...
• across the river Garonne's plain, which yiu can guess in the middle.
  
• On the other hand, I know nothing about Angoulême's topograpĥy, unless, it is notably steeper.

Hope this is clear enough to you, so that I can ask you to please check the origin of your many changes around this picture, as I feel the original one is most likely to be wrong. Thanks and regards, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC) (apologise again for poor level in rusty english speaking).

Thanks for the feedback; your English is quite good. I assumed that someone might a comment if they disagreed but from the information I could find especially this other version of the image which was scanned from a book clearly identifies the image as Angoulême while File:Duhauron1877.jpg this does not use the town name in the title. Back in 2006 File:Duhauron1877.jpg was promoted to Featured Picture on the enwiki per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Old Angouleme and I assumed that people would have been observant and check the actual location at that time but I suppose they went of faith. I also noticed this use fr:La Comédie humaine which even more convinced me Angoulême was correct. Obviously if I am wrong I will revert the changes. I can visit Agen in the near future and check out what you say but you do appear to be correct and the book the linked image comes from may be incorrect. It happens. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I was able to visit Agen a few days ago and took a few photos as close as possible to the original image. Several of the foreground buildings are still there and you are correct. It was impossible to take any photos from the exact vantage point that Louis Arthur Ducos du Hauron used because of the highly overgrown vegetation on the hillside. I will see how to proceed because even the Kodak George Eastman House records, where the image is housed, identified the location as Angoulême as far back as the 1950s. @Kikuyu3: thanks for pointing this out. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See c:File talk:Duhauron1877.jpg from more details of my investigation. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Ww2censor, for this huge job you did. I'm very proud if I helped prevent Human being from a major mistake. Cordialement, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

• A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
• A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
• New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
• SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
• Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Henry Arthur Herbert (1815–1866)

In September 2007 you requested an image for the above page. I have made a suggestion for such an image on the above's talk page - apologies I am not using the correct Wikipedia procedure to make this suggestion. May I seek your comments on the suggestion? Alekksandr (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Nelms

The page for Mike Nelms has no picture, I have a picture of him I took with his permission last June, how do I upload it. (I Dan tha Man I (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC))

Assuming you are going to freely licence the image, then everything is straight forward. It's really quite easy. Just click on the "Upload file" on any page and in the resulting page choose the Commons Wizard because then the other language wikis that have an article about Mike Nelms will be able to use it. Otherwise, if you upload it here it can only be used here until someone moves it to the commons, so just do it there from the beginning. Then just edit the article and add the image to the infobox. Ask again if you need more help. you may want to read c:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people before you do the upload. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Hennessy

Hi, I'm surprised that the banner (with the yellow brush) is still displayed on the above page as I've already complied with the request in the banner.

On the matter of the uploading of the picture "Self Portrait with Cat". Am I correct in assuming that there is very little point in pursuing this method although I have some background knowledge of the painting (snowpatrol 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)

You don't make it too easy to help you because you did not link to the article you are referring to and you don't sign your posts as I clearly request (with details) at the top of this page when editing, which helps find you, Please follow all edit page requests. Why are you surprised? You have done nothing to fix the problem, so perhaps you do not understand the notification at the top of the Patrick Hennessy (painter) page. It provides links to guides on what needs to be done. Read WP:LEDE. BTW, in the article your references are rather poor especially because giving just the title of a book is not very helpful. You need to provide page numbers for the information it is claimed to verify so that when someone wants to check the references they can find it without having to wade through the complete book. Regarding the painting, I provided all the info you need on the media copyright questions page and I don't know how some background knowledge of the painting will assist in getting the painting image online here. It is non-free, still in copyright, so must comply with WP:NFCC as previously stated. Your knowledge, if used in the article prose, may be considered as original research and if it is not supported by third party reliable sources you cannot use it other than personally to find and provide those reliable sources. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I found the tone of your response unhelpful and patronising. Please remember that some of us here are beginners and need encouragement not chastisement. As far as I was aware I had signed the the message correctly.

With regard to the notification at the top of the page. As I stated on my message yesterday all the necessary information is in that sentence. No more is necessary and to do so would only take away from the article.

I take on board your criticism regarding lack of page numbers and I will try and address this.I also take on your comments regarding the painting.

One final point.If Wikipedia want people to volunteer their time and effort to increase the knowledge for the general public then a more benevolent tone might just help.(2.99.173.237 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC))

Well I apologise if you thought my response was unhelpful and patronising, it was not meant that way. So let me address some of your issues and whatever words I use they are meant constructively. Firstly you did not sign you posts, either here or at MCQ, even though the very first notice given you on your talk page asks you to do so and tells you how and I placed another one recently. The reason is that we often need to review your talk page but if you don't sign then we have to search for it. The same goes for providing a link to the article your are discussing. Because "Patrick Hennessy" was not linked and is a completely different person, I had to look for it by first finding a link to your talk page and then looking up your contributions to find that the "Patrick Hennessy's" article you were referring to is actually named Patrick Hennessy (painter). So hopefully you understand how and why doing those simple things helps and leads to less frustration with editors, be they new editors like you or not. We all had to learn, sometime by mistakes and sometimes by omission. And so, secondly, please don't start a new section for a discussion that already exists, just add more text onto it and indent your comments by adding a colon in front of each paragraph, because I have done this and removed the header, it is now all together. BTW, you did not log in to your account when making the last post as can be seen by the bot's additions of a signature but the context implies it is the same editor but again doing so keeps all you contributions in one history and is not divided.

I really don't what this means: "With regard to the notification at the top of the page. As I stated on my message yesterday all the necessary information is in that sentence. No more is necessary and to do so would only take away from the article." I presume you are talking about the lede notice at the top of the Patrick Hennessy (painter) article. If you read the linked pages they tel you that you need to summarise the main prose in the lede s an introduction, so the one sentence certainly does not do that and will only improve the article. It should stand in its own right as a summary. What is needed is basically a precis of the article. So maybe 3 or 4 sentences doing so will suffice but as it stands the tag is valid.

Your point about volunteers is well taken and understood. I've been volunteering here for almost 10 years and also on the commons. It is great to get editors who can assist in writing or improving the encyclopaedia at all levels, so I hope you will stay around for a good while. I do notice that you have only bee editing the one article but I am sure you have knowledge of other topics where your contributions can be constructive too. BTW, I notice that sometimes you make several edit within minutes of each other. You can place an {{in use}} tag at the top of the article and work on it for some time without frequently saving and staring new edits. Sorry for being longwinded (it is one of my failing), but I hope I have explained clearly and more encouraging this time. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

With regards to the tag at the top of the page which you say needs to be enlarged. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in this case.This particular article and the way it has been constructed does not require any more information in the leader than is there.To do so would would conflict with the rest of the page.If you have an issue with this I would like to refer it to an adjudicator.(snowpatrol 16:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)

You know it is no wonder editors get frustrated with others who just appear they cannot follow any given advise. Again you did not sign, AND you added a new section, both of which I specifically advised you about in my previous reply. I really wonder if you even read what I wrote. Don't bother replying to that.

Regarding the lede, the Manual of Style clearly states that: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article per the very first sentence of WP:MOSINTRO but it appears you just want to ignore the established style conventions. The current one sentence does not do that and it clearly appears you refuse to fix it. These are the sorts of advIse one gives to new editors to help them become better editors so I sorry I 've tried to constructively help you because you just don't seem to want to follow even the simplest advise. Please don't bother me again. Goodbye ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on Media Copyright Questions

Greetings, since you participated in the previous discussion on that image suggestion, do you have an opinion on this query? Thanks in advance for an answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. As I previously wrote in the archived discussion was that it might pass NFCC#8 but I felt that NFCC#1 would prevail because a freely licenced image could be made. I don't think there is more to be said. It is a complex image but someone could make a new version but maybe you will get away with it based on sourced critical commentary. ww2censor (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, actually I was proposing to use it in the article of the creator of the image, not on Biochemistry. The image does indeed not meet NFCC#1 on the latter, but on the former, where it is discussed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks for clarifying. I still think the same principle applies but I am not stuck on that opinion. I would prefer if others weighed in but I think my opinion is the most logical. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Markus Klinko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Major Moon Collection Cover

Major Moon Collection article is referred to in text and is highly relevant to article. No idea why you have deleted it. Does not fail free use policy as it is a book cover. In any case, an article page is not the place to question the validity of a widely used file.Tomintoul (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I did not delete any image; all I did was remove the image File:Major Moon Collection Catalogue Cover.jpg from Prisoner-of-war camp for which it has no fair-use rationale which is contrary to #10c of our non-free policy. However you are incorrect that a book cover can just be inserted into the POW article. WP:NFCI#Images #1 specifically notes that covers only in the context of critical commentary of that item which means it is used in an article about the specific title. In that case all 3 current uses fail because those uses are in articles not about the book/catalogue. You claim the use of the image is highly relevant to article but clearly the existence of that book can easily be made in prose without any detriment to the reader's understanding of the article. There is mere mention that the State Library of Victoria exhibited work and this is the catalogue. The image is totally unnecessary. In fact if your argument is taken further, there are many books on POW that could, by the same reasoning, be added to the POW article. I'm sorry you are wrong so I will again remove the image because it has no rationale which policy requires and I will nominate it for deletion. Then you can make any arguments you have there. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is any fault, it is in that the rationale hasn't been spelt out, which could easily be improved. The use of the file has been considered by multiple editors and so far you are alone in your view. I have reinstated the images pending achievement of consensus subject to your deletion nomination. Tomintoul (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no rationale so it immediately fails NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Arthur Moon article was featured in DYK. It was therefore reviewed by multiple editors who did not share your view. Do not take unilateral action by again deleting images until the debate is concluded. Tomintoul (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A DYK has nothing to do with the use of a non-free image in the article and there is no proof that any editors do, or no not, share my view. The image has no ratioanle for this use, so it immediately fails WP:NFCC and I have again removed it for that reason - it is against NFCC policy. It is that simple. Do not readd it again. If it is deleted, then there is no issue, but if it is not deleted it MUST have a rationale for each and every use as already explained. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The rationale is there for the artist and only needs adjusting for Arthur Moon:

I've seen the 1 rationale, so there is no reason to post it here, and that is why it is nominated for deletion. The image was removed from the other articles because it has no rationale for those uses as I have already explained several times. If you want to refine the Ashley George Old rationale please go ahead. I still think you cannot write a good enough rationale for even that use. ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring in Arthur Moon

The image in the Arthur Moon article is up for FfD, and as such there is no reason to remove the file until the FfD concludes. Please avoid further edits to the article until FfD completes, edit warring helps no one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct but I hope you also warned the editor who was reinserting the image, before the FfD, even when it was removed because it clearly failed WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He is more than aware of the problem, as I can see here on this talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. There is a little red gizmo that indicates replies will be placed here. That is very useful, but on this Chrome instance on Win7 it covers up the last part of the text area. It might need some tweaking to position it a little lower on the page, there's still lots of room below it could be moved to. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Indeed he was but seemed to ignore the very valid reasoning without doing anything about it. Anyway, about the gizmo, different browsers and OSs treat it differently and I have tweaked it a few times in the past. The current postion seems like the best happy medium compromise considering the different options. Thanks, maybe I'll play around with it again. ww2censor (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the positioning is that bad when I look harder. The problem isn't the red bar pre se, but the way it interacts with surrounding widgets. It looks like its covering up the text, but it seems it's actually covering something unrelated at te bottom of the page - of course I can't see it so I can't tell! Grrrr, I wish Chrome let me blank it out so I could see under it... maybe in the debugger? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears to just cover up the categories at the bottom of the page so if I can tighten up the line height and reduce the font size it might also help. I've figured out how to reduce the font size and will try 80%. ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Try this adjustment and let me know. It should have made a space between the bottom posted text and the bottom frame and placed the notice in that space not covering the categories or any of the bottom post. Thanks @Maury Markowitz: ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is much better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Republic of Ireland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ireland page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Journal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp Murder of Kylie Maybury Murder of Sheree Beasley

Hi.

Could you take a look at these articles on Australian murders that i helped create or heavily edit, just to make sure they are written right for Wikipedia?

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp Murder of Kylie Maybury Murder of Sheree Beasley

Paul Austin (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Heading on Article

I submitted an article on Jack Kenny Williams 9/19/15 with the wrong heading. How do I correct the heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoke321 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have move rights there should be a move button at the top of the article page. If not let me know the existing name and what it should be called I'll set it up for you. BTW, please sign all your talk page posts by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ to the end of your post. ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taximeter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

my stamp image posted to the stamp page

I believe this was the JPIG image of a stamp I owned and the photo of this stamp was not in the web page. I figured that since I owned the stamp and it is new and unused (MNH) I thought I would contribute to Wikipedia with an image of the stamp. I recently found another Wikipedia site containing fraction stamps and I have 2 of the fraction stamps that are not featured. I have chose not to post the 2 fraction stamps for fear of not following guidelines as happened before. The work to upload an image is time consuming and I want to make sure I am doing the correct procedure. How do we as editors get an image of a stamp that has been out of production for quite awhile? Orangecones (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what image are you talking about. Ownership of a stamp does not confer you with a copyright for that stamp or an image of it. US stamps pre 1978 are in the public domain but everything newer is copyright. Many countries have even longer copyright terms for stamps than the US though some are freely licenced. You should look at c:Commons:Stamps/Public domain and c:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates to start with. We only accept freely licenced image of stamps so newer ones cannot be uploaded except in very rare cases. "out of production" is totally irrelevant to the matter of copyright. Tell me what you are trying to do. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and guidance regarding the stamp issue. I did not realize there was a time frame for the copyright to fall off. I saw no stamp image and I thought that because there was no image maybe no one had an image and I did so I wanted to share the image with Wikipedia. My mistake, I am on a learning curve and I hope everyone will be patient with me. Thank you so much for all your help and teaching. Orangecones (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, ask anytime and I'll do my best to assist you. Copyright can be quite complex a topic, so you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for some more issues you may come across. ww2censor (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --98.122.20.56 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

German stamps deletion

Hi. I noticed your recent post on the french wiki. I shared the info in the RAW magazine (our Signpost). Its next edition should be released tomorrow. Meanwhile, you'll find my news here. Trace (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Gun politics in Ireland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


I thought I'd return the warning, as you are equally complicit in reverting what I regard as perfectly reasonable edits. In addition, you have not followed any of the advice given in this template: please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. I have. And I have made effort to engage in discussion about your objection. I have also given a citation with regard to the correct grammar, as appropriate in English relevant to this article's region. Please note that I will be looking to find assistance from a (hopefully) objective third party, just as soon as I work out what and where I have to type something. Bear in mind that the 3RR rule a) does not have to be enforced - it's just a policy, and b) it can also be enforced if fewer than three reverts are made in a 24 hour period. Presumably it can also be enforced if three or more reverts are made outside a 24 hour period, too. It is my hope that asking for assistance from someone who is more experienced in how to deal with this kind of 'warring' will result in neither of us being blocked or otherwise punished. As a final note, before delving into the crazy world of Wikipedia red tape, I will say that I am perfectly fine with standing down on this issue if it can be proven to me that my grammatical changes to the article are in error. But I see no reason to keep reverting my edit with no good or reasonable evidence to back up your assertions and accusations, and without an attempt to enter into reasonable diaglogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.20.56 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 October 2015‎

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Irl Weston aerodrome.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Irl Weston aerodrome.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

CIA invert

All the info is in the two new sources I added (Arago and the other). BF — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 November 2015‎