Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles8854 (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 14 December 2006 (→Speech from the throne (UK)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Politics of Canada Page

You told me to partake in discussion at the Politics of Canada page, which I've done. I'm doing my best to follow Wiki guidelines and do not know the complete ins and outs. I'm wondering what authority you have to tell me to stop adding an external link page there, please explain.

If you do not have authority please note I am following Wiki guidelines and added 'edit notes' to my additions. As we have dispute I am also contacting you directly to see if we can reach compromise, as suggested by Wiki.

I await your reply, Thank you, Dancingwatersdancingwaters sept. 04'06,12:13am

Cdn_Penny.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Cdn_Penny.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded Image:Cdn-penny-reverse.jpg instead)

Cdn_Quarter.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Cdn_Quarter.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded Image:Cdn-quarter-reverse.jpg instead) --Robojames 17:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am following guidelines and have posted on the pages asking for support. I don't think 3 people reverting my links constitutes 'many', 'a few' would be more appropriate wording and perspective. Besides posting in the discussion on these pages Wiki recommends dispute resolution 'talking it out and reahing compromise', so I urge you to follow along. I've stated my case and feel my link follows Wiki guidelines. As compromise means 'giving' to reach peace, I will committ to building on a humour section for these sites. What are you willing to give? Dancingwaters 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Canadian coin images

Hey, you asked about coin images. Actually, I don't even have a camera, I used a flat-bed scanner and just scanned the coins directly. I cropped them and adjusted balance and whatnot if necessary.

Funny story, I work using the scanner, so i scanned them over a week, checking my change every time I got coffee for the coins with the updated portrait. Anyway, good luck, Robojames 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Canada

Very good point, I think people can make the argument that Canada is becoming less and less dependent on the US, maybe we should try and re-word it to that extent. Tawker 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On April 18, you made and edit to Canada with this summary "Changed 'referenda' to 'referendums' as per my explanation in Talk page". However, I could not find your explanation on the articles talk page. Could you please provide one? Andrewjuren(talk) 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian coinage & Canadian banknotes

You did good work there! I looked for ways to help with the split, but you had already done everything I could think of. :-) Luigizanasi 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Norfolkcoa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Norfolkcoa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. I really appreciate it. But truly, it's been a team effort on the Canada article recently :) -- Jeff3000 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Norfolkcoa.jpg

I noticed that after Norfolkcoa.jpg was deleted, you removed the link to it from the Norfolk County, Ontario article. According to a warning placed on this Image's page a week ago, it was deleted because it was only tagged as a Coat of Arms, which does not necessarily mean it is fair use. I'm the person who uploaded this image and I included comments explaining why I thought it qualified as fair use, and provided a link for the source. I thought that this would be OK, because the uploaded Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms is also only tagged as a Coat of Arms and provides a link to its source, but has no explicit justification for Fair Use.

Both Coat of Arms images (Ottawa and my deleted Norfolk) have the same source: www.gg.ca - City of Ottawa www.gg.ca - Corporation of Norfolk County

The point of my long-winded comment is:

• Do you know why these two images were treated differently?
• If there was no significant difference, does that mean the Ottawa COA image should be deleted, or that the Norfolk COA image should not have been deleted?
• Most importantly, if you don't know the answer to these questions, do you know where I should ask them?

Thanks! --thirty-seven 09:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The explanation will be long-winded too, sorry :) First, to explain {{coat of arms}}, this tag is more an indication of the content of the image than a copyright tag. Just because it's a coat of arms does not mean we have a license to use it, or that the image is in the public domain. Often a coat of arms will be fair use but that is not a guarantee. Sometimes a coat of arms may even be in the public domain or licensed any other way. It's further complicated by the fact that in Europe there is a designation "coat of arms", which applies to a text description of the image, yet the actual rendering is subject to copyright by the creator. So the short answer is {{coat of arms}} is a useful tag but it does not replace either source or license information.

As to why the images were treated differently, we are dealing with a huge number of images in a very distributed fashion so variations are bound to occur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't follow policy, but we should probably err on not deleting images. In this particular case the image that was deleted was uploaded 11 May 2006 after the implementation of an automated system that checks for license tags after upload. This was done to try and help us address problem images faster and notify users in a timeline where they might be able to help rather than waiting until we could get to it. (usually we have a multi-month backlog with the manual system). Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms.jpg was uploaded before that system was implemented and we aren't currently looking at those images, so it has not been tagged as having no license. It does need a license though, and might be deleted in the future, but it's not tagged now, and there is no current system/project in place (except a random user seeing it) that would tag it. I'm also not going to tag it because I personally think it's weird to tag example images like this when they are brought to my attention, I like letting normal processes do it, because it seems mean to me otherwise :)

I hope I answered your question, and am happy to answer questions about this anytime, if you want a more centralized place though Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions is useful, but there's a good chance I might answer you there also :D - cohesion 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada

• It seems that it was deleted some time ago and re-added by Artic.gnome yesterday. The discussion is archived at Talk:Canada/Archive4#Form_of_government. It goes back a ways. I guess the point is that "constitutional monarchy" reflects only one part of Canada's government, and the other part is equally or more important. Deleting "parliamentary democracy" seems to be a favourite hobby of a few people who want to promote the role of monarchy. This encyclopedia article should reflect the reality of government in Canada, rather than be used by one side or the other in the monarchy vs. republic debate. "Constitutional monarchy" is correct. "Parliamentary democracy" is correct. Let's use both to keep everyone happy, and help inform the reader. Regards. Ground Zero | t 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Speech from the throne (UK)

Do you know how to insert those photos (Queen's speach from the throne -2006- )? I haven't a clue how. GoodDay 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles8854's Objection to Removal by "Thirty-seven" of Charles8854's contribution to this Common-Law web-page.

I further see that you have seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Misplaced Pages's "Common-Law" web page. I see you only identify your self by the fictional name "Thirty-seven".

You have removed my contribution to this common-law web page without giving me the courtesy of discussing any possible errors in my research. You have left no feedback in the common-law "Talk Page"; you have left no feedback in my personal web page; and so far as i am aware, you have made no other good-faith efforts to communicate with me.

It appears to me that you have committed "Vandalism" against my contribution to Misplaced Pages's "Common-Law" web-page.

I have asked all others who are in any manner concerned with these issues, to involve themselves in this controversy, and to render public common-law judgement in their own words, concerning the merits of whether or not your editing removal of my text was "Justified", in this abrupt & un-discussed manner.

I will provide my personal phone number & email address, upon request, to you, if you evidence any good-faith efforts to resolve this controversy.

Wikipedai rules declare that we are to "Assume Good Faith" & that "No Personal Attacks" should be made. I see you made an attack against my personal work her by assertting that my work was "uncited", "unsourced", and composed with "poor writing", & a few other derogatory comments which attack my personal work through words the meaning of which i do not comprehend.

I am really up-set that you, who refuse to identify yourself with your real name, can come in here and gut my good work, without so much as any discussion at all of the merits of that gutting. I really do seek to resolve this controversy with you.

Please state clearly, & precisely, what you think is wrong with my contribution to the common-law web page.

Please do this in a timely manner, or put my editorial contribution back on that common-law web-page.

Sincerely,

Charles Bruce, Stewart Charles8854 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)