Misplaced Pages

Pedantic

Not at all. Good edit, SqueakBox 18:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA!

My dear SoLando, I simply wanted to drop by, now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your beautiful words towards me and my work gave me strength and cheered me up a lot; I really felt encouraged by them. You'll always have a friend in me. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Valentin Alsina

hahaha! Valentin Alsina, asides from being a politician, is a small neighbourhood south of (and just outside the formal limits of) the city of Buenos Aires. Needless to say, it is located in Buenos Aires Province...

It is like Bethesda, MD or Arlington, VA, being part of DC's suburbs but just outside the city limits. :)

--Sebastian Kessel 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Highlanders

Hi, your edit here confused me. Was the original text not correct, in that the Cameronians are now part of the Highlanders Regiment? Of course this will soon all be a moot point, thanks to army reorganisation, so it's probably best out of the article anyway. Leithp 08:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Joel!

How are you doing? I just wanted to drop by to let you know that the Texas Ranger Division article is ready, in my humble opinion. Since you expressed your interest in having a look once it was finished, I'd me more than happy if you want to have a look at it. I wish the guys at FAC think the same! I hope you enjoy it. Hugs! Shauri smile! 19:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Heyy my dear Joel! thank you so much for your kind support! Your words of encouragement mean a lot to me. It's because of people like you that WP is a place worth staying in for a long, long time. A wholehearted THANK YOU! from your Spanish friend, and be sure to drop by my Talk Page whenever you want. Hugs! :) Shauri smile! 22:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Category for the Rangers

Wassup my dear Joel! Awesome work with the Category! I simply love it, and shame on me for not thinking of it myself. I'm pleased to see the comprhensive work you did on the subject. I cannot think of a better compilation of information. With your great contribution, now all related topics are easy to access. Congratulations on the awesome idea!

I'm starting to think that the FAC is stuck, tho... I cannot seem to be able to resolve the four objections, and unfortunately, no new supports have been offered. With the current 7-4 count, it's doomed to fail right now. I'm beginning to think about ways of making at least a couple of objectors strike their opposals down by agreeing to summarise some parts. Honestly, I don't know what else to do :(

Your support and enthusiasm has enlightened my day. Thank you so much, Joel. Allo me to appoint you honorary Wikipedian Texas Ranger! Have a great day! Shauri smile! 02:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the recent barnstar regarding Liverpool Blitz. I'm interested in WW2 and consider Liverpool to be my adopted home so it was a natural choice of article to create :) chowells 19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the B Team:

Welcome to Wikiproject Battles. Hope you have a great time. If you need anything, ask me or one of our knowledgable members; Kirill Lokshin, LordAmeth or R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine).

Regards, Spawn Man 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Anytime ;]

Your welcome, Thanks for dropping by and leaving me a note. That user ended up being blocked (see HERE ) for 24h. I love a good challange, and he didn't wanna give up ;] Anyhow, have fun ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, I'd be happy to accept a nomination for admin status. -- Necrothesp 14:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Horrocks

Hi, thanks for the help on Brian Horrocks, I've been meaning to expand that page for some time now. Can I be nosey and ask what your source is for the information on his battalions? I've been scrabbling around trying to find more information on the man and this might be something I've missed. Leithp 09:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, my google searches were all pretty fruitless, although I did turn up lots of Misplaced Pages mirrors. I'll have a look at those sites later today. Cheers! Leithp

Infobox

I've only started using the modular templates recently, but I'd be happy to help you. I'm not terribly familiar with British Army regiments though; do you want to make all of the fields optional, or just some of them? Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

All finished! I went ahead and made all the parameters optional, since leaving the last ones in raw table markup seemed to cause some funny errors.

I doubt this will come up, but just so you're aware: the code I've been writing seems unable, at present, to deal with the insertion of footnotes as template parameters; thus, don't be surprised if you add one and it breaks the box ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar! Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

DWR

Sorry that was a temporary revert to get a link that was in there but you revrted it back before I could, one one the problems with not knowing who is doing what when? Never mind all has ended as I intended. 86.2.136.115 19:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• One minor point: The new info box headers are well spaced but the info on the right is somewhat squashed up and truncated wrapping text onto the next line in an untidy way. Is it possible to widen the info box or drop the info text below the headings to use up the width more evenly?

• I agree with you that unbordered box's are better. I think the problem may lie in that the box seems split unevenly due to the length of the formal title 'Colonel of The Regiment'. You could try having the titles centred above each section, which would then allow the longer names and post nominals to be presented in a better format, That may also reduce the length of the infobox as well?. 86.2.136.115 23:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Personally I don't have a problem with that format of title, that is what they are these days, but they do actually control things as opposed to being a figurehead like the Colonel in Chief is. Hold on for a day or two. I will send Sir Evelyn an e-mail and see if he has a problem with it. 86.2.138.120 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • SoLando; I have received a reply to e-mail from Sir Evelyn, The Title 'Honorary Colonel' would not be correct however it can be shortened to 'Colonel', This would not be confuse with the commanding officer of the Regiment who is known as a 'CO' and a Lieutenant Colonel in rank, Incidentally the current CO of the Duke of Wellington' Regiment is Lieutenant Colonel Phil Lewis MBE. He has also noted in the article on the 8th Duke of Wellington that his Post Nominals include the O.StJ. He has also advised that this refers to 'Officer of St John' which is no longer used by His Grace and has requested it be deleted. 86.2.138.120 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think that "Colonel" should suffice - and hey, it's short, which matters :-) Right now, I'm now hoping Kiril (see above section ;-)) solves the modular templates inability to handle footnotes, which would provide clarification that "Colonel" in this case doesn't refer to the CO. Ah well. Regarding the Officer of the Order of St John, I have to say that I have (very) limited knowledge of peerage and the like, so I encourage you to edit on that issue. SoLando (Talk) 01:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks M8:>-2005-11-06T23:23:00.000Z">

For Rv Vandalism on my user page --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)"> ">

Shauri

Dear SoLando. I saw your message on Shauri's talkpage. Don't worry. Even thought it may look like a cloud has dimmed her sunshine, you will soon see it reappear :).--Wiglaf 07:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Crown copyright

I based the template for the Crown copyright on this PDF file:

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf

It is hosted by an organisation that is specifically devoted to informing museums and archives about copyright term lengths so I thought that it, and its companion PDFs referenced in the British copyright law article that I am largely the author of are reliable. To answer the question that you left on my talk page, then yes unpublished crown copyright photographs from 1954 or earlier are out of copyright.

This comes from the original treatment of all photographs by the Copyright Act 1911. Up until 1995 all photographs had a copyright term based on 50 years. The 1911 Act did not distinguish between published and unpublished photographs so photographs made during the time that Act was in force had a copyright term of 50 years from creation whether published or not. The Copyright Act 1956 did distinguish between published and unpublished photographs, with the former getting the 50 year term and the latter the perpetual copyright of unpublished works. In line with British legal precedent that only applied to photographs made after the commencement of the 1956 Act, ie 30 June 1957. The Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988 kept the 50 year term but ended the perpetual copyright protection of unpublished works, with a 50 year transitional period from commencement of the 1988 Act, ie from 1st August 1989 to 1st August 2039. Again it did not alter the status of works made before commencement in line with British legal practice, so photographs taken before 30 June 1957 still kept their 50 year copyright term whether published or unpublished.

All that changed in 1995 when the EU 'harmonized' copyright terms (despite the fact that things like French copyright law not counting the years during WWI and WWII towards the +70 years still exist). That meant that photograph copyright changed to being the same as that of other artistic works, ie life of the author plus 70 years. Importantly, unlike the 1911 Act, 1956 Act and 1988 Act the EU legislation was retrospective. The only class of works that it did not affect were Crown copyright photographs, which remain as they were, ie 50 years from creation for any photograph taken before 30 June 1957.

I can't talk about the specific photograph that you link to because when I clicked on the link it said that the session had expired on the search engine. David Newton 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Image

Hi Joel, I noticed too and was in the process of resolving it. I've seen the photo in Keegan's The Face of Battle (where he reckons it is August-September 1914) and in a 1915 issue of The War Illustrated (where I scanned it from) but in neither of those places was the unit identified. So I posted a question to the Great War forums and the response I had is that they are 4th Battalion, King's Liverpools and that, despite the un-trench like setting, it is 1915. Apparently the photo is featured in King’s Regiment Museum in the Museum of Liverpool Life so there might be more information there.

Certainly your image name is more accurate than mine so mine should be the one deleted. If we wait for more information, it might be possible to come up with a still better name.

I'm not sure which image is better. Mine was scanned from 90-year old newsprint, is lower resolution, and is banded from the lines of text on the other side of the page, but I feel it is slightly sharper in the foreground (though not sharper in the background). They are both cropped slightly differently. Wherever they are eventually placed, I would upload the one that won't be used first, and upload the other over it so that both are in the history. Geoff/Gsl 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your sharpened image is clearly the best. I think the resolution of the firstworldwar.com image is needlessly high. Perhaps something around 1000 pixels wide is enough (though of course, I would include the full size scan in the image history.)

If indeed it is the 4th King's, they joined the Sirhind Brigade on 6 March 1915 and the photo was first published in May 1915, so that places the action, if it was in battle, at Neuve Chapelle, or possibly Aubers Ridge. I think a title like "4th_Battalion_Kings_Regiment_1915.jpg" would be good enough unless you want to wait to gather more information. Feel free to upload over my Commons photo until such time was we decide on a name. Then you or I can move the Commons:Image:British infantry skirmish 1914.jpg history to the new name. Geoff/Gsl 23:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your err My Barnstar

MUCHO GRAZZIE BRO! It will look great in the old Wiki-Trophy room;> I shall strive to continue to be worthy of it!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

HELLO! C3PO?!

Hey M8, sorry to disturb your peaceful musings but THIS PHALLUS and his damned bot are messing with your template on our Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign page. I asked him to stop, so now he's argueing with and insulting me instead. If you agree with his edits, then I'll drop my objections, otherwise what say we take this clown downtown? Fives from DA Ghost,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)