User talk:Ben1we

Warnings

November 2013

Hello, I'm Philip Trueman. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Humphry Wakefield because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Philip Trueman (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barclays, British Airways, Marks & Spencer, Tesco etc

I note that you have been adding coats of arms to various articles. Please can you add a source as required by WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS to each one, please. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the original heraldic paintings are still copyright. Why do you assume they are in the public domain?Ttocserp 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ttocserp, the coat of arms license applies here I think:

"The composition of coats of arms are generally public domain with respect to copyright laws, and may be reproduced freely. This corresponds to the international traditional usage, and is explicitly stated in some national copyright laws. Some compositions, of more recent origin, may be copyrighted."

This composition (emblazon) is made by me, using freely available assets distributed amongst the Wikipedia heraldry community, or original assets I made myself. Some assets, although inspired by other illustrations, are not direct lifts of other people's work - changes have been made, so I don't think there's a copyright issue here.

Can I revert your changes on the Royal Society of Arts page? What is your opinion? Ben1we (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally" public domain does not mean invariably so. Most coats of arms are probably in the public domain simply because they are so old - the author died more than 70 years ago. But this does not apply to more recent works.

Modern coats of arms are original works executed by a herald painter, nominated by the Royal College of Heralds, and paid for by somebody. You cannot treat their work as belonging to nobody. Nor can you upload then under the rubric "own work'. It isn't.Ttocserp 13:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ttocserp, I would disagree with your viewpoint, as this doesn't have anything to do with a heraldic painter, and who paid for it. The Commons guidelines on Coat of Arms blazons are as follows:

"Definitions of coats of arms fall within the public domain in almost all cases, due to the fact that as a general rule, simply textual descriptions are not copyrightable. For example, article 2 of the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty state that “Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such”. As a blazon is a textual description of an abstract idea or image and contains only the bare facts about a coat of arms in general terms, it is generally not eligible for copyright protection."

This implies that the blazon itself cannot be under copyright, and so users surely are free to do what they want with the blazon e.g. execute its emblazonment in an accurate way that reflects the intended use of the blazon (the coat of arms itself) - to represent the institution or person it's associated with.

If you have a problem with this, then you must have a problem with the hundreds (if not thousands) of pages and files on Wikipedia and Commons depicting coats of arms of their various armigers. What's your thoughts? Ben1we (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further still, while those guidelines do go on to talk about the copyrighting of specific depictions of blazons, here the majority of the assets have been made by me, or by people who have released their assets to the community already, so I don't see how it falls into any copyright problems in this way either. Ben1we (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all you did was paint your own artistic interpretation of the blazon, using nothing but your own skill and judgement, of course no problem arises.

Or did you get any help at all from the original image on the Heralds' website (in which they claim copyright)? Ttocserp 16:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Paul McCartney's arms - to be corrected

Hello Ben1we

Good efforts to solve the tincturing of Sir Paul McCartney's crest so no doubt also worth correcting the helm to be that of a Knight? ie. affronté:

Merci infiniment & RSVP.

Primm1234 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primm, modern heraldic custom in the UK now more sees the knight's helmet as that with an open visor - that is, the affronte portion no longer really matters. Further still, the original illustration of McCartney's arms produced by the College of Arms has this exact type of helmet - looking towards the left.

Best,

Ben Ben1we (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben1we:

Many thanks for getting back to me.
When were McCartney's arms granted, pre or post-1997 svp?

Primm1234 (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001, what does svp mean? I think you'll find that even knights' arms from yesteryear, when rendered by a modern artist, are moving towards more fluid definitions for these kinds of delineating features. For example - cadency isn't really observed in the way it used to be (except for the royal household and a few other exceptions), and this has been noted by the College of Arms. Ben1we (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S'il vous plaît... Primm1234 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as in RSVP Primm1234 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben1we

Your heraldic artwork is most attractive & why not try Macca's knightly arms with just the CH insignia suspended below?

Dunno where you get that "modern heraldic custom in the UK [sic] (qv. College of Arms & Lyon Court) now more sees the knight's helmet as that with an open visor - that is, the affronte [sic] portion no longer really matters"?

Please advise what you mean - look forward to hearing & go on the Superreds!

Best Primm1234 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primm: I mostly get that from the modern illustrations of knights of the realm and baronets' heraldic achievements, more commonly featuring the open visored helmet without consideration of whether its affronte or in profile; this latter requirements seems to have been relaxed.

I have portrayed McCartney's Full Heraldic Achievement, that is, with every insignia that he is entitled to display below the shield. I think it provides the most information and value to his Wikipedia Page, as is the purpose of the file.

Primm, if you are so keen on critiquing others work on Wikimedia commons, especially within the Heraldry WikiProject, and with what seems to be a slight lack of knowledge and involvement in the area, then I suggest you start learning yourself how to create these files using a vector graphic editor. We are volunteers, and do this with our spare time, so making demands to users who have already put in many hours per file to change their (most-likely) well thought out depictions of heraldic achievements seems rather silly and misunderstood. From what I can tell, all you've done thus far is upload raster images of other heraldic artists' work. -B Ben1we (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben1we - I agree entirely with the above (as we have also discussed on my page). Many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Spence (headmaster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alastair John Naisbitt King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Mainelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commendatore.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Squadron

Hi Ben1we. Unfortunately, I had to delete the page Royal Air Squadron as it was mostly material copy/pasted from [1], back to its original edit. None of the copyrighted material was from your recent edits, but I wanted to drop by and let you know in case you had interest in recreating the page. If you need any material from your edits for reference, I can provide that for you. Just let me know. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajpolino! Yes please, would appreciate the material so I can have a go at recreating a properly cited page. Is there any way to view a previous version of the page, just to remind myself of some of the infobox parameters and commons files I might have used?

Thank you for letting me know! Best wishes, Ben1we (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajpolino/Royal Air Squadron has the page minus the copyrighted text (which unfortunately, was most of the text describing what the Royal Air Squadron is). References are still there, so it should be fairly straightforward to whip up a new non-copryight-infringing version. Let me know if you need any other info/support. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Royal Air Squadron Badge.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Air Squadron Badge.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]