User talk:Lawrence Chard

Nordic gold

I added a paragraph to Nordic gold, which is my expert opinion. If anybody thinks it should be edited, please feel free to do so. It contradicts a, not unreasonable, opinion already stated on the page in a somewhat factual manner.

Hi Lawrence, and welcome; sorry if I jumped in too soon, but you never know when people have finished editing, or if they necessarily know the correct style. My comment about the article title was wrong, I see now that it is standard format.

I've put a marker on your user page to make it easier to get to your talk page, please delete it if you want to. jimfbleak

Golden Brown - Gordon Brown

You're quite right, it was a valid edit that deserves to be there, and I've restored it. I don't want to apologise as such because I don't believe I was morally culpable for removing it, but I was certainly in factual error, and I am sorry if that in any way offended you or anything.

The reason I removed it without fact-checking first is simply the fact that, as I'm sure you'll understand, pages on important political figures tend to get filled of all sorts of random little insignificant factoids that support the political views of whoever edits the page.

While I'm not academically trained in politics and don't understand the subject to that level, I do spend upwards of 10-15 hours a week reading and learning about it, and cannot recall ever coming across that nickname - although I may of course misremember. Under those , I didn't see the point of doing research - if I did that on everything on those pages (or similarly initially suspect edits elsewhere), I would have significantly less time for other things on wikipedia - especially as I was operating entirely within the rules of wikipedia.

I know your comment wasn't intended as rude, but it was a bit sharp. I think this sharpness was unjustified, as was the request related to it, in fact. WP:Verify states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

and

Any edit lacking a source may be removed.

I was therefore simply following the rules of wikipedia by doing so, and disagree with any suggestion that I am not within my rights to do so. TJ 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to British two pound coin

Lawrence, thanks for editing British two pound coin. Your edits referred to the copyright status of the images on the page. I have reverted them since Wikipedia articles should refer to the subject of the article not to matters internal to Wikipedia.

The images you referred to have the following tag affixed to them: {{Non-free currency - UK}}
If you wish to dispute that status, there exist avenues for you to do so. However, I hope you'll appreciate that the article is not the place for that and that your edits have been reverted accordingly. Many thanks. — Lincolnite (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we will try to restrict any copyright corrections to the image pages. We do not, in general, have much objection to our images being used on Wikipedia, but do expect a correct copyright status notice to be included with them. We notice numerous examples of our images being uploaded and stated to be public domain, which they are not. There are copyright notice pages on all our (4) main websites. We refrain from uploading any of our images for a number of reasons, including control of copyright. We have not yet removed any of our images from Wikipedia, but may do so in future rather than correct misleading copyright information from uploaders. We do not have the time or expertise to identify and communicate with all Wikipedia uploaders of our images. As our image library in now over 10,000 mainly of coins, gold bars, and related material, we find it is increasingly being pirated, including by direct and indirect competitors. This latter category includes an increasing plague of low quality, pseudo-expert advice site which are mainly thinly disguised ad farms and eBay portals.

We specifically do not license our images for use on commercial sites, including Answers.com which appears to source most if not all of its content from Wikipedia, and earns revenue from advertising.

The Non-free currency - UK page referred to appears not to exist.

Lawrence Chard (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Krugerrand. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. tedder (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but... the "Krugerrand" page already includes "citations needed". As I appear to be, currently at least, the world's foremost expert on Krugerrand serrations (there's a specialised field if ever there was one), I considered that both my signature and a link to our own "Tax Free Gold" website would provide the necessary expert citation. Anybody wanting this information is unlikely to be confident about the current Wikipedia content. Even though the page I linked to [1] is still only partially complete, it provides the best and most assuring source of accurate information on its topic. It also relates the fact that the incorrect information has been quoted as fact for 43 years. Two recent e-mails from the South Africa Mint reveal that they still believe the old figures, despite the content of my e-mails, although they have now stated they will double check. We still have work to do in counting proof fractionals, and in producing photographic evidence, also in counting some earlier, particularly 1967 Krugerrands. We do not feel Wikipedia is the best place to publish all this, for a number of reasons. Our house style is slightly light and too humourous for Wikipedia. The current version of the Wikipedia page is worse for the removal of our citation. I would not be surprised if anybody tried to "correct" the data back to the incorrect official version. I do not intend to add our external link back as a a citation even though this is sadly needed. Although I have in the past read the Wikipedia style guide, I am not expert in it, so try to contribute in its spirit, and allowing myself to be guided by what constitutes quality content. Lawrence Chard (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-citation in article

Do not add "contributed by" to the end of articles. Every page has a page called "view history" that records every edit made to the article. Define what your skills and knowledge is on your userpage, please. And also cite all your sources (WP:CITE) --Gert7 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The above note is self-contradictory. With around 50 years experience in coins / numismatics, I can and do claim to have some degree of expertise in the subject. I am the principal author of somewhere in excess of 10,000 pages on our numerous websites, which contain inter alia factually accurate information and soundly based opinions and advice.

Where I have already written material which would provide an appropriate citation, I would normally add a citation link to the appropriate page of our websites, although I am slightly reticent about this in case editors suspect that this constitutes some form of advertising or self-promotion. Where I have stated something which was not already present on our websites, or perhaps buried there within other content, then I have added my signature as a citation, as requested above "...And also cite all your sources...".

My signature thus constitutes a statement and guarantee of the degree of expertise and accuracy contained in the contributed material. Its addition enables the casual user to see the identity of the author / contributor, so he can view and check my credentials if he so desired, and also to distinguish it readily from the multitude of anonymous or semi-anonymous contributions. Lawrence Chard (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NLT

Please note that our legal threats policy states that you will not be allowed to edit while in the process of pursuing legal action, so I would suggest withdrawing the legal threat you left at File:Maple Leaf 99999 Gold 2007 ObverseSide.jpg or you will very likely be blocked until the issue is resolved. If an image is present in violation of a copyright, you can mark it for speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright violation (see WP:CSD#F9 and state the source of the copyrighted image. However, as an image of a coin, you should be aware that it is likely that it is uncopyrightable, and therefore in the public domain. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lawrence Chard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Block is Unreasonable and Unfair A number of my/our (Chard (1964) Ltd) copyright images of coins have been uploaded to Wikipedia without permission, in breach or copyright, and in some cases the uploader has incorrectly stated that the images are Public Domain, which they are not. We have received clear legal advice from our solicitors Pannone of Manchester that copyright does indeed subsist in our photographs. The statement "However, as an image of a coin, you should be aware that it is likely that it is uncopyrightable, and therefore in the public domain. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)" may be partially correct, but GiftigerWunsch fails to cite the sources or reasons for his opinion. I believe he may be confusing the rights to the original design with the rights over the photograph, which are clearly different. In matters of copyright ownership, it is not only right that I/we should be able to maintain and defend our rights, to do so, we need to state and exert these without undue delay, and Wikipedia should not attempt not curtail or limit these rights. The policy itself may also be flawed. If I am debarred from commenting on my/our own work, for example to include a copyright notice, or to remove copyright material, or defamatory material, this leave me no recourse except to take legal action against Wikipedia and/or the uploader or contributor in order to maintain my/our rights. One of Wikipedia's defences against copyright / defamation issues is that the injured party is free to remove, amend or edit the material in question. By denying such rights, Wikipedia removes this freedom, and its defence at the same time. This surely cannot be a sensible policy. Although I am now only a very occasional contributor, I have in the past made a number of corrections to articles, and also contributed material in my field of expertise. Although one of my contributions was incorrectly challenged, these contributions have been accurate and to the benefit of Wikipedia and its users. I do happily admit that I am not an expert on Wikipedia's style and editing rules. Lawrence Chard (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The No legal threat policy is very clear on this matter: If you have a dispute with the community or its members, use dispute resolution. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly. Based on your comment stating "this leave me no recourse except to take legal action against Wikipedia and/or the uploader or contributor in order to maintain my/our rights" i infer that this legal threat still stands, which in turn means that this account cannot be unblocked under any condition.
Having said that, i would point out that Wikipedia - and the community as a whole - takes copyright serious and will act upon allegations where copyright is breached. If you believe your copyright is violated you are more then welcome to challenge this usage and it WILL be checked and acted upon, but this can ONLY be done if there is no underlying legal threat stating there will be legal against an editor or the wikimedia foundation action otherwise. This policy is in place to prevent editors from grabbing the "Legal Big Guns" instead of trying to solve an issue trough civil discussion. The other way forward is leaving the legal threat in place, but in that case, as stated above, this account cannot be unblocked until the threat is retracted or otherwise dealt with. In that case i would refer you to the contact information for Wikimedia's legal council. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could you please point me to the legal threat I am said to have issued? Lawrence Chard (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lawrence,

There was a legal threat right in the unblock request: "this leave me no recourse except to take legal action against Wikipedia and/or the uploader or contributor in order to maintain my/our rights". This line constitutes a legal threat or implies that legal threat will be executed in case a requirement is not met ("If the account is not unblocked, i will have to resort to legal action). I see that the original block doesn't coincide with any edit, so i presume that the reason for the block was originally off-wiki (IRC, mail or otherwise). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "this leave me..." is a threat to take legal action. It is a logical deduction or conclusion for the argument I stated. It was also intended to imply that the the same holds for others who are blocked.Lawrence Chard (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To add: The origional block reason in 2010 was for this line: "We will take legal action to protect our Intellectual Property Rights.", made on File:Maple Leaf 99999 Gold 2007 ObverseSide.jpg (Now deleted). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. As the relevant image has been removed, the threat of legal action was, in my view, nullified at that point, and for clarity I now confirm that it is withdrawn. Lawrence Chard (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)