User:Dsmdgold/Talk Archive 2005
Vergilius Augusteus
[edit]Hi! I just translated Vergilius Augusteus from the German article on it (or attempted to translate it, anyway), and then I discovered that you had already written about the Vergilius Vaticanus and Vergilius Romanus. If you know anything more about the Augusteus, it could use some work...by the way, there is also a Middle Ages wikiproject now, if you're interested. Adam Bishop 20:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it has decorated initials, but I'm not sure if that counts as "illumination." I guess illumination doesn't really exist yet at such an early date. I put it in the list of illuminated manuscripts, though...should it be removed? Adam Bishop 01:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- They look like this (not a great example, but they are slightly decorated). Adam Bishop 02:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I have some clearer photocopies here, they're definitely more than just enlarged...the initials are outlines and have squiggles and geometric designs inside. And yeah, it would be a good idea to move the list to your new page, and have the illuminated manuscript article be *about* them in general. Your list is much better anyway! Adam Bishop 03:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
British Library . . .
[edit]Hello there.
Just to say Sorry for causing you unnecessary bother. I never wanted your article deleted, but couldn’t think of a better way to say that the title seemed a little strange, and that I couldn’t confirm the existence of the document in question. I still can’t find it in the BL online catalogue, even now that I know its there!
Cheers Jeff Knaggs|Talk 16:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Manuscript naming convention
[edit]Thanks for your note - I've added a (strongly positive) comment. I've also linked from Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so when agreed, the convention can appear there. Warofdreams 11:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on Hrafnkels saga
[edit]I've now added a diagram of manuscript transmission to the Hrafnkels saga article. Thank you for giving me an excuse to do this :) -- Haukurth 16:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Book of Kells
[edit]Great work on the article. I looked at it after seeing it mentioned at WP:PR, although I really don't know enough to make any critical comments. I do have a suggestion, because you were worried about British-English spelling. I use the Mozilla Firefox internet web browser. There is an extension for it called SpellBound which allows you to install a variety of different dictionaries, including the default American English that is included, and a BE dictionary. The extension works very well for spell-checking within forms, like you do when editing a Wikipedia article. Depending upon the subject matter, or whoever did the most editing, I will switch back and forth between the two dictionaries. I could check the article if you want, but I would still recomend that you use Firefox and install the SpellBound extension to help with editing on the Wikipedia. BTW: Just after studying the Book of Kells in an art class in college, I visited my uncle who was an art professor, and he had a copy of the partial color fascimile of the Book of Kells that you mentioned in the article. BlankVerse 14:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- COngratulations on this making FA status. Filiocht 12:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining why you reverted my change. I accept your logic. --Red King 13:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dsmdgold, I'd just like to let you know that the full translation of the article in French is now complete ! (see Livre de Kells for further details) Congratulations for the incredible amount of work you devoted to this manuscript !
- --Manchot sanguinaire 11:59, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
See my talk page. Bluegold 17:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Image:Dimma.jpg
[edit]This is a complex case. First, the original book of Dimma, including it's cover, is in the public domain. Second, it appears that a rudimentary photograph or etching or engraving or tracing of the cover was made as some undetermined point in time, labelled "FIG 38.--CASE OF DIMMA'S BOOK." Lastly, this copy was then apparently scanned into a computer, being a mechanical reproduction with no original value.
The only uncertain point is the second step above. If the photograph or etching or engraving or tracing was made after 1932, would it be in the public domain? That's an interesting question. Some court cases are instructive.
Copyright can only be claimed where there is originality, and originality is absent, according to the Berne Convention (Paris text) art. 5(1), 1998, "where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying." In Mazer v. Stein (1954), the court ruled that a copyrightable work "must be original, that is, the author's tangible expression of his ideas" and "production of a work of art in a different medium cannot by itself constitute the originality required for copyright protection." Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp (1999) ruled that "only 'a distinguishable variation' -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original."
However, there are possible problems. According to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v. Sarony (1884), "a very modest expression of personality will constitute sufficient originality." This was interpreted in Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp (1998) to specify that "elements of originality . . . may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved." But, as the Bridgeman decision noted, "'slavish copying,' although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify."
The court noted that in the photographing of 2-dimentional works of art, "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances." In my opinion, this also applies in the circumstance of the reproduction of the cover of the book of Dimma.
Applying the law to a specific circumstance always takes some amount of interpretation. But in this instance, I believe the {{PD-old}} (or {{PD-art}}) tag is warranted. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. . . are you convinced? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 01:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I understand. Still, you must admit there is some room for interpretation. If you've ever seen a Vincent Van Gogh or Jackson Pollock painting close up, you know they're not actually two-dimentional, and the 3-D aspect is an important part of the painting. But it's a difficult case. Luckily, there's a project called Wikipedia:Image sleuthing that's made for just these sorts of cases. I'll post this image tomorrow, and the sleuths can try to find the origin of the photo and reach consensus on the most appropriate tag. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:22, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Return of the Untagged Image project
[edit]You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)
FAC objection
[edit]You may want to reconsider your objection; now we have a map—Image:Britain peoples circa 600.png—that illustrates according to peoples and not states with borders: not quite geared toward the specific time period, but close enough that I see no major problem there. Everyking 19:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re:Zeno Image
[edit]- Thank you for uploading Image:Zeno.jpg. You have marked it as public domain. What was the source of the photograph? Although the sculpture itself is in public domain because of its age, any photograph of it is a new work and has its own copyright. So unless the photograph is old enough to be have its copyright lapse, or the creator has released it, it is not in the public domain. Dsmdgold 03:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know. And, you're welcome. EreinionFile:RAHSymbol.JPG 04:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Bridgeman
[edit]This legal citation is VERY helpful for a project I'm doing at work. See a set of 40,000 photographs of public domain art collected by a prof here at San Jose State. There is a small set of rough photos of illuminated manuscripts.
Arab guidebook image
[edit]Hey there,
Thanks for the query on my talk page about the image of the herbalism text. I posted that for a colleague who took the picture in London. She objects to her rights being questioned here and asked me to remove her file.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the logic of Bridgeman, she would like the file removed. Any suggestions on getting it completely removed from Wikipedia? jk 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's up with that History file
[edit]What's up with the misleading History files for the article Vienna Dioscurides. The only edit I did was change "Caregory: Illuminated manuscripts" to "Category: Illuminated manuscripts", which is a change involving ONE letter of the Alphabet. The history makes it look as if I rewrote the article, when in fact the truncated version I edited was credited to you (though I'm not accusing you either). See my History of Contributions that proves that. This probably doesn't involve you, but I don't want anyone to think that I rewrote the article. Decius 03:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Barred Owl
[edit]Hi, I moved Barred owl back to Barred Owl. Bird species names are one of the areas that the Wikipedia convention for capitalization of article titles does not hold. All words of bird species names are capitalized in most English language ornithological literature and Wikipedia follows this convention. See WikiProject Birds for explanations as to why. Dsmdgold 01:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for clearing that up. After I moved it, I noticed that all bird articles had Funny Capitalization and began to get suspicious that there was some policy I wasn't aware of. --Angr/comhrá 07:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VfD comment
[edit]Hi Dsmdgold, I'm not sure if I'm misreading your comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aardvarks (band), but are you sure it's in the right VfD? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oops—I'm obviously editing too late tonight. I did indeed misread your comment; I thought you were suggesting List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics would need to be deleted. Happy editing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
lots of edits, not an admin
[edit]Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Dsmdgold, I've noticed you have many edits on South American didelphids, particularly smaller Marmosa types. Would you mind looking at an article that was just posted on the Delicate Slender Opossum? I find myself skeptical about what's written there and would like to see the information confirmed by another wikipedian at the least and preferably referenced. Thanks for your time. --Aranae 02:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Somehow I missed that links were added. I slapped a factual accuracy sticker on it and am working on a set of arguments for the talk page. I'll give it a few days to be referenced. I've been a starter or major contributor to several articles that people thought were hoaxes in spite of being well referenced (i.e. Laotian rock rat and Fruitafossor), so I know how obnoxious that can be. Thanks for your input. --Aranae 05:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations
[edit]The article you have written about the Book of Kells is fantastic, fascinating : very good work ! In fact, I'm french and I work on Wikipédia in french [1] and now we have a very good translation of your article [2] thanks to [3] and now, I understand very well why "Book of Kells" is now a "featured article". For contacting me : [4]
Could you please look at the nomination and reevaluate or update your comments? I have tried to fix your original issues, but I would like you to satisified enough to change your vote.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Pic of the day
[edit]Hi,
Just to let you know that Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg is due up for Pic of the Day the day after tomorrow. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 18, 2005. -- Solipsist 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Dragonfly source
[edit]Hi - thanks for nominating my dragonfly article as a featured list. Some useful feedback coming in which is helping me put polish the page a little. I deliberately created all those redlinks in order to attract attention to the lack of material on Wikipedia about dragonflies, and hopefully it will spur someone to do something about that. If you fancy having a go yourself, and need some source material - you could try the DragonflyIreland website - SP-KP 00:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the Lesser Emperor in the genus Anax or Aeshna? The text says one thing but the taxobox another! (Also, if you don't know the authority, you can use {{Taxobox section binomial simple}}: this makes it possible to find articles with missing authorities and add them later.) Gdr 16:29:31, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
The AFD List has returned! Please update your bookmarks accordingly. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Norse mythology
[edit]Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Page move
[edit]Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This a deprecated deletion tag. Please use db|reason or a more descriptive template from WP:CSD in the future. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 01:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've taken part in Wikifun before.
Just to let you know, Round 11 begins today at 0900 GMT. Dmn 04:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
We have them now
[edit]Since this is an unusually well done gallery article it's the perfect opportunity to make a stand on the issue. Any policy or guideline page which attempts to dictate the deletion of articles like that has no consensus and should be changed. The deletionists have walked into a trap ;) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:NOT image gallery
[edit]Thank you very much for informing me. In the past I was slightly overzealous on this issue... partially because both image galleries were complete duplicates of the commons gallery. I think there can be some fair use rationale for putting things in image galleries. In any case thanks again and I'll at least look at the discussion and add some input if I can say something worthwhile. gren グレン 17:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also like to thank you for informing me about this issue, and also in your efforts to have it changed. I found it very interesting the volume of issues that galleries are useful for (art history, the change in an artist's style over time, video game graphics history etc.) in addition to it being a useful list article. --ShaunMacPherson 07:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- You may be interested to learn that I expressed my opinions today and User:Str1977 deleted them. Fg2 11:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
(copied from User Talk:DESiegel:) Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposed_rewording. I have commented in reply, specifically I am very interested in knowing your opinion as to wether or not the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery would be acceptable under your proposed wording. Dsmdgold 21:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- That would be about the minimum acceptable, IMO, and not realy quite what I had in mind. it does give an organizational structure (chronological) which is valuable, and it does give some text for each image, specifically a title (or caption when there is no accepted title). It does not provide any content beyond the titles -- to me "annotation" suggests some substantive comment on the images (or their subjects if they are images of things, there to illustrate the things, say a gallery of "Firearms of WWII"). This page provides no such substantive comment, but it might aid another article that does so. This fits the letter of my wording. I am unsure just where to draw the line. DES (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Cotton Troper
[edit]Hi Dsmdgold,
Thanks for the note about the Hereford/Cotton Troper. That's marvelous! I didn't know about that manuscript until now, but I'd be happy to add to any article you start. There's a bit about it in the New Grove, and I can probably write some about the specific type of music notation it employs. It's dated from right around the time of the conquest (third quarter 11th century), and was probably copied at Winchester or Worcester.
Related question(s) -- do you know where we can get usable images, or if the images at the British Library can be used by Wikipedia? I need some for the Old Hall MS as well as for the (as yet unwritten) Winchester Troper. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
NRHP
[edit]Thanks! Glad to have it appreciated, and glad to have the help. I'm thinking that, in interests of maintainability, we try to REDIR all "official" names to the Wiki entries rather than pipe-tricking if possible. You can see which ones I've gone through so far by the categories created... Just a few... --SFoskett 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Mathbot's blanking
[edit]Thank you for fixing the blanking of your RfA by my silly bot. It was a subtle mistake in my bot combined with the slowness of the server which caused that. Fixed now. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)