User talk:Calliopejen1/Archive5

St Johns School Leatherhead

Youve increased the size of the 'quad' image and now it looks daft, its far to big and was perfect before. I took this photo and have spent alot of time on this article. I'm not to good at wikipedia and cannot revert what you have done, please return the image to its original size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surreyinterest (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to revert the picture by uploading the original picture. Please leave it as it is, Thankyou, MoleValley —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoleValley (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tags in different articles

FYI I commented your tags here and here.--Peter Eisenburger 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Erika Ringor Head Shot

In Regards to the following posting:

22 October 2007

   * (diff) (hist) . . Erika Ringor‎; 00:42 . . (-336) . . Calliopejen1 (Talk | contribs) (remove deleted image)

Erika Ringor gave permission to post her head shot image. Please inform me why was the image taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMA2007 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, permission for an image to be used on Wikipedia is NOT enough for the image to be used on wikipedia. The image must instead be public domain or licensed under a free license (see WP:ICT#For image creators) to be used. This means that any image used must also be able to be used and modified by anyone, even for commercial gain. If you think that Erika Ringor may release this image under a free license, please see WP:COPYREQ for the procedure to be used (which includes forwarding the relevant rights release to the Wikimedia foundation). If it is not available under such a license, it must be deleted. Thanks. Calliopejen1 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mainpage

I stole your design. Hope that does not bother you. It is very nice so I changed some things up on it. --WheezyF 13:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:SpaceElevatorAnchor.jpg

I was glad to see you got a free license for those nice sketches. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Tangier_bay.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tangier_bay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Usafis.jpg

Hi. You wrote me about the above image. All I can say is that when I posted it I entered the justification / copyright info, but I did not add all that text about spam and people without computers who cannot speak English etc. I simply added the image because the company was already mentioned in the text of the Wiki article as being a fraudulent (sp?) organization that deceived unsuspecting people and had been legally penalized and put out of business, but here in France there are still ads everywhere.

But I am in no way emotionally attached/committed to the existence of the image on the Wiki. I posted it as a visual aid to the entry, but it seems that someone has made it into an anti-immigrant sort of thing. C'est la vie. Thanks. Saudade7 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Me 163 image

"why can we not use one of the many free images of this aircraft that exists on the page?"

1) they suck. they're extremely contrasty and generally taken at angles that make the layout unclear 2) they are not wartime images. I, for one, consider this pretty important

Maury 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, see the bottom of this Maury 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Me163b2.jpg seems fine to serve all necessary encyclopedic purposes. If you'd like I can take this to IFD for more input. Calliopejen1 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Manti-1999.jpg

Hello,

You recently commented on this image in IfD which I put up for deletion review because it was deleted after a its first "delete" vote: the vote of the administrator who deleted it. I felt consensus took a back seat to that administrator's personal bias. You might or might not agree, in any case take a look. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_30#Image:Manti-1999.jpg Thanks Reswobslc 13:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Bank £20 note

I'm a little bemused as to why you made this change [1], while the tags are similar, I had felt the previous tag was more appropriate! Fasach Nua 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The fair use tag is deprecated in favor of more specific tags, which allow for better tracking of nonfree media. Calliopejen1 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, and I can acceppt that there is significant commonality between Northern Ireland banknotes and currency, but is it not a bit misleadding to refer to it as such Fasach Nua 09:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

James Somers images

In regards to the images Image:JStanker.jpg and image:JSshpwheel.jpg, they were designed and created by James Somers in Nova Scotia, Canada. He is actually a very good friend of mine, and I posted them at his request. I have added some details though to the summaries of each image. Trust this is what you were looking for. Best wishes. --RobNS 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Source for Johnson State College Library and Learning Center iamge

Hello Calliopejen1, you left a message on my discussion page that there is mising source information on the aforementioned image. I uploaded the iamge and claim myself as author, the date is included. Would you please help me out iwth what you need? Thanks. CApitol3 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

A picture you uploaded has been featured in Portal:Alaska. Keep up the great work! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Avigdor

The picture was taken by me and I give permission for its use without reservations. Kindly place in the picture the necessary annotations to this regard as I do not know how to do it. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attentionHealkids 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Calliopejen1 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm not sure why the images would not be either Free or GFDL. The vast majority of Buddhist material (books and such) usually have notes on them saying that people can and are encouraged to spread the content around freely. These materials are an example of this. They can be found in any Vietnamese Buddhist temple. Can you explain this? Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What pictures are you referring to? (I tag a lot of pictures, so I don't remember.) As a general rule, at wikipedia we want an explicit statement by the author releasing it under a free license or into the public domain. This avoids accidental copyright infringement and makes things easier for downstream reusers of Wikipedia content. Calliopejen1 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thich_Quang_Duc. I put in a source and a FU criteria and emailed the website. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jbloun1

Hi,

Images aren't my specialty or anything, but I am quite concerned regarding the portfolio of "too good to be true" creator-releases-all-rights images that this editor has contributed regarding New York City. I see you have questioned him also; did you receive a reply? If these images are his, he is obviously an accomplished photographer of the highest degree -- he should be able to say something about the circumstances under which these were taken. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't ever reply... I'm not sure about the images myself. The large size suggests that they might be his own (normally web sites have much lower-res photos...), and it's feasible that he could have taken them, but it's odd when someone with no contribution history just shows up and uploads a jillion excellent photos. Maybe tag a few no source and he'll respond to the deletion notices by specifying where he got them from? 140.247.248.126 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

David Vitter RFC

Could you please leave your comments at a Davit Vitter RFC? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

L.A.M.B is GA!

L.A.M.B is now a Good Article. Thank you for your contribution. Wikiproject Fashion has another GA now! Indianescence 10:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked/banned editors

Hi Calliopejen1. From Wiki stats, I see that you have many posts to the Alaska article. Blocked IP 75.83.171.237 previously was used to post to the Alaska article page.[2] Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

image deletions

I would argue you had no call to speedily delete Image:Dyeus.png. Yes, you notified me. And I reacted, arguing that your claim of "invalid fair use rationale" was flawed. At this point, you should have submitted the article to IFD. Instead, you just added back {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, and speedily deleted the image yourself. You can do a lot of damage with this approach. Speedy deletion is for obvious cases, not disputed ones. dab (�) 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted by me, it was deleted by Hmwith. Where fair use is disputed, the proper procedure is to have both tags up, and then let the administrator decide. (You weren't supposed to remove the di-disputed fair use rationale tag.) If you're unhappy with Hmwith's decision you can go to WP:DRV. 140.247.249.162 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robot Building, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 05:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tourdefrance.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tourdefrance.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians. andy (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Islam and domestic violence

An article that you have been involved in editing, Islam and domestic violence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and domestic violence. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

working great magic!

For extra credit, see if you can track down the former cyberlaw class contributions (and deleted contributions) on wikipedia! +sj + 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

image deletion

as you wish, i have no attachment to anything I try to contribute except maybe select math stuff--Billymac00 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Image:Qre-perpetuum.png

Why are you nominating Image:Qre-perpetuum.png to be moved to commons when it has no use outside an English-language context? AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to keep things on the commons regardless because then people looking for media but not an encyclopedia article will find them. Also, it could theoretically be used in simple-english WP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Flowers in Tokyo

An editor has nominated Flowers in Tokyo, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowers in Tokyo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians

An article that you have been involved in editing, Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians. Thank you. andy (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vahid Talebloo.JPG

[3], Hi, in regards to the above image I can say that the picture was taken be me.Aparhizi (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

United States size tag

We are having a conflict about adding the size tag to the United States article. I saw you add the tag to the World War II article and I would appreciate it if you could give your thoughts here.--Miyokan (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

I have dumped a couple of mistakes into User:Calliopejen1/sandbox. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually these are part of a template under construction that should have been in the template space - i'm moving them back there.... (Too many sandboxes to keep track of, and the template is nearly done.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate chart convertible template

Hi - I think I fixed your problem. I've responded to your comment on the project talk page. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

United States trims

Just wanted to say, Terrific job. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I may be back for more! :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Freezing line

Hi, I noticed your recent modifications to {{Climate chart}} to support imperial units. In the last example on that documentation page, I don't see a horizontal line for freezing (32°F) as I do in the other metric examples (0°C). I was briefly looking for the code that does that, but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, I'm just requesting a horizontal line to be added for the freezing mark for imperial climate charts. +mt 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I stupidly took it off because I was thinking the 0 would have been too far down... Obviously 32 is also a perfectly good spot to put a line. I'm working right now on shrinking the template horizontally but I'll get on that soon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! +mt 02:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate Chart combined with Infobox Weather

Hi Jen,
Great job with the Climate Chart! I was wondering if you had given any thought about combining Infobox Weather and the Climate chart into one template. It was brought up briefly on {{Infobox Weather}}'s talk page in July of 2007 by User:Doron and myself. — MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo earthquakes

Hi Jen,

Thanks for your editing of Tokyo. Regarding your removal of earthquake dates, I hope you can find an appropriate place for the information in the article. This helps dispel the notion that Tokyo gets a "big one" every decade (or generation or whatever preconceived time period the reader may have) by providing factual information.

Best regards,

Fg2 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I just put it in the climate section (now called climate and seismology), where it seemed more appropriate since it didn't really fit into the chronological history. I may add more seismology stuff later depending on how long my Tokyo editing spree lasts... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, then you already did find an appropriate place. Thanks! Fg2 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fornication etc

I replied again on the AN page - I'm not sure that merge proposal is viable. BLACKKITE 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Suikoden

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Suikoden.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. jjron (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

An account in your name and linking to your page was recently created on the Simple English Wikipedia. During a checkuser check of a vandal, this account was identified as very likely belonging to that vandal. The account has been indefinitely blocked at this time to prevent any damage. If this account was not created by the vandal and you do claim it, please let me know (from this account so I know it is not the vandal playing around again) and I will unblock it. Creol (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC) (my talk page on Simple)

Nope, not mine as far as I remember. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom from Fear

Calliopejen1: Regarding your post regarding Freedom from Fear, I understand. I believe the war-time poster, which was a work of the U.S. Government, is in the public domain. Is it not? If not, then isn’t it fair-use to use the image in an article specifically regarding the subject of that painting and its use in WW II poster, as shown here Freedom From Fear (painting)? Greg L (my talk) 19:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture of U.S. move

Splitting the 100kb long article was probably a good idea, but the scope of the current Culture of the United States article is too narrow in order for it use the broad title of "culture" IMHO. Do consider moving it to a more specific title, as culture also includes values, norms, etc... Regards. Signature^brendel 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually that wasn't a split really, I just moved some of the previous culture article to subarticles. I created the current culture article nearly from scratch - I'm amazed that wasn't consolidated anywhere before! I'm not sure how exactly to proceed and don't feel too strongly. The problem is that all the other Culture of... articles for other countries are about poetry and music etc, so when people come to the US article it's as though Americans don't have that and only have race/class/cars/suburbs/food. (There have been comments like that on the talk page and I had noticed it myself.) If we put it back to "arts and entertainment" for what goes in other countries' culture articles (and the current US culture articles) and "culture" for what's now in the US society article I think it is inconsistent across countries. Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Please be careful - you put this article in the US defamation law category. It's an Australian case. enochlau (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Updating Image

Thank you very much for removing the watermark from the image of John R. Alison. Skeet Shooter (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BA38

Which section is the statements section duplicating. It is duplicating the lead, but that is the idea. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Western cosmetics in the 1970s

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western cosmetics in the 1970s, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Roland Mouret

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roland Mouret, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Three columns

Your recent revision to the "Administrative divisions" section of the Afghanistan article results in the map overlaying the third column on my standard display. A wide screen display may not have this problem. Unless you object, I will return it to two columns. --Bejnar (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Decreasing the Fashion Userbox

I decreased the fashion userbox pixels b/c the thickness was not correlating to my UBX column. Miranda 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vampire is now featured!

I hereby award you the "(Poorly drawn) Vampire Barnstar", because as you may know, Vampire is now a Featured Article and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article or its FAC in order to get this goal. You really helped! Spawn Man (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Republican article

Hi,

You were one of the editors that have marked my article for deletion, which is fine. :) However, I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I couldn't find documentation on the steps I need to take to make the article qualify to be considered. Could you please point me to something or give me advise as to what I can do to keep my article?

Thanks,

paulsjv —Preceding comment was added at 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Audrey.jpg

Hi, Calliopejen. I left a message at User talk:Calliopejen a little bit ago about the replaceability of Image:Audrey.jpg. I didn't realize you are now using a slightly different username. —Bkell (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This image also appears to be missing source information. —Bkell (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Jen,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Lillian Gish-edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 29, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-01-29. howcheng {chat} 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Keaton

Buster Keaton. Awesome. A real find would be a photo that Dick Cavett once referenced - a photo of Aristotle Onassis considering buying Keaton's house, which Cavett captioned, "Aristotle contemplating the Home of Buster". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of London Underground statistics

An article that you have been involved in editing, London Underground statistics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground statistics. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Valentino renaming

I think it is wrong to move the Valentino (designer) page to Valentino Garavani, as he has never ever been known as that, but rather Valentino. 86.134.96.9 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Google gets 1,300,000 hits for Valentino Garavani, so I think it's appropriate. He is known simply as Valentino as well, but as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should err on the side of formality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

London Underground infrastructure

Great idea, well executed. Keep up the good work! Waggers (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a busy bee

i just hope that you are right. I've decided to let you delete these from now on, proving that you not only misapply American copyright law (in my opinion ) but that you are even an expert on Icelandic copyright laws. Go for it. Carptrash (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed photos

Passing by just to thank you for reviewing the photos I uploaded at Wikimedia. I was thinking this would take years x]. Thanks again Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fashion Assessment

Hi, Jen. Just wondering if you or any other members could assist in reducing the Unassessed backlog in the Fashion Project. The process is very easy, and all you have to do is copy the code from my monobook and assess away! I have assessed 180 articles so far, which is over 60% of the unassessed articles. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. miranda 09:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion

Hello, Calliopejen1. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Derivative images

Hi Jen, I see that you are a law student and therefore are probably much more versed on the subject of copyright issues than I am, so I'd like to learn from you. You recently tagged a number of images I uploaded for deletion based on copyright violation.

• Image:SAB-plaque.jpg
• Image:SibleyHousePlaque1.jpg
• Image:RamseyMillplaque.jpg
• Image:SibleyHousePlaque2.jpg
• Image:Minnehahaparkmap.jpg
• Image:Johnhstevensplaque.JPG
• Image:Portaging.jpg
• Image:Josephnic.jpg
• Image:GrandRounds.jpg
• Image:JosephNicolletPlaque.jpg
• Image:Islandbusinessesplaque.jpg
• Image:BellofTwoFriendsPlaque.jpg
• Image:Stevensplaque.jpg
• Image:Elizawinston.jpg
• Image:MoundsBeacon.jpg
• Image:Dividemn.jpg

These are all photos of signs erected by municipalities or non-profit organizations, intended to be educational in nature. I can understand that the ones that include maps and photographs could be considered copyrighted "artwork". But concerning the ones that include only text, it seems to me that I could type the exact text in the article with quotation marks, attributing the organization who put up the sign and that would be acceptable. How is portraying the signs any different from a legal standpoint? Also I'd like to know if these examples should also be tagged, or do they possess characteristics that the ones I uploaded don't possess:

1. Image:Think ph.JPG a photo of Rodin's sculpture (he died in 1917).
2. Image:Fly-Angel.jpg a photo of a sculpture built in 1994.
3. Image:Advertisingman.jpg a photo of a textual sign.
4. Image:Smithwick's billboard NYC May 2005 Wikipedia.jpg a photo of signs with text, images, and trademarks.
5. Image:Priestley Burning Lens Replica.jpg a photo of an object with legible description (lacking date or author).
6. Image:SaigonFord.jpg a photo of signs with text and trademark.

In each case they are photographs of artwork or text that belongs to someone other that the uploader; so what sort of copyright tags ought to go on these, or should they all be deleted? Thanks for your expertise.--Appraiser (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mustard

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Senf-Variationen edit.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. MER-C 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carey tpir.jpg

You have not actually listed this image for deletion. Other than being tagged for deletion, the only TPiR-related image nominated for deletion is the infamous Yolanda image. Proper procedures have not taken place, and therefore, I cannot possibly defend against the deletion of Image:Carey tpir.jpg, and have momentarily removed the nomination for deletion until proper procedures are taken. --Mr. Brown (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spring 2008 New York Fashion Week

A tag has been placed on Spring 2008 New York Fashion Week, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Spring_2008_New_York_Fashion_Week was tagged as an ad because that what it seems to represent..it isn't an encyclopedia article..Berean Hunter (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it can be an "ad", considering it is a huge industry event and this article is not going to convince anyone to buy anything. It's in list form right now because I haven't done more work, but just like people interested in films might want to read about the 2008 oscars people interested in fashion certainly would want to read about the spring 2008 fashion week. This is basically a list of the people who are the leaders in American fashion as of last September and is an important part of understanding the season's fashion week. The ad tag is also for things that are OBVIOUS ads and should not be used so liberally. It is insulting and hurtful to new good-faith contributors to have their articles tagged for speedy deletion like this. I have thick skin because I've been around for a while but a lot of others don't. By the way, here is the tons and tons of press coverage for this clearly notable event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Calliopejen1,

Please don't be offended; my use of the delete tag was based on a sincere consideration and not used lightly...but before I explain that, rest assured that I have no intention of tagging or editing the article. When using any of the delete tags, I count on the fact that another set of eyes will view the article and make the appropriate decisions. I also count on the built-in appeal system, namely the hangon tag, so that a reasoning process can occur which might clarify why an article should be included. That way if I were to make a mistake there would be safeguards in place to catch it. After all, it is a learning process.

I used the delete tag because it is an ad...obviously so to me.

A trade fair (or trade show) is an exhibition organised so that companies in a specific industry can showcase and demonstrate their new products and services.

The article is/was an ad for a tradeshow...

As you point out, people interested in the 2008 Spring Season will be interested...perhaps that is why you should consider working on the 1983 season instead. The former is hype whereas the latter has historical signifigance worthy of inclusion. There should be no rush to match any Wikipedia article to any kind of commercial endeavor. Do you plan to retroactively fill in for all of the preceding years?

I can see that you've been hard at work and your dedication is commendable. Well done. It looks less like a page of links for companies now. Berean Hunter (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your judgment on the role of Wikipedia here. Wikipedia covers numerous commercial ventures, including other tradeshows like Macworld, precisely because they are notable. This is not just "hype", but rather describes the state of an important industry and art, and I see no reason why 1983 in particular would be useful (in fashion 1983 is now pretty much useless). I may work back on the fashion weeks but probably not so far back - there are few comparable resources for those pages so articles pre-2000 would be far too much work to create. Anyways I guess I just get irritated with newpages patrollers who tag pages ONE minute after they are created. Let people creating articles have a bit more time to develop them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam Lippes

Do you have a link/reference to this fact? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned images

I noticed you nominated many orphaned images for deletion today. Instead of nominating these images for deletion with {{ifd}}, you can also tag them with {{subst:orfud}}. – Ilse@ 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry this is only for non-free images. – Ilse@ 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nataliya Gotsiy

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Gotsiy3edit2.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. MER-C 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing of my images

Hello Jen,

You have edited two images I had posted in the Wingsuit and Skydiving articles, to remove watermarks I had included. Since I was unaware of the "no watermark" policy, I would have greatly appreciated personal contact from you explaining my mistake, and would have been more than happy to fix the problem myself. I have no desire to violate Wikipedia policy.

The thing is, when you "fixed" my images, you also re-rendered them at a lower quality (though without any filesize savings), introducing a lot of artifacting, and deteriorating the color range/quality. The end result is indeed a photo without a watermark, but also a dumbing down of my photo which I provided to Wikipedia. Perhaps you should become more familiar with photo rendering quality settings before editing other photographer's work... or at least contact them, as a courtesy, and let them know what you are doing.

I will be uploading images which reflect the quality of the originals I had first uploaded, without watermarks of course. If you'd like you can take a look and hopefully you'll notice the difference (artifacting and poor color reproduction). It can be subtle to some untrained eyes, but to me it jumps out like mud on a clean floor.

Thanks, Matt Hoover —Preceding unsigned comment added by The.one.eleven (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Perry Ellis pic

It would be very difficult to create a free replacement as he's been dead for some time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Academy Award records

Hello there! I noticed that today you started to do some cleaning up in the article List of Academy Award records. Thanks! I just wanted to make you aware of the following. The article was a mess ... and I started to clean it up. But, I never finished it ... as I am sure you can see, from the condition of the article. In any event, this is what I wanted to mention to you. The article originally was a hodge-podge of many, many, many, many different categories (oldest, youngest, most, least, longest, shortest, etc. etc. etc.). There was no rhyme or reason to anything. It was just a long list (getting longer and longer) that was not organized in any way. At one point, I took all of the records and divided them into three categories: acting records, film records, and miscellaneous records. Then -- of course -- within each of those three categories, the sub-lists started getting longer and longer and longer ... and they themselves bore no order, logic, rhyme, or reason. Ultimately, this is what I decided. There were way too many "categories" and sub-categories to really create any meaningful distinctions among each of the entries. So, I figured that the best approach would be to just list each entry as it occurred, year by year, regardless of what type of "category" it could be put into. So, I started to organize each entry in chronological order. For example: these records were established (or broken) at the 1st Academy Awards ceremony ... these records were established (or broken) at the 2nd Academy Awards ceremony ... and so on and so on. That really seemed like the only logical way to organize the various categories upon categories. So, as I was cleaning up the article, I took each entry from the long list and compartmentalized it into "what year / ceremony did this record happen" (and I also found a citation for it). That was the process that I was undertaking. I see now that when you went in to clean up, you are doing the exact opposite of what I was doing. In other words, you are un-doing all that I did. I just wanted to make you aware of this. If you continue to do so, the list will ultimately end up right back where it started ... a hodge-podge of unorganized records. Yes, some of the entries fall into nice, clean categories ... such as the ones that you already edited (age, debuts, consecutive awards). But, take a look at the remaining ones that you have not yet gotten to. For these (any many others to follow), you will need categories like "actresses who have won for a non-English speaking role" (1 entry) ... "Oscar winners who also have won a Pulitzer Prize" (1 entry) ... "actresses who have won Best Actress and Best Screenplay" (1 entry) ... "animated films that were nominated for Best Picture" (1 entry) ... etc. etc. etc. Thus, with such unique entries, each and every entry will essentially have its own "category" --- which ultimately defeats the purpose of categorization. (That is, for example, if you have 50 unique records ... each unique record falls into its own unique category ... now, you have 50 "categories" ... so, the term category / categorization renders meaningless.) So, after you have categorized the "easy ones" (age, debut, consecutive awards, etc.), it will basically become meaningless to create generic categories for the other, more unique records. In the end, you will see that most entries are rather unique and "odd" and can't really be categorized meaningfully. And, you will ultimately have as many categories as you have entries -- which is hardly a categorization method at all! Because it was so difficult to categorize these entries thematically or descriptively, that is why I sought to simply list each record by the year/date/ceremony in which the record occurred. By that categorization method, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever. Each record would fall into place in exactly one and only one unambiguous category within the list (i.e., the year that the record or notable event happened). Anyway, I wanted to present this background to you. It does not seem to make sense for both of us (and others) to be re-inventing the wheel here. What are your thoughts? What do you think is a good solution to this problem? I'd like to hear your feedback, input, etc. Please let me know. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate that. Please reply at my Talk Page --> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't know what the best solution is. I fear the page will wind up heading for deletion. (I actually found it when I was linking from another similar deletion nom.) I don't think that the chronological ordering is helpful, though, because it does not serve users' needs. If users are interested in oscars facts, the facts should be sorted thematically and not chronologically. Since the order of the events is arbitrary, and many records happened in multiple years I don't think sorting it by ceremony makes any sense. Ultimately, I'm not sure the article will be salvageable, but I really believe that whatever utility exists from having a page like this is diminished by the awards-ceremony-based sorting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. You make some good points, with which I agree. Of course, this still leaves the original problem unresolved. Some of my thoughts, to follow up. (1) What was the other deletion nominee you referred to? I'd be curious to see it. (2) Why are you saying that the order of the events is arbitrary? I don't follow. If an event happened in, say, 1958 ... how is it arbitrary to list it under 1958? Or did I not understand your statement? (3) What do you mean that many records happened in multiple years? I also don't follow that. A record can be established in a given year (i.e., one specific year). Perhaps broken in a different year (nonetheless, one specific year). I am not understanding what you are saying here. Please clarify. (4) You have some good points, of course. But, what do you ultimately suggest as an alternative to the year-by-year breakdown? Themes would be helpful, agreed. Except if there are so many "themes" as to be unwieldy! I know it's tricky ... but I certainly do not agree that this article is not salvageable. Thanks! Please let me know your thoughts and ideas. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi. You never got back to me regarding the above post. Nonetheless, I was doing a lot of thinking about this. In the end, I do think that your way is better overall. That is, using some type of categories. Ultimately, I guess one can always use some form of "catch-all" / generic / miscellaneous category for those truly uncategorizable items. So, I will be assisting to clean up this article ... and I will follow your lead of creating appropriate categories. I do think, as you stated, that serves the reader of the article much better. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

In trying to decide

whether I could use an illustration from a book I discovered this website page. [4] Elsewhere I found a "1925" publication date for the book, though my copy, like the one at the web site, has no date. Are images scanned from this book, in your opinion, usable on wikipedia. Thanks for your insights. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be fine. Archive.org is typically a reliable source for the copyright status of books, and it says that the book is out of copyright. Anything published before 1978 (like this book) is in the public domain if it was published without a copyright notice. On archive.org it says there was no copyright notice on the book. I would check your copy (it sounds like you have one) to make sure that is true, and if it is, tag it {{PD-Pre1978}} and you should be good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not watching the Super Bowl yet? Anyway, yes, there is no copyright info in my copy of the book. Thanks for your input. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

James Earle Fraser Arts of Peace Monument

Image:Fraser_ArtsofPeace.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danvera (notify | contribs).

• derivative work of copyrighted sculpture Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The subject of this photograph is not under any copyright as it is a public monument in the Nation's capitol. I took this photo myself of the public monument. I would appreciate any insight on this matter of how a public monument, owned by the public, could be copyrighted. Again, the photograph is my work. Many thanks. User:Danvera

Image:BBC_satellite_regions.png

Image:BBC_satellite_regions.png - I dunno why you decided to remove this, I created it myself and I indicated that on the page. Please don't remove my work in future on your own uninformed speculation, thankyou.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Jen, thanks for rescuing Freedom of press in India! :-) -- Lea (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarising of Domestic sheep

You are going too far, this is cutting useful information. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then put some back. As it is, the article is twice the recommended maximum. I doubt that most readers find a 12,000 word article about sheep that goes into detail about the positioning of lambs as they are birthed to be "useful". Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should be an encyclopedia article, not a treatise. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How are you finding the pages? You have those books? VanTucky 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just at Amazon searchinside, checking plausible key words. I'm not sure if all the books are there but at least a couple are. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your keyword search is reliable, as I've got the Beginner's guide right in front of me and it says what I used it for. VanTucky 05:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess just add a page then. I just am always suspicious (not in a bad faith way just in a generally doubting way) of the accuracy of whole-book refs and think if I can't find it in amazon then it needs to be verified some other way. If you can verify it with a copy of that book that's good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out and give you the exact page number tomorrow. To bed for now. Thanks for all your help and patience, VanTucky 06:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rm a cite just bc the keyword you pick doesn't match. For instance, the Convenant of the Wild has a whole page solely focusing on sheep neoteny, but he doesn't use "neotenic". Therefore, it wouldn't show up. I am absolutely sure that the book talks about sheep evolution and neoteny, there's no maybe. VanTucky 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just add the page number then... In a FA references should be verifiable. If you can't find it in the index it's totally unrealistic to expect readers to go trhough the whole book to find it. What the book says about neoteny that I find is that sheep largely evolved neoteny before being domesticated, and that is what made them such good targets before domestication (this comes from the three pages on sheep neoteny, 78-80). These pages are the pages the index indicates talk about sheep neoteny. I also looked for all neoteny/sheep keywords. There's some general discussion elsewhere of humans selecting for neoteny in all domestic animals but I did not see any comparisons between modern domestic sheep and modern wild sheep (which, for all we know, could have continued to become more neotenic through natural selection). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside I think this is why FAs really need page numbers, so there can be no dispute about what book sources say. There are many references that I am skeptical of (and have not yet marked--I planned to ask you when I was done to add the #s for the unfixed ones), because I normally have better success doing these kind of searches than I am having this time around. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little absurd for you to dispute the use of these sources, when I have actually read the entire book. A web search of the index is not a substitute for complete first hand experience of the text, and you know as well as I that no book lists every applicable topic in the index. They are never complete. The book has muany passages on sheep domestication. One of them makes very clear that neoteny only happens as a result of domestication, in fact, that's it's definition in the context of domestic animals. The one of I'm thinking of is later in the book, where he lists features sheep have as a result of domestication: different face and tail length, color etc. Whether sheep had some differences from other ovines before domestication is irrelevant to the passage I'm using to cite. VanTucky 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute it only because it appears unverifiable without reading the entire book, which is unacceptable in a FAC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can spare a moment...

Can you please read over Enger Tower for me and make any necessary corrections? It won't take long, I promise. Thanks. :) vıdıoman 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) A couple things: Storey, referring to floors of a building, is spelled 'storey'. Your correction sent it to a disambig page; Saying the tower rises 531 feet would be confusing -- using elevation instead is more clear -- a it is located high above the lake. And yes, he was a furniture seller, not a piece of furniture. :) vıdıoman 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

the Human Height article

Thank you for improving the table of heights. Do you have any advice for how to keep vandalism off of it besides the task of just goin to the page every day to check if it has been vandalized? That is what I used to do, but I got frustrated with it and so I just went and made my own, non-Wikipedia page [5], to hold the data there. One thing I thought of would be to move the data to its own page and then make it semi-protected, or even entirely protected, as was done for the often-vandalized Race/IQ data. But I'm worried that this kind of move would discourage people from adding legitimate new data. Myself, I've searched everywhere for more height data for the world and I have added it to my page, but it's really not that much more than what's on Wikipedia now. Please if you have any suggestions let me know. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

USUAA

I disagree with your proposed merge; separate articles exist on student government bodies at many universities and colleges, including the Associated Students of the University of California, Oregon Student Association and Associated Students of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. See also Category:Student governments in the United States. FCYTravis (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Covenant of the Wild

Hey, I reread the passages I'd marked in Budiansky's book last night. You're right that he's saying wild sheep are neotenic: his thesis (I don't know if it's widely accepted or not) is that the farther sheep species roamed from their place of origin (radiating from Western Asia), the more neotenic the newly developing species became. This is in the 90s pagewise for the most part. But later he makes clear that some of the characteristics of sheep, even ones found very early on in their domestication, could only have been the result of intense breeding programs by man (fine, white wool for instance: something no wild species has). So we were both right, and both wrong in a way. I've added page numbers for the ref in Description and more. Thanks again Calliopejen VanTucky 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Vann Nath

Have you been convinced by the arguements yet? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame you couldn't have gotten better shots of Sara to upload

She takes a pretty mean picture, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a better photograph of our girl. Bravo. Thank you. Puts the trill in "r". BusterD (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish Puerto Ricans

Hi Jen, first of all let me apologize for seeming rude. I am not really that way. O.K., the section in the infobox reads: "Notable Puerto Ricans with Irish surnames", that is why Hiram Bithorn and Ana Maria O'Neill would be relevant to the infobox. Alejandro O'Rielly just stayed in Puerto Rico long enough to establish an organized militia and later went on to govern Louisiana where he became known as "Bloody O'Rielly" (What a name, right?). Now, I was wondering if you could find images of Bithorn or O'Niell? Or maybe other people in the "Notable Puerto Ricans with Irish surnames" section. You seem to be good at the image thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm used to resistance when I go around removing photos. :) I wasn't sure about the O'Reilly one... he was called "father of the Puerto Rican militia" so I figured that meant he stayed longer than it looked in his article. Anyways Image:Mike lowell2crop.jpg is another option. I just requested that a flickr user release a photo of Judith Ortiz Cofer under a free license, so hopefully I'll hear about that soon. I'll go hunting a bit more. By the way did you mean to remove the McClintock photo or was that collateral damage? Also I don't really know about having Scanell as an example - it seems that his parents just happened to be one from Puerto Rico and one Irish, and he was born in New York. (So he doesn't seem to be a particularly good illustration of Irish people in Puerto Rico.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good, I'm glad that we are O.K.. I would like at least three images in the infobox. About my friend McClintock, you are right, he was just a victum of friendly fire (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw the infobox, Nice! Tony the Marine (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Jen,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Busterkeaton.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 15, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-15. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protesting deletion of B.J.S. Cahill photo

2008-02-12 Memo from Dr. Gene Keyes Esperanto41

Hi Jen,

I'm a semi Harvard alumnus (Class of '63, dropout of '61), and even a former busboy at the Harvard Law School. ;-)

Esperanto41 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This message is to say that I regret the overzealousness with which you deleted the B.J.S. Cahill image which I contributed to the article (of which I am the principal author so far) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_J.S._Cahill

Please see my Cahill Resource Page at http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html

The following is my exchange of correspondence with the Bancroft Library last summer:

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:43:46 -0700

From: Myrtis Cochran <mcochran [AT] library.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Re: Bancroft Library credited for B.J.S. Cahill research results

To: Gene Keyes <key [AT] eastlink.ca>, fvanbure [AT] library.berkeley.edu

Cc: abliss [AT] library.berkeley.edu

Dear Mr. Keyes-

I am back from vacation and just receiving your message. Since I am not a member of the Bancroft Library staff, I am forwarding your message to Anthony Bliss, Curator, Rare Books and Literary Manuscripts, Bancroft Library. I am sure he will share your message with the appropriate individuals.

Congratulations on your web site publications.

Myrtis Cochran
Interim Head, Research and Collections
Humanities and Social Sciences

At 09:57 PM 6/5/2007, Gene Keyes wrote:

2007-06-06

To:

Myrtis Cochran, Interim Head, Research and Collections for Humanities and Social Sciences / Reference/Humanities Librarian

Fatemah Van Buren, Head & Map Cataloging Specialist

Dear friends,

In the pre-Internet era, twenty-four years ago, May and June 1983, I spent nine days doing research at the Bancroft Library's Bernard Joseph Stanislaus Cahill Papers (83/89) and his Butterfly Map manuscripts in the Doe Library Map Room. (On a trip from east-coast Canada.)

Now, after an unintended hiatus, some fruits of that research are beginning to appear on my website (and a Wikipedia article I authored), with credit to the Bancroft Library:

http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html

http://www.genekeyes.com/CAHILL_GALLERY/Cahill_Gallery_Thumb_Index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_J.S._Cahill

If you are not the most appropriate recipients of this heads-up, could you please forward my e-mail to whom it may concern? (I know there is also a Cahill collection at the Environmental Design Archives, but most of my research was among Cahill's maps, and at Bancroft.)

Sincerely,

Gene Keyes
(Former Asst. Prof., Political Science, Brandon and St. Thomas Universities)

____________________________________
Myrtis Cochran, Reference and Humanities Librarian
Interim Head, Research and Collections for the Humanities and Social Sciences
212 Doe Library University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
mcochran [AT] library.berkeley.edu, Ph: 510-643-2281, Fax: 510-643-0315

"Once you learn to read you will be forever free"-- Frederick Douglass

It's hard enough to rescue Cahill from oblivion, without having to worry about well-meaning Wiki-deletion patrols. So I'm putting the image back into the article.

Best regards,

Gene Keyes '63 Esperanto41

cc: Nv8200p

[Reply by Calliopejen1]

Hi there, I didn't delete the image, I just nominated it for deletion. Anyways you should not restore it unless you can resolve the underlying copyright issue. The problem is that normally a library doesn't own the copyright to the contents of papers it houses. Who took the photo? That person is the owner of the copyright. Just because the library owns the physical copy of the photo does not mean it can release the rights for using the photo. If you do not have permission from the copyright owner, it is impermissible to include the photo here. Because Cahill lived so long ago, we should be able to find a picture of him that is dated before 1923, which would mean that its copyright has expired. Hopefully this clears things up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would love for the image to be on Wikipedia, however, it is a copyright violation to have it posted. Please provide more information on the copyright status of the image. The library the image came from should be able to help you out. If the library holds the copyright , try requesting permiissin to use the image under a free license (See WP:COPYREQ). There is a good possibility the image is in the public domain and the library would possibly know. I deleted the image again. Please do not repost the image until copyright issues are resolved. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

2008-02-12 Reply by Esperanto41 to CalliopeJen1 and NV8200p:
This is not a photo worthy of copyright quicksand. It is of a deceased and nearly forgotten architect and cartographer. The picture has no ID as to date (1930s?) or photographer, who is likely as long dead as his subject If some copyright claimant (and who the hell would that be??) wishes to step forward and demand its removal from Wikipedia, then there would be reason to examine the matter. Meanwhile, of course, I derive no commercial or monetary benefit from the image; this is strictly an academic, fair-usage posting. (Which will now go onto my own website.)
As you see, I notified the maze of libraries at UC Berkeley about my use of some Cahill materials, providing an opportunity for any objections to be raised; none were. To engage in a prolonged copyright search in that bureaucracy would be a profound waste of their time and mine on a makework triviality.
I regret and resent the uncalled-for meddling by both of you in a subject you have no interest in. You have degraded a worthwhile Wikipedia page for no better reason than legaloid dog-in-the-mangerism.
I also resent the fork-tongued notion that Jen did not delete the picture; only requested someone else do it. Oh, please. Gene Keyes Esperanto41

Harold Washington image

I submit that the image of an artist's rendering of Washington helps to explain the ruckus the ensuing chaos that ensued, in the same way that Chapaquiddick was for Ted Kennedy or the various peccadilloes of Hugh Grant were reported.

I would further submit that though these matters occurred after Washington's death, the simple evidence of the recalcitrance of the editors in the article discussion - all too willing to game the system to disallow it through any and all successive methods (seriously - the significance rule of fair use? Really? No, really?) should indicate that the subject's presence is still felt.

Of course, the image is non-free - it is a copyrighted image, which we are able to use so long as it doesn't infringe on the original copyright (as I proposed it to be used for educational and demonstrative purposes, as per its summary and rationale) or replace a free image that does exist. As there are no free images of paintings outside expired copyright, I believe that it fulfills Fair Use criteria.

I will grant that the Undue weight is the only argument with any traction whatsoever, However, I would also argue that the image is only of undue concern if it dominates the article in both discussion and imagery. There are less than 4 sentences on the subject within the HW article, and one image out of five. I proposed that the image be rendered as the same size as the others int he article, so as to not attract undue attention. Is it at all possible that it might be a parochial - and not very objective - point of view to consider the painting defamatory and of undue weight? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I posted so as to receive some input from you. If you would prefer I port this over to Harold Washington, I can do so, but I was taking the time to find out what you thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't have much to say besides what I did already. Wikipedia fair use policies are designed to be restrictive, and the image is undue weight because these are only rumors and putting the painting in makes readers believe it's truth because that's how people's minds work, and this really isn't a defining thing for the man - the controversy was a 1st amendment controversy, not a Harold Washington controversy. If it's not that important as it probably shouldn't go in the article, it's not something we need to use a non-free image for--in this respect, I agree with the other posters on the WP:NONFREE page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I happen to think you are quite wrong, as the controversy was not because of a First Amendment issue, but how people reacted to their beloved editor being - by a quite narrow perception - slighted by the painting. No one has cited that the rumors were false - and yes, I looked for it (so as to provide objective balance), but there were none. All that there was was a solid, reliable, verifiable citation that says it was true. Perhaps that was missed in everyone getting all het up about the image being in the article - how editors have reacted to the image being in the article was a very close parallel to how aldermen reacted to the painting existing. The image's place in the article is notable due to the vehemence with which it's very existence was opposed, not the ensuing free speech legal battle, It is defining of the man in that he provoked such fierce and blind loyalty even after he was dead. See my point? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement with you assessment of importance of some Cambodia-related articles

Hi,

You recently assessed the article on Elizabeth Becker as being of low importance to Cambodia and the article on Tual Sleng Genocide Museum as medium importance.

I beg to disagree with this assessment. Elizabeth is of more importance because she was one of only a handful of western journalists to visit Democratic Kampuchea. Her writings from this time provide a vital window into the functioning of the country at this time.

And as for Tuol Sleng, surely the killing fields and torture emblematic of the KR regime is more than of medium importance. -- Thaths (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to change my assessments if you'd like. I've been doing a ton of assessments just so we have a rough guide to what's in the Cambodia wikiproject, and I was handing out top/mid ratings very sparingly (though more freely than people before me had). You may want to take a look to compare what else has landed in the various categories to get a sense for the rating system I was using. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you interfere enough with my work the way it is? I'll be adding infoboxes to the communes soon enough which will have locator maps. Lack of full information isn't a reason to say that the articles aren't worth it. This is exactly why I have been trying to cover Cambodia with the aim that eventually info will become more available. Its not as if I'm starting the villages. Why don't you try doing useful rather than trying to delete what work and images people contribute to wikipedia? Do you ever do anything other than criticize or delete? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If your message was in good faith and you didn't mean to criticize me as an editor then I will be listing all the communes and villages like Banan District (Cambodia) anyway for all the districts, this is the most important thing. Maybe I am too optimistic but I really want even coverage on wikipedia and these places covered as equally as anywhere else. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

HI thanks for your note I thought it was a criticism which does kind of get to me when I put in so much work and get very few positive comments!! Yes I agree that filling out the districts first would be best its just a shame that there isn't more information on these places - I am just very passionate about covering places in the world evenly. Most people think all there is to Cambodia is Phnom Penh and Angkor Wat which is so wrong. It would be best to fill out the districts first I agree I just don't like seeinf red links when the equivalent areas in other countries often have tens of articles on places within it alone. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

E.g like Anlong Vil ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I googled in Anlong Vil coordinates but some of the other places don't seem to have them on the web. The website Maplandia has most settlements in the world on there around 2 million places. If you see some of the districts of Banteay Meancheylike Mongkol Borei District you'll see some district maps have started to be created but the creator of those is not really interested in Cambodia, it is Thailand he works on, there is precious so little info on the web about it but that doesn't mean these places aren't notable, this is what pains me!!! The best thing to do is to make sure all the districts have the full tables of communes and villages. At least then they are listed until more info becomes available. Really the pages on the communes should exist and have map locators within the districts also and at least some basic facts avilaable. I hope the Cambodian government develop their internet resources big time ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added an infobox to Bay Damram. It does look a bit more useful with a locator map ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I think that was the source I was using anyway. One of the problems is that most info is in Khmer and almost impossible to find on google or often the commune or place as Phumi or Phnom in front of it which sometimes differs. I;ll aim at filling out the tables in the districts over the coming weeks. Feel free to help -I thought you were only interested in images though! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for that, I think that article looks valid now. You do a lot of work of which I wasn't aware of. I;ve just checked your contributions with all those super models images!!!! I was wrong to judge you friend because you have come across some of my dubious images in the past. Keep up the great work!!!! All the best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New Anna Wintour pic

I always liked the one I got, since it shows her the way she herself would probably most like to be seen. But the new one is more recent.

However, I looked at the Flickr page and noticed it's still not licensed as a free image. Can you email the guy and ask him to change the licensing for that one sooner rather than later if he doesn't want it deleted? Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I got permission via flickr mail, and it's been forwarded to OTRS. Hopefully the image page will be updated by one of the OTRS people soon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Protein Databank images

Hi there. I responded at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Protein Data Bank. I think we should get someone else to generate the images using the public domain data, and then release the images under a free license. What do you think? Best to respond over there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK notice

On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pak Khlong Talat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested copyright examinations

Hi! I followed a link from the first section of of WP:COPYVIO to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations... and ended up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, "a place for image tagging, BetacommandBot, ..., and related questions". You had replaced the page by a redirect. This seems to be part of a reorganisation. Is this explained somewhere; and will it be followed by a change of the Template:Wikipedia copyright and other prominent references to the "requested copyright examinations" page, since now they are misleading? Were these copyvio pages change discussed somewhere?

Actually, I sought the correct place to put a general question about possible copyvios of text material, not images. My question concerns wholesale inclusions of lists of international rankings of countries, from more or less copyrighted material (from e.g. The Economist) which nevertheless is freely accessible at the net. I rather suspect there are some principles involved, than a matter of reporting each one as a possible copyvio in order to see what decisions are taken; and that the issue also includes possible future lists of similar types. Could you advice me on where to put the question?-JoergenB (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western cosmetics in the 1970s

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Western cosmetics in the 1970s you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. jackturner3 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Baird photographs

When you upload photos from Mike Baird to Commons, can you make sure that you tag them with commons:Category:Photography by Mike Baird? Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MCQ

Perhaps I'm interpreting an impatience that you didn't intend, but frankly I don't think the still need to delete, how many times should we say this? comment was justified... At the time, you were the only person who had made that recommendation... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that this will likely involve thousands upon thousands of images. Best to be certain before making big changes that just possibly might not be needed. Have a look through the contributions of User:ProteinBoxBot, especially the image upload log. A mixture of proteins and what look like gene maps (which look OK to me, as they are made from public data), but a huge number. Andrew is working on this issue, so I'd let him get something sorted out first and then get back to this later. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism in Cambodia

Thanks for taking a whack at cleaning up the history section of Buddhism in Cambodia- I've meant to do it for ages, but haven't gotten around to it. I fixed up a few references- there was a dangling reference to "Philip Dawson" that an author put in there a long time ago, but I think they actually meant to reference Philip Rawson. The same situation may exist in the History of Buddhism in Cambodia article. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Childhood and adolescence in Cambodia

A tag has been placed on Childhood and adolescence in Cambodia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JD554 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my sincerest apologies. It looks like the site that I was looking at originally was a mirror of the Library of Congress site and they had their own copyright notice attached to the website. I tried to withdraw the speedy, but it looks like I was too late. Of course if you re-create the article I'll go nowhere near it! Sorry again, --JD554 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's been restored. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold Washington Statue

Based solely on inclusion in Harold Washington, you properly nominated the statue for deletion. However, considering the image's use at Harold Washington Cultural Center and Wikipedia:NONFREE#Images it was not a correct action. I.e., it was included in the former article without critical commentary, but in the latter with critical commentary. I am not familiar with deletion review at commons. Do you have any thoughts or advice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons doesn't host any nonfree images at all, so it doesn't matter what article it's in. I'm not sure the statue is so important to the cultural center that it meets WP:NFCC8, but it's at least arguable. Maybe you can try to find someone who's an admin on Commons that can get the image for you so you can reupload it on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was my picture. I just reuploaded it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Matt Sanchez

Hi, Calliopejen1. I'd like to talk to you about your deletion of the image of Matt Sanchez at Columbia Uni (Image:SanchezColumbiaa.jpg) with the rationale: "(replaceable: wikipedia's goal is to produce free content, having permission to appear here and the preference of the subject is not enough)".

I don't know how much you know about the Sanchez article, but the image issue has a long and involved history. Matt (now under both community and ArbCom bans) has uploaded images and claimed the right to release them when he has subsequently been shown to not be the copyright owner. As such, the image presently used (of him on a chopper) is not necessarily a 'free' image. There are also objections on the grounds of POV - Matt likes to emphasise his military connections, and stay away from his porn past - and using the military-themed photo puts a slant on the article. After much discussion, the least controversial option seems to be the Columbia image. Durova went to considerable effort to obtain a suitable licence permitting its use.

Your action has caused something of a stir. I ask that you reconsider, and that you come to the talk page and discuss the issue. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)