User talk:Cattwister

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Cattwister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Slp1

Again, welcome! Slp1 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Question About: Newspapers

Hi, thanks for posting this here and for replying to me in the discusion about Baroness Deech. I do have a seemingly simple question about reliable sources that you might be able to answer or clarify... it's probably better asked here as I am leery about clogging up the other discusion with tangential questions. So..

Q: "When dealing with purely online news sources, how do you determine that the news source is a nominal "newspaper" if it doesn't print real-world editions and is not instead, say, an over-active group-blog or simply a blog?"

I am asking this because in the Baroness Deech discusion I got the impression that articles from a website that I follow were being classed as a blog or group blog, and hence not "reliable sources". Here is the home page of the website so you can take a look: www.newsnetscotland.com. On the face of it, the cunning use of the word "news" in the website name makes me think of it as a newspaper. It certainly has multiple authors but the operation is smallscale, it is not run for profit and does not even have advertising (at the moment) instead, it survives on reader donations.

I've even had a quick try online to find out exactly what you have to do in Scotland to call yourself a "newspaper" but untangling the "Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881" is not partcularly pleasant and may not actually apply to Scotland since we don't have Libel or Slander, we have a thing called Defamation that covers both.

:-)Cattwister (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick response because I am supposed to be working. WP seeks "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A mainstream newspaper would qualify, but not The Sun. Websites and not for profits can qualify too, but the key is what editorial control is in operation. For example, Amnesty International makes the grade because it has a good reputation for accurate information. You can find out more information here and here. I haven't looked too closely but newsnetscotland does not seem to post information about how or if its articles are chosen and checked, or indeed who operates it. It looks like readers can submit articles and then these are posted anonymously and commented on. It doesn't seem to meet the necessaries to be a reliable source, but you can always check with other editors either on the talkpage of articles or at the reliable sources noticeboard where interested editors give their opinions on whether a particular source is reliable or not. --Slp1 (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a new topic on the forum over at newsnetscotland about using Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is currently unlikely to accept newsnetscotland as a "reliable source". I'm hoping I get a response from the Editor about why things are being done the way that they are. If you're interested take a look: it's in the Scottish Media -> Alternatives section. No worries if you give it a miss. Cattwister (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Five foot two sheet music cover 25pc.png

Thanks for uploading File:Five foot two sheet music cover 25pc.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5'2"

Heya -- I was wondering if you happen to have the entire piece of sheet music for "5 foot 2" scanned? Sometimes May Singhi Breen's ukulele arrangements are magnificent, and I'd be curious to see what she does with this. Another question: aren't those lyrics still in copyright? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have the sheet music scanned but it could be done. I kind of guessed that that would be a no-no for Wikipedia. I'm currently trying to write up a fair use justification for the scanned in cover. I could rail at the insanity of copyright law for songs that are 85 (possibly 95) or more years old but it is what it is. I'm considering adding a page for 'Don't Bring Lulu' (another 1925 Ray Henderson piece) as I have a copy of the sheet music for that. It also has a ukulele arrangement (but not May Singhi Breen). What do you think? I liked the collapsing lyric box but possibly you are correct and it needs to go. Cattwister (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the copyright on the lyrics is that lyricist Sam Mahoney lived until 1959, so the lyrics won't be PD until 2029. (For stuff published before 1923, it's life of the creator + 70 yrs, if I understand correctly.) If we could include such lyrics, the box is a fun way to do it, I guess -- but then casual readers who don't click to expand it won't get the wonderful surprise that there is a verse, not just a chorus....That is a nice piece of sheet music; were it mine, it would be photocopied for use and then framed on the wall in my "uke room". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]