User talk:Chrisgo

Archives

Image copyright

Hi Chris, and thanks for your message. I read the statement on your user page too. You're right that this is a great place to be creative; it mainly aims though to be a free encyclopedia. As such, we have to be very careful about copyright. As a voluntary organisation, we cannot risk being legally vulnerable and so it behoves us to be conservative in choosing images and text to upload. You'll find the whole policy at Wikipedia:Image use policy. I will summarise for you; if the images are made by you, then you can upload the file under a GFDL licence (the same as applies to the text I am writing in this message). Stuff licenced this way can be used freely, however anybody likes. (Though that won't stop somebody else from possibly removing it on grounds of taste, accuracy etc - that's a wiki for you). If you feel you know the artist well enough, they can assert their right as the artist and upload the stuff as GFDL.

Failing that, we are into the realm of fair use; and here Wikipedia rules are fairly restrictive. (See here). You would want to use {{Comicpanel}} or {{Comicscene}} for the work you are doing, I think.

I do hope you are helped by this advice and I am sorry for any hurt feelings about having to delete your work; I hope you understand better now why I had to do it. Please do get in touch if I can be any more help. --Guinnog 02:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks, will give your advice a go, and re-read the image use policy, I should understand it a bit better this time, all the bestChrisgo 12:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent. Could you consider toning down your criticism on your user page? Perhaps I am being unduly sensitive but I can't help feel that it reflects badly on me. Of course, if you believe my actions are worthy of criticism I am very happy to discuss that with you. Best wishes, --Guinnog 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on my user page are not a ‘criticism of any individual’ and are not directed at you personally, so please don’t take offence. I stand by my comments and see no reason to ‘tone down’ many thanks again for you useful suggestions Chrisgo 11:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington House

Hi, Chris. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Could you clarify the purpose of your edit to the disambiguation page Arlington House where you deleted the reference linking to Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial? I don't know about folks in the UK or elsewhere in the world, but for readers in the US "Arlington House" is most likely to be associated with the reference you deleted. Indeed, but for the the historic connection to Orwell, the Arlington House page might well have ended up as a redirect page to the US historic site.

I'm not always strong on the details of Wikipedia policy, so there may be some explanation for the change that simply I'm not understanding. That's why I wanted to check with you rather than simply reverting your edit. Thanks in advance for your answer.

--JohnPomeranz 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington House CAMDEN LONDON UK

Hi John, Thanks for your comment, as far as I can make out (other than the same name) your link to US Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial has no direct link or usefulness to the details of Arlington House, a hostel for the homeless in Camden Town, London, UK[1].

If however I’m wrong then please state in the link clearly your reason for including it.Chrisgo 10:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a disambiguation page (also known as a "dab page" because it's a lot easier to type) page that has a fairly chequered history. A dab page exists to allow a reader to choose between several similarly-named articles. See, for instance, Jumbo (disambiguation) which disambiguates between several things called "Jumbo" or Me Too! which disambiguates between two childrens' TV programmes with exactly the same name. There are several ways of disambiguating. If an article is likely to be the one people want immediately if they search for something there may be a "dablink" at the top of the page (like the one at the top of Jumbo). If there are only a couple of potential meanings the dablink may contain the list of possible articles itself, see Newcastle United F.C., or if there's no real way of knowing which of several articles was being searched for there's just a dab page, for instance Smith.

If you think the UK Arlington House merits an article (and frankly I'm not sure it's notable from what you've said already) the way to go is this:

Create an article on the UK Arlington House with a unique and unambiguous name, like Arlington House (UK). Then
Add a link to it on the "dab" page

Please do not simply over-write a pre-existing article with a new one.

Now let's see what I can do to put it back together... Tonywalton | Talk 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple enough. I just reverted it to a straight disambiguation page. See WP:DAB for all the ins and outs. Tonywalton | Talk 12:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for amending the page Arlington House but I must object to your accusations that I ‘over-write a pre-existing article with a new one’’ if you look at the history (May 2006) the changes had been made along time before I got there - I just updated some info and ONLY removed onelink that appeared to not relate. Thank you anyway. Chrisgo 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Thanks for taking our suggestions to heart and creating an archives for this user talk page. Best, 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your sugestions on talk page archive comments WP:USERPAGE and WP:TALK. VERY USEFUL!!Chrisgo 11:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on CCGB

Hi Chris. I've re-worded the article for a couple of reasons.

Firstly copyright. It's only partially a case of the author of a work threatening prosecution of Wikipedia or you for copying something onto here, it's also a case of protecting the work's copyright from people making further use of the Wikipedia entry. Contributions here are licensed under the GFDL, which in part states You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, (the Document in this case meaning the CCGB article or, in fact, the images you uploaded). This means that if you or anyone else simply copies something from a website (say), there's nothing to stop someone taking the work from Wikipedia and reproducing it further, thus third (or fourth, fifth...) parties are effectively avoiding the original copyright. This is an oversimplification; see the GFDL text for the full wording. I hope that makes sense!
Secondly the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view pretty much precludes articles from saying "we", "our" and so on as these are saying that an article or statement is written from the point of view of the author or organisation. Think of it like Britannica; you wouldn't expect an article In Britannica on, say, Microsoft, to say "We are such and such company" or "Our share price is such and such". That would read like a sponsored entry. Similarly articles on here need to avoid wording like that. Naturally a direct quote can use the wording ("Bill Gates said: "Our share price is blah") if a direct quote is called for. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Thank you for your valuable input and clarity!! Chrisgo 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington House (again)

Hardly an "accusation", Chris, and you did indisputably change a valid (though messy) dab page to an article about only one thing. As Guinnog says above, you might like to consider toning down your use of language when responding to things on here . No harm done.
If you're creating an Arlington House UK article, by the way, you might like to remember that Rowton Houses contains a link to the dab page and edit it accordingly once your article is completed. The "What links here" link on the left comes in useful - check out what's linking to the Arlington House article and edit as appropriate. Tonywalton | Talk 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did tell me Please do not simply over-write a pre-existing article with a new one when I only Deleted one questionable link and added seven words! I think my language is fair so will not be 'toning down' thank you (I could say the same about you but your free to have your say and I appreciate you feedback).Chrisgo 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony and Chris, for helping. I really wasn't trying to create an argument, and I recognize that both of you are working to improve Wikipedia. Much of the problem was my fault back in the history of Arlington House when I merged the duplicative article that used to be there (and that had some NPOV problems) into the pre-existing Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial article and turned Arlington House into a redirect page that swiftly became a DAB page. If I'd done a better job making it clear that Arlington House was a DAB page, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The very cool thing about all of this, is that in the course of it I have learned something about the Rowton Houses, and I look forward to learning more about the Arlington House UK and Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London, one of his works that I've not yet read but now look forward to.

If y'all are ever in the neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia, let me know, and I'd be happy to buy a round.

--JohnPomeranz 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]