User talk:Jborgans

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! MDCollins (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject PipeOrgan

I see you have added your email address to the PipeOrgan WikiProject, thank you for creating an account, it will allow us to communicate more effectively, and keep track of your edits and conversations. We look forward to having you onboard this project, and the improvements that it can make. MDCollins (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Johanniskirche Lueneburg Niehoff-Dropa organ.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johanniskirche Lueneburg Niehoff-Dropa organ.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question - reply

Sadly, I suspect that the answer is that the photos in the book are protected by Dutch copyright law, even if there's not actually a copyright indication in the book, since the book was published too recently for it to be in the public domain. There's a page at Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ which might help explain WP's approach to copyright issues. Question 1 is "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? and the answer is "In general, no. Most of the content people want to add is copyrighted, although some work has been made available by authors under an appropriate license (see below), and some work is in the public domain (see below). The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used."
We will have to see if we can find some public domain photographs through the project - failing that, time to go on holiday and take our cameras!
I didn't reply by email as I prefer not to use my main (work) email for WP purposes, and I so rarely use my home email that it would be a pain to start to use it again for WP only! I'll leave a copy of this message on Mdcollins' page too. Best wishes, Bencherlite 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, even though I am unsure about copyrighting, that Bencherlite is sadly right - as far as I know, book covers are ok, for referring to that book only, but for images contained within, I'd be very surprised if it was allowed.

Also, although John Brombaugh is well written and potentially a very good article, I'd advise you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography just to bring to your attention some concerns people may have. –MDCollins (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response back to Bencherlite and Mdcollins

RE back to: Copyright question - reply from Mdcollins and Bencherlite copied in the next indented paragraphs:

Sadly, I suspect that the answer is that the photos in the book are protected by Dutch copyright law, even if there's not actually a copyright indication in the book, since the book was published too recently for it to be in the public domain. There's a page at Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ which might help explain WP's approach to copyright issues. Question 1 is "Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? and the answer is "In general, no. Most of the content people want to add is copyrighted, although some work has been made available by authors under an appropriate license (see below), and some work is in the public domain (see below). The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used."

We will have to see if we can find some public domain photographs through the project - failing that, time to go on holiday and take our cameras!

I didn't reply by email as I prefer not to use my main (work) email for WP purposes, and I so rarely use my home email that it would be a pain to start to use it again for WP only! I'll leave a copy of this message on Mdcollins' page too. Best wishes, Bencherlite 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, even though I am unsure about copyrighting, that Bencherlite is sadly right - as far as I know, book covers are ok, for referring to that book only, but for images contained within, I'd be very surprised if it was allowed.

Also, although John Brombaugh is well written and potentially a very good article, I'd advise you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography just to bring to your attention some concerns people may have. –MDCollins (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the above information. As you see, I don't know really how the Wikipedia works nor really the best way to respond back to either of you. I guess you guys are about the only ones reading this unless others want to come check your user pages.

Anyway, from what I see, I think it is best that we return both the Niehoff and JB articles back to what they were so there is no question about ethics or copyrights. This is one reason why you see so little in the regular organ magazines on my work because to get it in there requires that one toot ones own horn; I'd prefer to let history do that instead. The single reason why I was interested in making the alterations to both articles is because I know how difficult the historical surveys like Vente and van Biezen do to bring us more accurate information: they can no longer talk with the people they are writing about, so they don't necessarily have very reliable information. But history can worry about that. I'll remove the photo of the Lüneburg organ and make other changes as much as possible so both articles are as much like I saw them about two weeks ago - except that I'll remove the information about myself that was in the Niehoff article written by someone else. I like the idea that you do all this with your camera to avoid the many problems you've pointed out. (I will carry out my part in making those reverse changes in the next day or so.)

Kind regards, Jborgans 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copies sent to Mdcollins's talk page and Bencherlite's talk page

Thanks for writing back. Personally, I don't have a problem with the content of the page as it currently stands. You didn't create the page in the first place, so it's not as though you can be accussed of blowing your own trumpet. Your additions aren't along the lines of "look at me, I'm great!" but are sensible and informative. These are often the two biggest problems with people writing / editing pages about themselves, but you don't strike me as the sort of person who would abuse the principles in the WP:AUTO article. I'd suggest leaving the page as it is for now: if anyone complains, you / they / we can address it at that stage. I see that MDCollins has copy-edited the article a bit, and in time others will add in their contributions too. Undoing what you have done would be an unnecessary step, I think. Nor is there any need to remove information about you in the Niehoff article - unless, of course, it's inaccurate!

As for your photograph of the Luneburg organ, as long as you're prepared to grant the appropriate licence for its use, there's no problem with it - you took it and you have the copyright. Wikipedia gets anxious when people are submitting photos to which they don't own the copyright, so you're OK on that front.

Your expertise as an organ builder will be very useful to Wikipedia and particularly the PipeOrgan project, so please don't give up! Keep in touch if we can help further. Bencherlite 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than posting any reply you want to make to both our talk pages, you can just add it here, and we can check for changes on our Watchlist (a very handy tool!) Saves you some time and helps keep the conversation in one place. Bencherlite 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. You'd be a very useful member of the project. Keep checking WP:PipeOrgan and the talk page to see what's going on. –MDCollins (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving WikiProject PipeOrgan

Hello, Jborgans! I'm attempting to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan. As you are a member of the project I hope you would like to participate in its revival if you have time. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Meantone organs in North America, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]