User talk:Jessemonroy650/archive (002)

Redwood City map

Hi there, this is about Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg, the map that you uploaded for the article on Redwood City, California. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain. Dr Zak 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The image is from the City of Redwood City part of a 1969 environmental impact report. Also, it appears I have misread the copyrights [Wikipedia:Copyright#U.S._government_photographs]. I have also mislabeled the copyright.

I'm correcting it now and the correction should clear any questions. If any questions remain, then I would consider it appropriate to remove the image until the matter is settled. I'm adding details to the image so you might consider it. If you feel inappropriate, then we should find a way to deal with this as the image (I believe) is fair use.

On the other matter concerning MSG, I'm not in the mood for a fight. I will let the matter sit until Monday or Tuesday.

--meatclerk 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information the map was drawn from is public, however, the artwork itself is eminently copyrightable. Fair use wouldn't pull because we are using the whole of the map - as a map. May I point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Dr Zak 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... My poor choice of words - quoting "fair use" is not the same as fair use. In any case, I believe the artwork is in the PD and the new tag { { PD-ineligible } } is more appropriate.

In any case, per 'Possibly Unfree Unimages': "Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed." So, let's let it rest and I'll be back on it in a few days... possible Thursday. In the meantime I will investigate your suggestion.

--meatclerk 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessemonroy,

I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup queue

Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer. It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately). The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category. The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix. Good work! --Robth^Talk 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLICK HERE TO ADD COMMENT

Here for you convience.

On the right, click the [edit] link.
Change the title Blank Comment (below)
Remove the <nowiki></nowiki>
Enter your comments below that.

==Blank Comment==

Testing

Does this really work? How cool... --Bookgrrl 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:MontereyClipper-Kristina.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MontereyClipper-Kristina.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. 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article requests

Hi, just letting you know, if you had not noticed, I've been putting stubs and categories on all the blue links. It's a good idea to at least put a stub tag because if the deleters see it, and it looks too short, they will give it a Speedy Delete --meatclerk 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude. I'll try to remember to tag things.Ordinary Person 08:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

Hi there. I've revisited that article and can see that no one is willing to sort it out. If I listed for deletion, would you back me up? It is far too narrowly focused to be of much use, it's too NPOV by description and no one wants to improve it. What do you think? John Smith's 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn state's evidence

Thanks! I was surprised at how many instances I found when I started looking. No doubt there are more, and maybe some legal eagle can add a historical section explaining how/when it started being used as a prosecution tool. --Bookgrrl 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annotating DEP

Thanks for your attention to Deadend pages. There's no need to annotate entries such as "rewrite, wikify, xlink, stub, cat" or "cleanup, wikify, external links, stub, cat, tag=not verified". Just go ahead and remove them from the list (PRODs and copyvios are sometimes useful to annotate, but these can be removed from the list too). The annotations just get written over when the list is regenerated anyway. Which is supposedly eminent now. Whitejay²⁵¹ 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that a number of people remove articles from the list (I assume that's what you mean) when they're nowhere near up to snuff. I doubt annotation is going to catch on. Most of the people who remove them with very little work wander off to do something else after not very long anyway. So best of luck with your approach. Whitejay²⁵¹ 17:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canthaxanthin

I beg your pardon. Canthaxanthin is no longer used in the production of food. Astaxanthin is almost exclusively used in the production of salmon, eggs and other food product. Canthaxanthin was taken out of production because it cause human eye problems. In both europe and in the USA, it has been banned for some years from food production. If you read astaxanthin, you'll find almost every line footnoted. I know I wrote it.

I have not re-written it because I have no interest in it. If you would like to correct it, feel free.

As for the article you pointed to, it is sheer speculation on the author's part. I read that article early on and did not include it. Far too many errors and inconsistencies.

Any question? meatclerk 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why are you spouting incorrect lies as facts? From the food website maintained by the UK government: "Are animal feeds permitted to contain canthaxanthin? Yes, canthaxanthin can be added to feeds intended for poultry and for farmed salmon and trout. It can also be used for some ‘companion animals’."[1] Cheers!--I'll bring the food 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Canthaxanthin is a permitted colour additive in foods and animal feeds in many countries including the Mainland, EU, US and Canada." Food and Environmental Hygiene Department - Official Government body of Hong Kong I doubt they're lying.--I'll bring the food 06:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above

I've been asked to intervene on the basis that referenced material as stated above has been removed from the article. Please study WP:VERIFY, which shows quite clearly the use of verifiable secondary sources to be mandatory. Why has this material been removed? Tyrenius 12:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Canthaxanthin and Astaxanthin, the only material I believe I have removed (or changed) - I have investigated this for sometime with regards to salmon, canthaxanthin is not use industry wide and has been outlawd for use in the EU. I have removed one item, possibly two, that relate to Canthaxanthin. The article (Canthaxanthin) is inaccurate; I had labeled it as such. user:I'll bring the food may be correct, but everything I have read to this date says no. Please note I have let several of the additions made by the user stand and simply labeled them "disputed".

Further, upon the third or so addition to articles, by said user with regards to Canthaxanthin, I believed the user to be acting with malice - and possibly not in good faith. I say this becuase after the marking Canthaxanthin the user continued to mark other articles up with additions about Canthaxanthin. The timing may have been ill-fated on his part, and perhaps he may have thought he was working to create accuracy, but working without concencous(sp?) I believe is not in good faith.

To continue in good faith, I proposed that I would investigate the issue and if in error, I would happily share the results and make the correction, if need be. Further, with regards to my investigations, I have posted the research so far and have invited the said user to review my work. I believe this is the most purdent course of action. meatclerk 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I think it is crucial that both of you try to work together not in opposition. Please both make the effort here. Language on both sides could benefit from being toned down, as well as assumptions of bad faith. As regards this:

From the food website maintained by the UK government: "Are animal feeds permitted to contain canthaxanthin? Yes, canthaxanthin can be added to feeds intended for poultry and for farmed salmon and trout. It can also be used for some ‘companion animals’."[2]

Do you accept that canthaxanthin is permitted, regardless of whether it is in widespread use? If so, then there is no reason why this statement cannot be included. Similary with the Hong Kong statement about Mainland, EU, US and Canada, unless you have specific regulations you can cite for each of those places which renders the Hong Kong statement invalid. Tyrenius 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept, based on research post-knowledge about this item, that it is permitted - only limitedly, but not in the USA and possibly not elsewhere. However with regards to astaxanthin, I have no evidence (yet) to show that there are any regulations that allow both to be used at the same time. (I welcome input on this.)

Also, per the incident, the reference cited made a broad assumption about the use of canthaxanthin. I believe the article err'd on this. I do NOT believe the author of the cited reference was lying (sp?). To the contrary, I believe the author acted in good faith, but perhaps in haste. This early assurtion added to the friction. I also acknowledge my words may have been abrasive. meatclerk 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. It's best to be moderate. As far, as I can see the issue from the source is not how widespread the use is in the UK, but simply that it is still permitted. Thanks. Tyrenius 16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the other person took offense at the article being called inaccurate. I don't see it as a major problem for canthaxanthin, but for salmon. I'm working to rewrite salmon, and would like cooperation on this, but the early comments seem to imply a defensive stance. I've back down and made a gesture of good faith. I will let this sit for 10 days - which I usually do, if more than one person is involve - or a cooperative single person. meatclerk 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Animal Foundation

I know I've seen Tree Frog Trading Company stuff in all sorts of stores, and had heard of the World Animal Foundation before stumbling on the Wikipedia article on it, but a quick google search didn't uncover any published references. However, a "quick google search" isn't exactly quality research. I'll see if I can find time to visit the library and do a better search, and if so I'll work on re-writing the article to sound less like an ad and more like an encyclopedia article as well as asserting notability. It might be a few days or weeks before I get around to it though.

A look at their website, www.WorldAnimalFoundation.com (go figure), indicates to me that they encourage people to set up local groups to promote their cause and provides local animal rights groups with assistance and support; so probably the majority of press coverage they would have would be in the form of coverage of local organizations and events that would name the local group, and not necessarily use the name of World Animal Foundation.

At any rate, I'll see what I can find. ONUnicorn 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]