User talk:RoadRunnerCwll

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi RoadRunnerCwll! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 10:10, Tuesday, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thank you

		The WikiProject Devon Barnstar of Merit
		For your vast improvement to the article on the Dartmoor Preservation Association. Since you've expanded the article by well over five times, you could nominate it to appear in the Did you know section that appears on the home page. I'd be happy to help you with this if you want. —SMALL JIM 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
		_{this WikiAward was given to RoadRunnerCwll by —SMALLJIM on 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I trust you enjoyed your foray into WP article writing, and hope you plan to make other contributions – we could do with more active editors for Devon topics. I maintain an interest, but most of my work recently has been in general vandal fighting.

I've read the article and think there are just a few changes that would improve it. The main one is that the lead section should summarize the rest of the article: its second paragraph and part of the third would be better as a separate "Background" section, and the last para., "The DPA continues to...", mostly belongs under "Recent activities" – for which "Since 2000" (or something similar) would be a better heading – we're writing for the long term here! Do you want me to make these changes, do them yourself, or discuss these suggestions?

Finally, and just for the record, I assume that you're associated in some way with the organisation, which is fine, and it hardly shows in the article, though if you haven't done so you should cast an eye over our policy on conflict of interest. I know that there has been criticism of the DPA in the past: maybe a section on this aspect could be added. —SMALL JIM 14:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you. Is this the way to contact you?! I am really new and ignorant of these things. I don't want to write much here in case it is not the way. I am imagining that any edit here might be reported to you automatically and then we can talk. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Because I had added this page to my watchlist, I've seen your comment (and moved it and indented it, per our abstruse talk page guidelines). Talk on! —SMALL JIM 16:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - I'll get there! I do have an interest in the DPA as a long time member and a Trustee since about a year ago. I had long thought that original DPA article needed improvement, so I had a go. If you have any notions for improving the new version of the article, in the spirit of Wikipedia, by all means bash on. I could try if you prefer.

On second thoughts, maybe you should do what you do so well?! RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the Barnstar - what is involved, please? RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the criticism of the DPA, my only knowledge of this is that John Bainbridge, a previous CEO who wrote the original page, left under a cloud after upsetting a lot of people. He wanted members to object to any change on Dartmoor, preserve it in aspic, no new houses or alterations, march out on military firing ranges etc. Do you know of any references to this topic? RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you say, it is the wiki way to edit others' contributions, so I'll do that soon and leave comments in the edit summaries. I just didn't want to welcome you with a set of poorly-explained changes to your work – we try to be welcoming to newbies, especially those who have a flair for writing (and full referencing!)

Barnstars are just a way of thanking people for their contributions. If you mean the text that I added to the barnstar about "Did you know", I think the best introduction is at Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK – click on the link in the third bullet point on that page.

Regarding criticism, I was thinking of the antipathy that certain factions used to express about the DPA in Sylvia Sayer's day. I must admit, though, that I haven't found anything adverse in the reference sources I've looked at so far. It's not important if there's nothing obvious; it's just a matter of providing balance to ensure that the article explains the topic in a neutral fashion, and doesn't get mistaken for a promotional piece. —SMALL JIM 19:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a little research on the criticism aspect. A new book mentions Sylvia Sayer many times with some detailed referneces to its sources - it is the book I already refernce 12 times(?) - Matthew Kelly, "Quartz & Feldspar etcRoadRunnerCwll (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)".[reply]

I hadn't heard of that book, but after reading the Amazon reviews, it sounds like a trip to the bookshop is needed. Hope you approve of the changes I'm making to the article. —SMALL JIM 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I approve - you've done this before, haven't you?! I haven't found anything specific re. criticism of the DPA. Obviously, opponents in campaigns were against "the preservationists" in the early days. These days, saving the environment is more respectable.

Thanks. Yes, I enjoy Wikipedia: there's always something different cropping up. If you want to help further, you could have a look at Sylvia Sayer: there's plenty more that could be said there, I think! —SMALL JIM 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might look at Sylvia Sayer but I need to do other stuff as well, outside WP. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Even if you don't do anything else here, you've made a difference. I bought Kelly's book today – it's an interesting twist on a well-worn topic. —SMALL JIM 19:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem in that an image has been removed (the current DPA logo, by Filedelinkerbot from memory) stating "no permission". Could this be because the logo appears on the DPA website? In that case, I think all the images are either on the website or the blog - they are mostly my own photos and I put them there. Alternatively, could it be that I originally tried to upload them to Wikipedia but got tangled up over what license to opt for (maybe the logo was the first image I tried) and I backtracked and followed the online suggestion to use Wiki Commons? I have permission to use the images. Can you advise if i should reupload them to Wikipedia and what licesnse to opt for? In this instance then I would like to restrict use of the logos. I am not too fussed about my photos. Thanks. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, RoadRunnerCwll. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 16:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Sayer

Hello - hope you're still around. I've expanded the article on Sylvia Sayer quite a lot over the last week. One thing that's missing is a photo of her, but I've been unable to find any that are usable (except possibly under fair use, which we try to avoid if possible). Do you or the DPA have one that you'd be able to release for use under our rules? If you have the time, a critical eye cast over the article would be helpful too! Best wishes, —SMALL JIM 09:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking someone who kmew her very well and who is also a DPA trustee. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I have my fingers crossed. —SMALL JIM 13:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a quite nice black and white photograph, taken 21st May 1983 (which is before she lost her eye, apparently). It was taken before the DPA AGM 1983 and she is holding ther notes for her talk. Before the digital era. It is used freely by others and is believed to be ok for Wikipedia use. What do I do with it?! RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good question – I don't know much about the licensing of images provided by a third party, so this is my chance to learn! I do know that the experts here are, quite rightly, very exacting in their upholding of copyright law. I'll go and find out what to do. In the meantime, could you answer a few questions that may help:

Is it a paper copy or a computer file?
Is it the photo that's on Kate Ashbrook's blog at https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/a-life-changing-day/ ?
Do you know who owns the copyright? (could be the original photographer, or the DPA if it was an official photo taken for the organization)
If the DPA owns the copyright, would you as a trustee be authorised to release it?

If it's already been freely used, it may be OK with only an appropriate licence, or it may be necessary to go through that OTRS procedure you discussed here (sorry I didn't help with that, by the way, but I wouldn't have been much help anyway). —SMALL JIM 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a computer file, it is the same photograph as appears on the blog, it seems the photographer is now unknown, I presume the DPA does not own the copyright - I could ask on Saturday at a trustee's meeting. Here is the email that accompanied the file ...... "Syl died before the digital era, but I scanned this photo taken at our AGM in 1983 (just before she lost her eye), can't now recall who took it but I think it's safe to use - I certainly have. She was our speaker and is clutching her handwritten talk. Is this OK? Let me know if not and I'll have a further look." RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like an excellent photo to use, if we can. Unfortunately unless I've overlooked anything there's no clear answer. The fact that the photographer is unknown is a problem unless s/he would have taken it for the DPA: and it certainly does look like an official photo taken for the AGM. If it was taken on behalf of the DPA you (the organisation) own it and can release it. But if that's definitely not the case, then the unknown photographer owns the copyright and Wikipedia can't use it because we don't know if s/he (or, if deceased, his/her heir) wants it to be made freely available (but see below).

The second option is if it has already been freely used, then it must ipso facto be freely usable (public domain, I guess?). But I suspect that more evidence of this would be needed.

Thirdly, it looks as if it could be used as non-free content. It seems to be accepted that it's OK to include a low-resolution copy of a copyrighted photo of a person in that person's biography article for identification purposes. But only if no freely available photo is available (and the other 9 conditions of WP:NFCCP are met). Template:Non-free biog-pic is the relevant template for this.

I've asked on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Photo of Sylvia Sayer if someone could give an expert opinion on this. Let's see what comes of that. —SMALL JIM 21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that request, it appears to me that the copyright status of the image is too unclear to allow for a "free image" assumption. Unless OTRS or someone else can reliably demonstrate that these images are free, we need to assume fair use. A smaller version of the blog image would be enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b and if the person is deceased for over a decade we can probably assume that there are no free equivalent, thus it is WP:NFCC#1 compliant. That said, regarding NFCC#1 have people looked for free photographies? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo, and to Cullen for his consistent reply on WP:MCQ (I replied to your question over there). Well, a low-res copy of the photo from Kate's blog will do for now, and I'll upload one and fill in the licensing form (it'll be late tomorrow at the earliest now).

RoadRunnerCwll, if you want to take this further with the DPA to provide us with a freely-licensed photo that can be full-res and usable by anyone, that would be beneficial and appreciated, but no problem if not. Thanks again for your help. —SMALL JIM 22:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]