User talk:CTF83!

User:Ctjf83/Sandbox

Hi. As I said at my talk page, I'm bringing this over here because my talk page tends to get quite long under the ordinary course of events. :)

This is a good step forward, but I still have some concerns with the rewrite at User:Ctjf83/Sandbox, as in some places it seems almost to be an abridgment. For instance, consider the following, from the source:

Extended content

Mrs. Wittenmyer read this letter to a convention of soldier’s aid societies and sanitation organizations on September 23, 1863. By February of 1864, a board had been organized in Des Moines to establish and operate a facility for the orphans of Iowa soldiers. The sandboxed version says: On September 23, 1863, Wittenmyer read the letter to a convention of soldier's aid societies and sanitation organizations and by the following February, a board was organized to establish a facility for orphans of Iowa soldiers. The structure is very similar, although a few bits have been moved, and some content has been omitted. There are other passages that seem similarly to stick fairly close to the source: the Farmington Home became ridiculously overcrowded. A second home was already under construction in Cedar Falls, but the Board also decided to look for larger facilities for the children in Farmington. The rewrite says: The home in Farmington soon became overcrowded and construction of a second home in Cedar Falls was underway. The Board also decided to look for larger facilities for the children in Farmington. Particularly note the last sentence of the rewrite there, which is word-for-word copied from the source. A smaller passage: more than 150 orphaned children traveled on the steamboat Keithsburg to live at the new Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home. Annie Wittenmyer herself oversaw the Home as matron until 1867 The rewrite says: the first 150 children arrived by steamboat to live in the new home. Wittnemyer oversaw the Home until 1867 Structurally, the resemblance is strong. Another small one: One significant early change was the replacement of the barracks-style dormitories with smaller home-like ‘cottages’. The rewrite says: One significant change was to build small home-like cottages to replace barrack style dorms The structure is changed here, but the language is substantially the same. Compare also: "Certain practical advantages of the cottage system were shown during three fires that broke out over the next few decades." (source) "Advantages of the new cottage system were shown during three fires that broke out in the Home."(article) "The next day’s Morning Democrat Gazette pointed out that if home was not set up with several different buildings, all 350 children at the time would have been homeless, and some may have not survived the fire."(source) "As the next day’s Morning Democrat Gazette pointed out, if the cottage system had not been in place, all 350 of the children would have been homeless, and some probably would not have been able to escape."(article) "The state legislature charged the Trustees in 1876 with finding legitimate employment for the residents after they were discharged, so beginning in the 6th grade, students spent half of each school day in the classroom, and the other half learning a practical trade from staff members."(source) "In 1876, the Iowa State Legislature stated that legitimate employment had to be found for the residents after they were discharged. Beginning in the sixth grade, students spent half of the school day in the classroom, and half learning a trade."(article) "Although the Home was self-sufficient and virtually its own little village, it was a part of the Davenport community as well."(source) "The Home was self-sufficient and part of the Davenport community."(article)

I'm afraid that I believe close paraphrasing concerns persist in this article, though it is considerably better paraphrased than the former. I'd be happy to ask another administrator who works copyrights to review, however, if you'd like a second opinion.

I wonder if you are running into problems when trying to revise as you go. It is extremely difficult to rewrite content sentence by sentence. I know some people suggest reading the entire source, doing something else, and then coming back to write what you recall of it. (If you do that, you still have to re-read your source to be sure you haven't accidentally come too close...or accidentally gotten something wrong. :)) I myself am too impatient for that technique. But what I do is read a paragraph or a couple of paragraph, make bullet notes on what seems essential, and write up a new presentation for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, would it be possible if you helped me fix them? I mean there is only so many ways you can say the same thing and provide the same info. CTJF83 chat 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About the "the first 150 children arrived by steamboat to live in the new home". there is only so many ways to say that. Note on Verno's source "In November 1865 the children, 150 in number, were brought from Farmington to Davenport" CTJF83 chat 05:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm not upsetting anyone by putting in my two cents here, but I found a webpage that reprints an old article from the Davenport Daily Times. With at least two real references for the older history it should be easier to find a different way to say things. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Verno, great source....and no, you are not upsetting me at all :) CTJF83 chat 04:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Using that page as a source, would the author be A.P. Doe and is the publisher The Daily Times or ancestry.com? CTJF83 chat 05:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's early yet, and I'm barely awake, so forgive me if I'm incoherent. :) I wanted to come and see what was up here first thing. I'd be happy to help, and finding another source is great. The more sources we have, the easier it will be. The author of the new source is A.P. Does, yes. The publisher is the Daily Times. And it's a 1900 source, which means that any language used in that article is free for reproduction, because it's public domain by age. (Good find, Verno!) With respect to your "the first 150 children arrived by steamboat to live in the new home", a single phrase does not alone constitute a copyright problem. The problem is when there is a pattern of close following such that an independent reader would conclude that you had read and copied from the source. The more of these there are, the greater the likelihood there would be that a court would find infringement. But, again, note the pattern in the structure:

the first 150 children arrived by steamboat to live in the new home. Wittnemyer oversaw the Home until 1867

It's not just the words, it's the reproduction of the arrangement of facts from the source, which is a creative element governed by US copyright law.

I find it helpful to not only use different language, but also to rearrange content to avoid this. It's far easier to demonstrate this technique with a larger passage of text and when awake, but for instance, I might say:

The Iowa Soldier's Orphans' Home received its first occupants by steamboat, when 150 children were delivered to matron Annie Wittenmyer's care.

I'd store up the fact that Wittenmyer remained until 1867 for later.

Again, it's easier to do with larger passages of text. Rewriting can be hard business when you only one have major source, but setting yourself the task of doing it line by line is nearly impossible. I myself would never attempt it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since Wiki is free I'm "borrowing" what you wrote. I'm not sure where else to put the sentence about her leaving, because the sentence after that one goes into a later time frame. Here are my most recent changes, I hope it is almost ready. CTJF83 chat 19:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to throw another curveball at you, but Wikipedia isn't entirely free. :) You are very welcome to copy that content; I waive my right to attribution for it. But generally when you copy material within Wikipedia you do have to give credit; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more, including how credit is provided. (Basically, we don't waive our copyright to our contributions here; we just liberally license them for reuse.)

Do you want to talk about ways to potentially rewrite some of the other problematic content? The easiest approach here, as I've said above, is to overhaul an entire paragraph, though; it would be easier than specifically finding new ways to say and arrange "Mrs. Wittenmyer read this letter to a convention of soldier’s aid societies and sanitation organizations on September 23, 1863. By February of 1864, a board had been organized in Des Moines to establish and operate a facility for the orphans of Iowa soldiers."

When you think it's ready, I'd like to ask another administrator to take a look at it. After I work closely with an article, I prefer to get fresh eyes to compare. It's much easier for somebody who hasn't seen the content of either page to judge similarity than it will be for me, since I'll be familiar with both. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, what are your suggestion for the rewrite 2 paragraphs up? I think I've been working with this for so long that I probably can't rewrite it well. CTJF83 chat 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We can wait a few days to let your batteries recharge. :) It would probably be better if you took a shot at it. If there any concerns remaining, that way, I might be able to help you figure out how to avoid issues in the future. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok CTJF83 chat 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote that part, hopefully now it is ok, otherwise I'll need outside help. CTJF83 chat 04:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to take a look. And, by the way, per your note at my talk page I am looking at some of your other contributions at User:Moonriddengirl/Ctjf83. So far, I haven't found any other issues, but I'll try to poke at it episodically while working on the ones where I know issues exist. :) This is strictly informal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works quite well. :) That just leaves the smaller bits of text I mentioned above. Again, individually none of these would be a problem (although we should avoid them where possible), but cumulatively they do show a pattern that can create issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What am I missing? I "borrowed" the steamboat one from you, and just fixed the letter one. CTJF83 chat 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The little fragments under "Compare also" in the collapsed section. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeping fingers crossed CTJF83 chat 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They're all pretty small, so I think that probably does it. :) My only lingering concerns is the bit about the newspaper. It sounds like you're attributing and paraphrasing the newspaper, but you're not: you're paraphrasing a source talking about the newspaper. :) It's not essential, but I would recommend a slightly different approach, maybe like:

The Home was soon expanded and redesigned with small, home-like cottages replacing the barrack style dorms.[2] Thanks in part to the redesign, no one was seriously injured and the Home was able to continue through three fires that broke out in 1877, 1880 and 1887, even though several buildings were burned to the ground.

In any event, I think it's probably okay for article space as is. And if you want to paste your content into it, you are free to use any content I've suggested here without attribution. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home

On March 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the above, and in the same vein:

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For simply asking "What do I need to do?" and then going the extra mile when realizing it may have happened more than once. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Davenport map

Would you rather have a map centered on Davenport alone, just showing small amounts of the bordering cities, or one encompassing the whole Quad Cities area, which would show more of the metro but probably be a bit less detailed when it comes to Davenport itself? I ask because with Sioux Falls the neighboring cities were both smaller and further away than with Davenport, so it was an easier call to center only on Sioux Falls. AlexiusHoratius 18:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd like a map of just Davenport, for the FA, and then perhaps, if you wanted to, in the future, do a map of the whole Quad Cities. CTJF83 chat 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get started on it this afternoon. I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so I probably won't have anything uploaded until next weekend. I'll probably be stopping by now and then with random questions, as I don't have much first-hand knowledge of the area. AlexiusHoratius 18:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, any questions you have, about what streets to include or what not, I can easily answer, thanks for your help! CTJF83 chat 18:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been planning on making a map for I-280, but it would be no trouble to make a map of Davenport and of the Quad Cities as well. See Category:Road maps of Iowa for a few samples of my work. I created quite a few of the statewide maps, and I have the GIS data to make city maps easily. --Fredddie™ 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Is there a specific program you use to create those maps? CTJF83 chat 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the GIS data from the Iowa DOT and put them together with QuantumGIS. There seems to be quite the learning curve, but it's super easy once you figure it out. --Fredddie™ 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I've made. I would call the map itself (without the signs) finished, but I can certainly remove the signs and add street names, or however you think it should be. --Fredddie™ 19:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you, would it be easy to add a few of the major street names? CTJF83 chat 17:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have some other maps I'd like free versions of, if you could be my go-to-guy? :) CTJF83 chat 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What streets were you thinking? 53rd, Kimberly, Locust, River Drive, and Brady, naturally. I have no problem making other maps, but I wouldn't always expect them as quickly as I made that one. I'm not always in the map-making mood, so they get pushed to the side. --Fredddie™ 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, those for sure, I can give you a list of what I consider major streets, although that is OR, :). Also, the other maps I'm looking for are very simplistic maps of historic neighborhoods for articles on wikipedia, such as [1] CTJF83 chat 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would look over the four maps here and choose an arbitrary number, say an AADT of 10,000, and list those as your major streets. It's not OR! --Fredddie™ 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work, otherwise I think this G Map zoom level shows the major streets. How would you list the names? Would you remove minor streets from the map and put the major street names on, or high light major streets in a different color? CTJF83 chat 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the gray streets are all one layer. I could probably have the text in black and have a stroke the same color as the city. That way it would cover the streets and you'd be able to read the text better. --Fredddie™ 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. CTJF83 chat 21:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Phebe Sudlow

Can you move the contents to User:Ctjf83/Sandbox? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Ctjf83/Sandbox2 rather than history merge it with your old one; I wasn't sure how extensive the history was. Besides which, it's really better to start your rewrite from scratch to help avoid that "unauthorized derivative work" problem. I don't generally resurrect articles from the copyright problems board once their date has passed, but given your work on the last one I feel pretty sure you'll give it the attention it deserves. I must admit when I saw there without a proposed rewrite, I did wonder if you had lost interest in it or just forgotten about the concern. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I had forgotten about it, I'll let you know when it is ready for a review before moving back to mainspace. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is ready for your review. CTJF83 chat 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All right. I'll come review it within the next few hours. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be back to look after work within 4ish hours...(or after CSI Miami) btw, would this qualify for a DYK, since I'm recreating the page, or does it go by the original creation date? I have a good one for her. CTJF83 chat 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I...have no idea. I suppose you could list it and explain the history and they'll figure it out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this needs some more work. Remember that not only language is covered by copyright, but also structure. Some of the material follows very closely on the arrangement of the original, which is a problem especially when idiosyncratic language is also reproduced. For instance consider the following:

• Article:

Sudlow's educational experience began in a log schoolhouse, but she was soon attending an academy in Athens, Ohio.

• Source:

Phebe’s first educational experience was in a log schoolhouse, but she was soon attending an academy in Athens, Ohio.

• Article:

By 1860, at the age of 29, Sudlow became principal of both schools and was possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States.

• Source:

By the next year, at the age of 29, Phebe was principal of both schools—possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States—at $400 dollars a year.

• Article:

She told the board, "Gentlemen, if you are cutting the salary because of my experience, I have nothing to say; but if you are doing this because I am a woman, I’ll have nothing more to do with it." Sudlow was immediately hired at the greater salary.

• Source:

She told the board, “Gentlemen, if you are cutting the salary because of my experience, I have nothing to say; but if you are doing this because I am a woman, I’ll have nothing more to do with it.” Phebe was immediately hired at the greater salary.

I stopped with this last example. Sudlow's quote is fine (though you have to cite your source with every quote), but you've reproduced the attribution line and the sentence that follows it, with only one word changed. Remember that one of the tests of copyright infringement is whether a lay observer would look at your work and conclude that you have appropriated the the pattern or sequence of your source. With a chronological biography, there is some leeway there...but a good bit less when copying also includes fragmented literal similarity of this sort.

I believe you are still trying to rewrite this sentence by sentence. As suggested in some of the essays I've linked for you earlier, it's a lot better to read the material, absorb the facts, and then write it out yourself. If you're looking at the source at the same time, it is must harder to avoid replication its organization and language. After you've produced your own text, you can look back at it and see if you've inadvertently come too close, because that can happen.

Why don't you rework the material a bit further, and after you've done so, I'll going to ask another copyright administrator to review it. I think you might benefit from some fresh feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Azulon Dolmayon

I do not understand why "Azulon Dolmayon" page is being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ136 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is "Hearts & Ice (album)" being deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ136 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Davenport

I really think this should be classified as a list. FLC is nowhere near the level of FAC, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to get it to FL status. --Fredddie™ 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I've been getting conflicting thoughts on whether it is a GAC or FLC, so I don't know what to do. CTJF83 chat 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stonefunkers

Please do not delete this entry. The group was one of the first Swedish groups to draw upon modern the African-American tradition and set a path for younger rappers, R & B singers and DJ's. I have tried to back it up with some other soures (mostrly local Swedish newspapers) and the bands music videos.VsanoJ (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Family Gay

Just to let you know, I'm reviewing it. There are a few minor things that need to be fixed but nothing major. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the source found for the article, if that's the case, I will change to keep. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

south park sexual healing

my apologies for removing too much information. I just felt that fans were discussing more about the show, rather than the contents of the article. Fighting for Justice (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CTF83!. You have new messages at GeneralCheese's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Written by GeneralCheese 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hull House

Hey, I finally headed down to UIC and got some pictures of Jane Addams' Hull House. [2], [3], [4]. Let me know if any of those are useful. Zagalejo^^^ 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All 3 look great!! Thank you very much for your help! CTJF83 chat 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)