Oops, you're right, I forgot the Alt. I strongly recommend going with the Mascot Controversy. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, I forgot the Alt. I strongly recommend going with the Mascot Controversy. [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|talk]]) 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
:Its OK. I'll restore the noms back to the templete page. Just going to add 1 more to P1 to get at 8 so it will be ready for the update. Now past due at 6hrs. Thanks again :) [[User:Calmer Waters|<span style="color:black">'''''Calmer'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Calmer Waters|<span style="color:Blue">'''''Waters'''''</span>]] 14:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all. After seeing that there were some editors trying to assemble halloween queues for DYK, I attempted to create an article related to holloween. Thanks for heads up :) CalmerWaters05:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful when approving DYK hooks like List of Polish cities damaged in World War II (you passed it when it looked like this). "Many" was not accurate (six cities out of about seventy-five is certainly not "many") and the article was in severe need of a copyedit before an appearance on the main page (for example, there were eight uses of the word "destroyed" in the lead-in). Thanks, —Ed(talk • contribs)00:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what I had meant was to change it that many polish cities were damaged. Not that many of the polish cities were 90% damaged. Reading back I can understand that it may not have read that way. That was the reason I suggested an alternate that was also inline sourced and accurate. I appoligize you the mistake. I will be more watchful in the future. Thank you. CalmerWaters01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. If you have any question that come up feel free to ask me. If I don't know the answer I will help direct you to where you you may fing it. Kindly CalmerWaters16:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know
I know that everyone find different things interesting, but in the DYK section I added an article about Expanded genetic code yesterday, but it did not get any attention/approval, which I find really odd as synthetic biology, the re-engineering of biology, is a really popular topic on new scientist/scientific American. Why is that? Thanks. --Squidonius (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take it personal. It can take sometimes a considerable amount of time to view an article, assess its prose, verify date, the hook, the sources, and any potential issues such as POV. If you have posted it yesterday it is not at all odd for it not to be assessed yet. I know I try to assess entries that are older nominations first. Then articles that I have addressed an issue with that the editor has stated has been corrected, or replied with further information on the questions I raised. Your entry will be assessed I assure you. It just take a little while in some cases. I will take a look at it a little later if not already done. And again thank you for contribution to DYK. Take care CalmerWaters12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is my first DYK so I was not sure as the system seems quite complicated, glad to hear it was not simply overlooked, but just backlogged. --Squidonius (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A,A (Sculpture), 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) 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.
Hi, thanks for your work on the Sanborn-related articles, and congrats on the DYK! However, please be careful about using images of Sanborn's work. Without his explicit permission, it is not allowed to use photos of his artwork on Wikipedia, as he sees it as a violation of his copyright. It would probably be best for you to delete any such images that you have uploaded, unless you can produce an email or other documentation showing that he has authorized the free license on the photos. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this. I was aware that you have a great amount of knowledge of this individual. Your website is wonderful and I was planning on trying to get his article to FA status within the year. It is troubling that he feels this way. I thought that if an individual takes a picture of something in a public place that the image (not the object) is able to be released into public domain or a CC 2.0 or 3.0 release. I took the approprate steps to insure the image feel under these rules. I will heed what you say. Just unfortunate. Thank you for your notice :) I would have had no way of knowing CalmerWaters01:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's very sad that he won't allow use of images of his artwork. I actually called him on the phone and explained the situation to him and asked him if he'd be willing to give permission, but he said no. :/ I'll keep working on him, but in the meantime, it would be best to remove all images of his artwork right away. To my knowledge, the only ones that can stay (at the moment) are of Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector. As for taking pictures of artwork in public locations, my understanding is that the permission is dependent on the laws of the country where the artwork is located. In some countries it's okay, but in the U.S., everything is protected. For more info, see commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. BTW, I do think it's great that you're creating articles for his various artworks, and I love the idea of trying to get his article to FA. I'll definitely help in any way I can (especially by trying to get him to give image permission). BTW, Kryptos is going to be mentioned on a Discovery Channel special this Sunday, "Hunting the Lost Symbol", in case you'd like to watch! --Elonka01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll definately comply. I'm sorry this had to happen. I tryed to be so careful about getting them right. If he doesn't want them posted, then thats his right. I wouldn't think of doing something that infringes on anothers rights. Thank you so very much. also, Critical assembly is released by him in the public domain. I checked CalmerWaters01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding! That's also interesting about Critical Assembly. I see where it says that the artist released the image into public domain, but I'm not seeing anything on OTRS... Can you point me to where he said that? That'll help me during my next phone conversation with him. :) --Elonka02:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like HowardMorland stated that Jim Sanborn gave permission to use the scanned image of the work. Your right, I don't see a OTRS tag either. I AGF that it was valid. I'll go ahead and remove that one also. I placed speedy delete tags on the other images at Wikicommons I uploaded. CalmerWaters02:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as a followup, I had a chat with Sanborn today. He confirmed that he never authorized the Critical Assembly image to be put into public domain, and he was adamant that all images of his artwork be removed immediately from Wikipedia (sigh). I told him about how great the DYKs were, and how this was good promotion, etc., but he wasn't interested. I did, however, persuade him to authorize a new image of the Kryptos sculpture, to replace the other one, and he sent me an authorization email which I've already forwarded to OTRS. It's my hope that once he sees how eager we are to work with him on this (and how easy it is to authorize a free license) he may relent and authorize other images in the future. For your own purposes, which images would you most like to see, and that will help me to prioritize? --Elonka21:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a beautiful picture:) I have been looking over various prior FAs to view the structure of the article layouts as well as how to properly build the content. I believe the most important issue of course will be his approval of all images used. The most important of these will be one of him. Looking at examples such as [Salvador Dalí]] only 2 or 3 images of his work would be needed. Kryptos arguably being the most important of which (Not an issue now thanks to you). I have ordered his book to research further. I also starting to expanding the article on Word, thru have not done anything to the article itself yet. I believe there should easily be enough valid research on him to make this a possiblity. He is quite a fasinating and intelligent man. I look forward to learning more about him in doing this. There is so much more to offer readers inquiring about him then the 1000+ prose currently. Ps. his hits have gone up from 24 in auguest to 1600+ in Sept to over 3000 so far this month - Kryptos 32000+ :) No doubt that Dan Brown's newest book and the media coverage will continue the rising interest it has already started. CalmerWaters06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell that it's going to be a real pleasure working with you. :) And yes, I agree that his article needs a photo of him. I've been asking him about this for quite awhile, but he still hasn't picked an "official" one he'd like. In the meantime, we may be able to use an informal picture. For example, check my site at http://elonka.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2146 , where there are several photos I took last week. Let me know if you like one of them, and I'll see about getting it cropped and uploaded under a free license. :) Oh, and regarding Dan Brown's book... Did you know one of the characters is named after me? Intelligence Analyst "Nola Kaye", is an anagram for "Elonka". :) I don't think that there are any reliable sources we can use for this (yet), but I'm sure it'll be a fun addition to Elonka Dunin when sources to appear! Oh! And on that point, would you be willing to modify my bio? It has Jim's name misspelled as "James Sanborn" instead of "Jim Sanborn". I'd fix it myself, but it normally causes screaming if I make any edits to my bio at all, so it's always better if I ask someone else! Thanks, --Elonka15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! I didn't know that. I love anagrams and for you to be the subject of one in Dan Brown's book is incredible :) What it must be like to watch an on-screen character based in part on you in a few years when the film adaptation occurs. Also the part of the Kryptos article where you inform the gentleman from Langly that your medal's cypher was a typo (and on the spot even) was classic. I went ahead and updated his name to fit with the page move done earlier. The photos you have is kind of dark on his bio and looks dated from more recent pictures I have come across. Since this is a BLP it would be nice to use a photo showing how he looks now for the info box templete with the black and white picture in the history section. CalmerWaters23:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Jim Sanborn would be willing to permission to use his recorded bio found here [[2]]? It states that permission from Sanborn is needed to use. It haves his contact info posted; however, I was waiting, as they have not been transcribed yet. I believe this might help greatly in writing the major portions of the article (his bio, etc.) CalmerWaters09:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can use the recorded bio as a source, as long as we don't quote large sections of it. As for pictures, did you see anything that you liked in my gallery, from the photos I took of him last week? If not, I'll just pick one. :) Also, are you on Facebook? There are several other people uploading pictures of him there. :) --Elonka15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Critical Assembly (Sculpture), 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) 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.
First off, the DYK thing wasn't my idea. Second off, you're right that it was spun off. Now that it is an established article, I'm probably going to start shortening the section in the main article. I doubt, however, that me deleting the text on the Bill Clinton page will help (I assume most of the spin-off reason is because Big Bill was already nommed on DYK) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was only giving you a courtesy message regarding the DYK nomination that was submitted for the article you created. I also left a message to the nominator as a courtesy. It is by no means is an opinion on the stautus of the article itself. Please don't take it as negative, as it isn't. Kindly CalmerWaters05:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calmer Waters, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.
At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.
On October 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terrestrial Physics, 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) 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.
On October 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Engle Monumental Clock, 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) 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.
On October 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cutting Edge (Haunted House), 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) 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.
The rational is under commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States which covers all images of american artist's works of art as being copyrighted by the artist owner. In essance, even if the photgrapher gives permission under CC 3.0 one would still need permission from the artist for wikipedia. I myself am not going to contest it. The images themself have already been contested by someone else. Thank you. CalmerWaters15:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't you contesting the photographs of sculpture in the sculpture article? The idea that photographs of outdoor sculptures violate copyright is absolute nonsense of course. It is not the sculpture that is being recreated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point. Calmer Waters, can you explain the license on File:Huk,_Oslo_-_sculpture.jpg, the first image on that page?? I don't see anything there but the photographer's permission, and Henry Moore didn't die until 1986. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a link in my first reply, that better explains why I removed the images. It was an issue with not having permission from the artist. It states For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. However, public artwork installed before 1923 is considered to be public domain, and can be photographed freely. (Prior to 1978, when the definition changed, works of art such as statues or sculptures that were permanently installed in a public place were considered in general to be published,[4] so usual U.S. copyright law such as [PD-US] or [PD-1923] applies.) In these situations, document the date of installation and the creator (sculptor) of the pictured work as much as possible.
The U.S.does not have a Freedom of panorama clause in the copright laws of an american artist and his U.S. works as some countries, such as Germany does. It is the editors burden to proved permission from the artist (not the photographer), rather than that of the artist to show he does not want the image displayed in a publication. It may sound like nonsence, but I assure you its the U.S. copyright law. Please don't take this the wrong way. I enjoyed your article and even submitted it for inclusion in DYK to bring it to the attention of more readers. If you feel my action is in error, please feel free to bring it to my attention. Thank you in advance. Warmly CalmerWaters19:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the link, thanks, but didn't see the difference between the one statue (by Anderson) and the other (by Moore)--the latter is in Norway, and you mentioned Germany. Is the situation in Norway comparable to Germany? thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term Freedom of panorama comes from the German copyright law called W:Panoramafreiheit. Thats the only reason I used Germany :) I believe the photo of Moore's Huk, Oslo should be fine. At least that's my interpretation of them :) P.S. I only provided the text from the one link earlier to help clarify the rational for why I removed the image I did for ChildofMidnight, not to push an agenda. CalmerWaters22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<---So...Germany is like Norway, you are saying, right? Listen, I'm not accusing you of pushing any agenda (and having struggled with copyright issues in other venues, I understand they are complicated); the double question mark in my original question was accidental, but I thought CoM's question was valid: what about sculpture? And that's where I got the example of Henry Moore from. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sculpture article does not appear to have any images of U.S. sculptures by american artists. I wouldn't be able to give an example of every piece of art that would or wouldn't fall under Freedom of panorama or similiar laws of different countries, but the attached link does help. Oh, I didn't think you were, just didn't want to sound like wikilawyering or anything:) I've just recently learned of this myself while working with articles of american sculptures. Disappointing how difficult it is to get valid images posted to the article, thru not impossible. This link will give some info and a link to the international copyright site. CalmerWaters00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears to me that Calmer Waters was acting consistently with policy and not arbitrarily, as it seemed to me at first. I still think it's a perversion of common sense and copyright law to believe that images of outdoor sculptures (or even indoor sculptures in galleries and exhibits) violate copyright law. My understanding is that those laws are meant to prevent reproductions of an artwork, not depictions showing them. Oh well. It certainly makes articles on sculpture and artists difficult to illustrate. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to write up something for the village pump about possibly getting something in the policies or at least an essay to address this. More eyes may help us all:) I'm not a expert in copyright laws and was disappointed when this was first brought to me. WikiCommons haves one; yet, I can find anything on en-wiki. not in the copyright, images, or a couple other I've looked thru. Think its worthy to be addressed. I will be sure to give both you and Drmies a head up along with links at approprate article discussion pages such as images policies and copyrights when I get it wrote up. Just making sure I'm not missing something. Thanks again for your understanding CalmerWaters02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks Calmer. Sorry for being grumpy. I was excited when someone added those nice images so it was disappointing to see them deleted. And fair use for copyrighted materials while photos of art and sculpture is excluded doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Thanks again. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Le Vélocipède Illustré
Hello C Water, thanks for your comments. I am out of my depth so can you please explain 2 things and/or give me a couple of tips.
I'm not sure which refs you mean as 'bare URLs
how do I get a cite web tab? What do i do with it? Does it have instructions?
So it appears your references are fine and not truly bare. You just use a differnt reflist:)
About the cite tool....when you are in the editing screen, there is a gray tool bar that has a [cite] box at the end. If you click it, it will give a choice of a couple of different options like Web, book, etc. Click on that and it will open a wizard that allows you to fill in the boxes you need and the tool will set the cite up for you. I find it pretty useful. I took another look and will go ahead and approve the hook now. Thanks for doing that. And nice article :) Any questions feel free to ask. Cheers CalmerWaters00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CW, thanks for positive stroke and help so far, but .... I don't seem to have a 'gray tool bar that has a [cite] box'. As I type this my grey (I guess we are an ocean apart :-) ) tool-bars show font, world, link, image, signature, advanced, special chars, help. and I can only drill to standard <.r.e.f.> stuff. Do you use a special tool? Thanks in advance. Chienlit (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. should be standard on all en-wiki interfaces. yeah, the tool bar you just spoke of. Starts out bold, italics text,.....and then the last button on the right should state insert citation when you put your mouse over it. Do you have 23 buttons on that tool bar? How many? CalmerWaters12:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, go to your preferences and click on the editing tab. then check mark the show edit toolbar box. Thant should give it to you (as long as you have javascript on your computer, which shouldn't be a problem with most computers having it as an add-on anyways). Let me know if that works CalmerWaters12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its OK. I'll restore the noms back to the templete page. Just going to add 1 more to P1 to get at 8 so it will be ready for the update. Now past due at 6hrs. Thanks again :) CalmerWaters14:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
