User talk:LadyofShalott

Solid State PLC Can you tell me how to add the logo to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jjakaalbinoboy/Solid_State_PLC? Then we shall move it to mainspace? --jjakaalbinoboy | Talk 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) It needs to be the other way around: move it to mainspace first, and then we can add the logo. The reason for that is that non-free images, such as logos, can only be used in mainspace, not userspace or anywhere else. Do you need help moving it to mainspace, or only the logo addition? LadyofShalott 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Bibliography articles and copyright I stumbled across the WikiProject Bibliographies page (where I found your name) a while back and thought I could contribute a few bibliographies of notable but not particularly well-known authors. My first substantial effort, a bibliography of Edmund Beckett, 1st Baron Grimthorpe is about as complete as I can make it and will be ready for mainspace after a bit more polishing. The article is based on Ferriday's biography but much of the information has never been collated in one place before; as best I can tell there are no copyright issues. Here's a harder case: I'd like to write a bibliography on bibliographies, starting with G. Thomas Tanselle's book-length syllabus "Introduction to Bibliography". There's enough information here for a dozen articles, but I would be copying large swaths of text; there's just not too many creative ways to make lists of citations. Obviously I'd cite Tanselle and ideally I'd be adding (and perhaps omitting) a few other books based on other sources. Despite this I'm concerned that there's not enough of a difference to avoid questions of copyright infringement. Any guidance? How can we use scholarly bibliographies to write bibliography articles, and how can we avoid WP:OR if we don't use them? Many thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC) After a bit of googling, I found Adelman v. Christy, which says in part: Adelman's Bibliography appears to be the printout of a computer research query or database, arranged in chronological order. See Pl.'s Statement of Facts Ex. D. Although Adelman may have invested time and money in compiling this list, the Bibliography is only subject to minimal protection under copyright law. "[T]he copyright in a factual compilation is thin. Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement." Feist, 499 U.S. at 349, 111 S.Ct. 1282. I'm going to read that as a combination of Tanselle's bibliography with others is sufficiently novel to not infringe Tanselle's copyright. If you think a stricter interpretation is warranted, please let me know. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC) That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm afraid I'm out of my copyright depth with your question. It might be a good idea to ask at User talk:Moonriddengirl; she and her talk page stalkers know a lot more about copyright than I do. LadyofShalott 02:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC) I seem to recall that lists require some creative input to be copyrightable. Something like List of songs recorded by Chrisye or list of works by Amir Hamzah, if complete, would not be copyrightable in and of its own. However, something like Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time would certainly be copyrightable as selection had creative input. For a bibliography of reading material related to a subject (as opposed to a bibliography of works produced by a subject) I'd expect there to be some creativity involved, as different works are included and excluded based on the compiler's reasoning (a form of creative input). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks to you both; I've pinged Moonriddengirl. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC) While IANAL (and cannot give you legal advice), I believe that using elements of Tanselle's select bibliography in combination with others may be sufficient to avoid infringement, as long as you are careful not to simply pay lip service to combining bibliographies. :) To avoid substantial similarity, I would really recommend blending liberally so that in the end you actually do create something novel. For an off-the-cuff example, if you created a list of "50 most important books of the 20th century", and it deviated by one or two entries from Time Magazine's list of "50 most important books of the 20th century", they'd have a stronger change to demonstrate infringement. Likewise, if Tanselle were able to demonstrate that you have reproduced his list (and his criteria for selection) with an insignificant amount of variation, there could be more of an issue. In essence, I am agreeing with Crisco - a select bibliography of this sort is likely to be creative. I don't think it's impossible to use it in creating a new list (or lists), but I think it will require great care. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Crisco and MRG, for chiming in here! LadyofShalott 18:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC) That sounds reasonable—my thanks as well! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Purpose and pain and penguins Hi Lady. I was saddened and disturbed to see this, which they undid with their next edit. I was concerned, until I saw that a few minutes later they seemed to be okay, enthusiastically praising penguins. In general, do you think anything should be done when encountering an edit such as that first one? If someone feels that way, I would like to think that some encouragement might help, but it's also quite possible that bringing it up could make things worse. It could be dangerous playing amateur psychiatrist. If they had done anything constructive, I would have welcomed them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, wow, Mandarax. I don't know. It sounds at least borderline suicidal, but they are not threatening imminent self-harm (in which case, there are channels for contacting local officials). There's no way to know if they are really feeling that way, or are just trolling. I honestly don't know what the best thing to do is. Anyone else want to chime in with thoughts? LadyofShalott 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I've left them some cookies - I also considered the "welcome but your edits were not helpful" template, but in the circumstances it seemed unwise. Maybe someone should invite them to WP:WikiProject Birds too. Although uncritical eulogies of penguins are perhaps somewhat outside WP:NPOV, I agree that it's likely an indication of a more positive outlook on their part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Just to ramble on a bit, the IP is in the UK, and today is a school day for most some secondary schools there, so posting unhappy edits on an early secondary syllabus related topic just before 6pm local time may indicate that the editor was doing homework and grew sufficiently bored to try out the "anyone can edit" thing. Which is slightly intentional I suppose. It's not quite trolling as such (by my definition), since it's entirely possible they had no expectation anyone would ever see the edit or react to it. The welcome with a link to their contributions might have an interesting effect on that possible lack of awareness. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The more I thought about it, the more I felt that the comment, although crudely constructed, was a bit poetic. I looked around, and I suspect it may have been derived from the Bright Eyes song "Waste Of Paint": "I have a friend, he's mostly made of pain ... I am a waste of breath, of space, of time". Of course, just because it may be paraphrased lyrics doesn't mean that it doesn't express their true feelings. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Indeed, part of the beauty of poetry/song lyrics is the voice it can help give people to express their feelings. Someone who may not be able of articulating such things adequately may be able to point words - whether by Shakespeare or the hottest new rapper - and identify with it. LadyofShalott 01:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) 100% your fault in every possible way I'm #1012 now, guess I need to go write a couple of articles I've been researching. I never even paid attention to this before you did. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I was about to say "sorry, Dennis", except it has apparently encouraged you to write articles, and, for that, I can't be sorry! LadyofShalott 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC) And all I have to show for it is two GAs, and an FA that will be a TFA for July 12. ;-) I expect to start this long weekend. It did encourage me in a silly way, but the results are worth the silliness of it all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Bored? I just started RV/MH Hall of Fame and uploaded a few photos. It will probably never get large, but I think there are enough sources out there to earn a DYK if you are interested in helping with it. Looked like a fun little article to add a few paragraphs on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC) You snooze, you lose :) I've already expanded it a bit and submitted for DYK. I would actually like to visit it some day, I love RVs and camping. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Hah! Well nice job. I had no idea there was an RV museum. LadyofShalott 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I did just start Dinah the Pink Dinosaur as well. Did you know there was a giant 40 foot tall pink dinosaur in Utah? :D Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC) University College London subpages Hi LadyofShalott, I've recently removed a lot of fat from a series of articles related to University College London, its student union, student publications and related organizations. I expect that once COI accounts realize this, and see that the cutting has been done by an anonymous IP, they'll howl and restore the content. In truth, I was rather gentle. Our pal Drmies would have cut a wider swath, methinks. What I'm requesting is that you and other objective parties keep half an eye peeled for these--I can supply links to the individual articles if desired, but right now they're fresh in my edit history. Thank you in advance, and cheers, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)