Jump to content

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 13 November 2010 (→New York Times). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

My favorite quotes used in deletion discussions

  • "If this guy is such a pillar of the Empire, why is he just now getting an article?" at William James Wanless

My wikistalkers

I have a sneaking suspicion that they are either the same person or working together. Most of their contributions appear to be nominating articles that I start.


As it turned out the two were the same along with a third. I am sure there are more. All three personas nominated the same article and the accounts were banned from editing.

New articles to start

William James Wanless GA review

I've posted a GA review for William James Wanless. The GA nomination is currently on hold until issues identified are resolved. LK (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles F. Tillinghast

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Charles F. Tillinghast requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JDOG555 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tillinghast

Careful, you're re-adding the speedy tags with each new edit. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Parmalee 2162708321 e01e7c8c09 o.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Parmalee 2162708321 e01e7c8c09 o.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Badger

Hi. I've tweaked this so that the reference displays correctly - avoiding the large red alert. Do consider, however, developing this article very rapidly before another editor comes along and deletes it. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Babys 2162903407 9870683c8a o.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Babys 2162903407 9870683c8a o.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Morris Berg 03.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Morris Berg 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Berg

There's four free baseball card images I could upload of Berg see [1], (the Goudey, Play Ball and National Chicle) with another two or check on ebay, I have to buy an baseball card to see if they have a copyright mark on them. I'm just not there yet. Please don't readd the fair use image. Thanks Secret account 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Morris Berg 03.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Morris Berg 03.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the Moe Berg article, since a photograph of the person is preferred to simply showing a drawing of him from a pack of chewing gum. Dream Focus 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Theodore LeMartin/Leon LeMartin

Hi Richard, I just stumbled across your new English language page on Leon LeMartin(aka Theodore). An existing page on him is at French Wikipedia. Leon Lemartin. There's obviously various spellings of his name and what he went by. Dave Lam has him listed a T. Lemartin in the "Aviation Deaths Summary" at EarlyAviators.com I did a babelfish translation of the Fr. Wikipedia article last year some time. The article is quite detailed but I was able to make out something or the other that LeMartin's widow raised her 3 kids along with the daughter of the Count de Lambert.Koplimek (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, did you throw in an interlanguage wikilink? I came across hoim because the Library of Congress had him in a photo and had no text on him. If you want to help on that project they always need more researchers to crowdsource. I was looking for the article to work on it again, and even I couldn't find my own article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:WASHINGTON 2163694510 fdb7ab2f85 o.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WASHINGTON 2163694510 fdb7ab2f85 o.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Parle class 2162889445 470ac18f9e o.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Parle class 2162889445 470ac18f9e o.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Update

Hi, Richard. I just wanted to let you know that I've finished sorting the images that I felt comfortable handling myself. I've asked for assistance with the remaining unreviewed. I suspect the great majority of them will be fine, but as I mentioned to you in the beginning I have never felt fully comfortable with Wikipedia's standards on non-free images of dead people. I'd rather somebody else mark them cleared. I've asked people not to tag your talk page to avoid cluttering it, since you know to watch the CCI. I hope that it will soon be finished and archived so there will be no more lingering questions about that content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC) -Sorry it automatically placed this. Also, is this the same image as the one on your talkpage? I'll detag if so. Apologies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

I have picked up one problem with a couple of images (sorry again about the one above - have removed the tag). According to the NY Times, articles and images dating post 1923 are still copyright, the newspaper having correctly renewed copyright as required by law. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me to your source for that information. The NYT marks all material as copyrighted, including its pre 1923 material from the archives, so a source would be helpful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite specific, for example here that post 1923 articles are not public domain(as well as you have to pay to get them from the archive). As this is not totally unreasonable (they could have been filing renewals.....) Unless someone is prepared to take them on in a court of law, I have to go with what they say --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just pointed me to several pages of text, please quote something specific. What specifically are you quoting? Saying that I have to pay is not a valid legal reason, it is your personal guess, the entire archive was a pay archive just two years ago, that doesn't mean that since we DID have to pay, the pre 1923 WAS covered by copyright in 2008. What we need is evidence that the NYT filed to renew copyrights between 1923 and 1963 for each article. Otherwise it falls into public domain just like A Wonderful Life did. Remember, your best effort at due diligence said that my Userpage image was an orphan and you tagged it for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, too true. However, I suggest you read what I said, which is that according to the NYT post 1922 articles are not PD as well as you have to pay for them, not because you have to pay for them. It's right there in the first FAQ. You might also want to glance at [2] (you'll have to scroll down to the New York Times entry. The item I queried was phoned in by a hack, not written by a columnist, so will have renewed when the newspaper renewed the copyright on the full edition (at least according to Penn). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just post what your quoting. I haven't a clue which of the information on the pages you linked to you are referring to. Its like telling me the answer is in the Bible, and expecting me to read the Bible. If you want to convince me, just cut and paste what you are referring to right here. You asked me to read the first paragraph, it says: "The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-1980 includes New York Times articles with accompanying photos, charts and graphs from September 18, 1851 through December 31, 1980. These articles are in PDF Format which requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader." I am not sure what the relevancy is.
I'll be happy to quote: "Articles in the public domain (1851-1922) can be accessed for free." The second link has verified renewal from April 1, 1928 (v. 77 no. 25635). I'll also quote from our copyright policy: "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. If you import media under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). You must also in most cases verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain." (Emphasis in original.) Can you verify that they have not renewed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, that wasn't so hard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&oldid=396418531"