Jump to content

User talk:Teb728

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FoxyB (talk | contribs) at 07:20, 22 August 2011 (→Thanks for your help with my dispute on Jo Russell's page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I'll try it, BRB ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 07:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you don't understand? The changes I made or why they were necessary? —teb728 t c 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, those didn't work either, I don't know what's going wrong? ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try again with my new versions. (It needed quotes around "gray"). —teb728 t c 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is "Not Scott Adams"

In reference to your message, no, I am not Scott Adams. At the time, the licensing said something about "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." The licensing goes on to say, "In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." That, TEB728, means that particular image falls under being not legally possible and with conditions. While I realize that I am not the "copyright holder" of the image, I did make sure to mention that Scott Adams was the author of the work, and that the image was cropped, and therefore edited, from the original work. I would still like that image to be on the article, though: it is very descriptive of the character it portrays.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Adams is the copyright owner of that image. Only he can release the into the image into the public domain or grant anyone the right to use it or to modify it. Cropping the image was itself a copyright violation and does not give you a copyright on the cropped image. Since you are not Scott Adams, your claim of being the copyright owner was false. —teb728 t c 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk question

Hi TEB,

I'm writing in response to your comments here.

Yes, as of now I am only trying to accomplish this on my user page, not an article. However, I am attempting to create a proposal for a new home page for my language's Wikipedia. So ultimately the goal would be to apply it to a public page, but after administrative approval.

Anyway, can you help me do this? I'll reiterate that I'm trying to take a one-pixel wide image of a gradient and repeat it across the top of the page. I've seen something similar to this done, for example on the Italian Home Page, where it says Benvenuti su Wikipedia. I've looked at the source for this, which refers me to a template. In its source I found that it uses <div class="BGblue1"... to accomplish this gradient. But the div class refers to a common.css page, which links to the image with .BGblue1 { background-image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/BGblue1.jpg"); background-position:top; background-repeat:repeat-x;}

So, I somewhat understand how the code and the common.css page works, but I can't edit the common.css page for my language. So I'm confused as to how I can use CSS to modify my user page.

Is there some way to create my own .css page, like people do with monobooks, and then reference that page in the HTML, rather than the common.css page?

I hope my request makes sense. Unfortunately I'm a beginner, not only with CSS, but Wikipedia editing as well. But I would really like to create a nice design to propose to the administrators of my language's Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance,

--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not replying sooner. One reason I put off replying is that you may know more than I do about js and css. But one thing I know that might help is that you can create a private override for monobook at User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.js and User:Michiluzzu Scalisi/monobook.css; I believe it also overrides common.css, etc. In case you are not aware, the jpg refers to Commons:File:BGblue1.jpg. —teb728 t c 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TEB, thanks for your reply. I'm curious though, about this Monobook.css. All I can really find out about it, is that it can be used to change the skin, that is the style and layout of Wikipedia as you personally view it. So I'm not sure whether a Monobook.css can be used to actually reference CSS in a page that I create. I suppose I should just try it out, but I'd still like more information about it. Do you know, or do you know of someone who might?
Thanks again!
--Michiluzzu Scalisi (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be a good place. —teb728 t c 07:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Mathay Sr. High School article

Hi TEB, I saw your comment on Palengkero's Talk Page, as it's on my watch list!

As you will see from what I wrote, I've been doing a bit of work on the article - and like you, I think that he'd be the best person to rewrite the sections which were removed due to copyright violations. I hope that he will constructively work on the article when he is unblocked.

You asked about the different schools - the last version where they are mentioned is The 06:07, 22 July 2009 version].

Your question was: What is the connection between the palengke school, the Toro Hills school, the Pugad Lawin school, and the “sprawling campus” of the IMSHS? Did the first three all merge to form IMSHS? Or what? Also what does GSIS stand for?

In that version:

  • GSIS isn't explained (the only ones I can find educationally are the German Swiss International School - but that is located in Hong Kong; Good Shepherd International School (see Indian International Schools) and Graduate School of International Studies - but that isn't at High School level and is in America) - I can't even work out what it could be from searches online! The Philippines Department of Education lists GSIS Village ES].
  • The palengke school is the same as the GSIS school - palengke means 'public market', and the original location of the school was by the palengke.
  • The Toro Hills school/Pugad Lawin school: Toro Hills is an area near Quezon village. 'Pugad Lawin is a historic site from the Philippine Revolution. The Toro Hills school became Pugad Lawin High School.

All the above information is from that version (and previous versions) of the article - but the information in turn came from the website, I think (I'll check on Monday or Tuesday, when I next have time to edit). I must point out that I know nothing about the school itself, I'm only going by what little information I could glean online! It's why we really need Palengkero to help out - unless we can find other Philippinos who know about the school... and I don't even know where to put a message about that!

We probably would be able to find some more information about the schools. For example, the Phillipine Dept of Education has details on [Toro Hills ES], [Pugad Lawin HS] and [Ismael Mathay, Sr. HS] - however these all show as being the school Year 2004-2005 - and no further years after that.

I believe that with Palengkero's help and guidance, this article can become a more complete article, without violating copyright!

Thank you for your kind message to him (I'm assuming Palengkero is a male, but I don't think I've actually got a reason for that!).

Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was basically aware of your answers: I posted my questions more to hook Palengkero's interest than for information. I think you are right that he is male: A couple of reasons for thinking so is that he is stubborn (like you and me) and that "Palengekero" is probably a Spanish derivative meaning person from the palengke with a masculine ending. —teb728 t c 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next week, I'll probably do some work on the article - especially the history. I'll read the info from the source, and then summarise/rewrite it. I'll also try to find sources for the information away from the Tripod pages. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Mississippi license plage

TEB728 - I disagree with your decision to mark my license plate image File:Mississippi08plate.jpg for deletion because of "copyright" violation. I owned that license plate, and I scanned and uploaded the picture of that plate myself on my own PC. I have contributed several images of license plates in the past, and don't understand why you are singling out this one for deletion? Your reason for this deletion warrants further justification.Zul32 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zul, My attention was drawn to this image by this archived question at Media Copyright Questions. On investigation I found that you had uploaded File:Mississippi08plate.jpg to Commons with a (mistakenly) false claim that you were the copyright owner. As an MCQ responder pointed out, the copyright on Mississippi plate design is owned by the state of Mississippi. As another responder pointed out, a photo of the plate might be used under non-free fair use. But since you had uploaded it to Commons, which does not allow non-free images, the licensing couldn’t be corrected; so the image had to be deleted.
By the way, since you have uploaded several other plates: Those which are just text should be tagged with Commons:Template:PD-text. Those which (like the Mississippi plate) include creative graphics should be moved to Wikipedia with a non-free tag. —teb728 t c 00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk assistance

I wasn't able to find it again, but thank you for answering my question so quickly. What did I remove? I still have to locate the issue, though I see your answer. Thanks for your assistance either way. Hstisgod (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this edit you removed the }} which closes the infobox template. —teb728 t c 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore...

Ignore that crap. I was probably trying to prove how much of a drama queen I am. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

TEB, I just want to thank you for explaining so clearly what I was doing (or rather, what I wasn't doing), and for taking the trouble to post your explanation on the relevant user page. I suppose it's fairly easy to click copy, rather than cut, but I'll check more carefully in future. Haploidavey (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your great assistance in helping me with my signature! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

hi, thanks for the nice reply regarding rajat tokas photo, yes i understood completly what are u want to reach, thanks for explain,

yes he is afriend, but no direct way, he is best friend for my best friend whose own the site, the official site, so it will be easy to take a picture for him and post it, but there is one problem, now im in egypt and he is in india, so what about i can ask that comment friend to take a picture and tell him to post it himself here not me, to do not any confuse later, can I do that??

thanks you soo much once again, really appreciate ur nice reply--Sarah.gkhia (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Any picture of him would have to be licensed under a free license like {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}, and that license should be indicated on the upload along with information on the source. If the uploader is not the photographer, or if the photo looks like it might have been taken by a professional photographer, or if it is something that is posted on his web site, they should send an email as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. —teb728 t c 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about how you are guiding this user's uploads. First, rationales like those found in File:Salk Institute opens.jpg hardly pass muster, particularly since that photo isn't even used on the Salk Institute article. The rationales this editor is using would make almost every photo ever taken eligible for use on this site. Second, no sources are given for any of Wikiwatcher's uploads of work that they clearly did not take themselves. For instance, File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg is now being claimed in the public domain because it's copyright has supposedly expired. How do we know this, or is this just an assumption that is being made on the part of the editor since the photo is pre-1977? Where did they find the photo and how do we know it was published without a copyright notice? When artists create work, it is our responsibility to ensure that we don't simply decide they no longer own it so that we can have their photos on our articles, without some indication that we may do so. Without verifiability that the copyright on these images is not enforceable, we are essentially just taking the work of others and deciding to re-license it. No only could this cause legal issues, it is also an ethical problem. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate you pointing out how that is so. --WatchingWhales (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand what you mean about my guiding the user’s uploads. My interaction with him has been only to explain why his images are eligible for speedy deletion. On File:Salk Institute opens.jpg I left him a {{rfu}} tag and an explanation of why it was still replaceable despite his clarification of the reasons why it was being used. I expect that it will be deleted shortly—along with several other replaceable images (File:Mayerportrait.jpg, File:At Piano.jpg, and File:With Mayer and Garland.jpg).
As for File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg, the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag is plausible: A work that was copyrighted in the US between 1923 and 1963, has to have its copyright renewed 28 years later. (And although he doesn’t understand Wikipedia image policy yet, I see no indication of his making false claims.) If you want to explore the matter further: If the photo was originally published in Dartmouth College, "Budd Schulberg Papers" in 1954, you can check the copyright renewals for 1982 and 1983 to see if the copyright was renewed. I think the renewal records are online, but I don’t know where.
As for File:Berlin-Jolson27.JPG, he has now provided sort of a non-free use rationale including a strange statement, “Investigating image source it appears most likely to be {{PD-Pre1964}}” The PD claim is plausible for the same reason as the Schulberg, and if you want to investigate its correctness, you would do it in the same way. If the PD claim is not correct, the image is replaceable.
I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the burden of proof that the images are ineligible for copyright falls on the uploader, not the person questioning its eligibility. Otherwise, we could have thousand of images uploaded while someone sits back and says, "Figure out which ones are PD". That it's "plausible" an image has lost its copyright isn't the standard we use - as long as the image fails to show the veracity of its claim that it's Public Domain, it should be deleted. --WatchingWhales (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take the issue back to WP:MCQ. PD issues are too complicated for me. —teb728 t c 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Uploader can verify?

It was based on the comments here. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I am happy to trust him. I consulted another editor I trust to know about the issue (MBisanz), and he seemed to agree with trusting Wikiwatcher1. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He strikes me as honest, and in your linked discussion above he seems to understand PD. —teb728 t c 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical Dude

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Skeptical Dude. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOTVAND. Whatever the merits of your argument otherwise, incorrectly accusing others of vandalism, and missing out several levels of warning, severly weakens your credibility. Please strike your accusation and engage in discussion on the article talk page. Verbal chat 15:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place please read WP:DTTR. Although I think there are some circumstances where it is appropriate to template regulars, this is not one of them. (You did notice my comments in the section above the vandalism warning, didn’t you?) The fact that I initially agreed with you that the troll’s first edit might be taken in good faith shows that I understand WP:NOTVAND. And the comments I made simultaneously with my vandalism warning show that that I was by then convinced that his edits were in bad faith. Please strike the templated part of your post; no part of it is appropriate to the situation.
Turning now to the untemplated part of your post.
  • Please see WP:NOTVAND yourself. None of the categories described there are applicable to this case. If perhaps you were thinking “Disruptive editing or stubbornness,” read the description: it is about mistaken disruption. Disruptive editing or stubbornness is vandalism if it is done in bad faith. You seem to be the only one still able to assume good faith for this troll’s edits: BilCat recognized his bad faith right away; it took me a little longer; now see garik’s posts here.
  • I did not skip any level: The troll received a vandalism1 warning from ClueBot on 4 July and a vandalism2 warning from BilCat on 13 August. Inasmuch as the troll’s 16 August edit left me convinced that BilCat was correct, the next level was vandalism3.
  • Attempting discussion with this troll on the article talk page is pointless. See the attempts here.
  • Perhaps you misunderstood my post beginning, “Just in case you actually are as ignorant as you portray yourself here, let me explain.” I admit that was very badly expressed. Although it seems to imply that I thought there was an outside chance the troll was merely ignorant, what I meant was, “You should realize that your vandalism makes you seem so stupid that you don’t understand…” I was trying to shame him into stopping the vandalism. If you like I will make that change. —teb728 t c 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand perfectly, and here is my advice to you: Stop making incorrect accusations of vandalism. You also need to have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF regarding your "troll" accusations. Verbal chat 07:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory article

You have marked the PNNL article as sounding like an advertisement. However, the article is a factual statement of the Laboratory's capabilities, mission, purpose, and charter from the U.S. Department of Energy. Your edits to the article have significantly and negatively impacted this article. We are not advertising for business. We are, as stated in the article, part of the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory system. It is our mission and capabilities that set us apart from the other laboratories, thus this information is crucial to the article. Shanilea (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, it was another editor, not me, who marked the article as reading like an advertisement, but I agree with him. Still another editor said on the article talk page that the article struck him as “a bit propagandistic.” The fact that the article read like an advertisement does not mean that it is not factually accurate; ideally all advertising is factually accurate. But much of the text that you added reads more like a public relations release than a neutral encyclopedia article. For example, “PNNL delivers leadership and advancements…”
I notice that you speak of PNNL as “we,” and you speak of “our mission.” This suggests to me that you work for PNNL or Battelle (perhaps in the public relations department?). If so, you need to read Wikipedia’s guideline on conflict of interest. Many people think that people should not edit article where they have conflict of interest at all. I would not go that far: surely you are welcome to correct factual errors (like budget and staff). But you need to be very careful of editing to make PNNL look good (or avoid making it look bad). —teb728 t c 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much...

for helping me out with my question :)

It is much appreciated.

RyanGFilm (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png

Thank you for your very competent help with this matter. I did not know exactly what to do but it looks as though I asked the question in the right place.  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Teddy Stauffer

Considering that edit was some months back and I never just guess when it comes to a subject's information, I imagine I got the info regarding his birth name via IMDb because the article has no references to go on. Pinkadelica♣ 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the correction at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Ongoing_bias. I thought sure OP had said the page had been deleted multiple times, but looking back, I must have dreamed it.--SPhilbrickT 12:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA userbox

TEB: I've noticed you've reverted use of the UCLA logo in {{User ucla}}. I'm not sure how much you're aware of the ongoing wiki adminsitrator review of the userbox topic, but {{PD-textlogo}} images have been approved for use in userboxes as a result of discussions here and here. The basic rationale is that trademarked by uncopyrightable logos (text/font combinations without pictoral elements) are public domain and need no rights rationale for multiple-page use. I can explain more if you're interested. I've reverted back the UCLA userbox based on this. Let me know if you have a more specific objection. BillTunell (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am quite aware of this NFCR discussion and that there is a user who mistakenly insists there that the Bruins logo is a PD-textlogo. His basic mistake seems to be that he assumes dogmatically that artwork that involves letters is uncopyrightable—no matter how much originality it has. As the other editors have pointed out there, the Bruins logo contains several elements that cross the theshhold of originality. There is, to say the least, no consensus that it is a PD-textlogo.
Hypothetically, if it were in the public domain, it could be used in a template, as you say. But since it is a trademark, its is governed by trademark law, no just copyright law. Notice that my edit summary on the userbox based the edit on the fact that the use was a trademark violation. More specifically UCLA reserves the Bruins logo exclusively for use in UCLA athletics.
The UCLA logo for general purposes is File:UCLA Logo.svg. I will replace the Bruins logo with that in the userbox; not only is that clearly a textlogo; the use would not be a trademark violation. —teb728 t c 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't change the userbox, since there is a lack of consensus about whether the UCLA-script logo is copyrightable. But I would dispute that assumption, and I would also point out that a trademark claim does not create a limitation on public-domain use. People are allowed to directly use (even sell) others' marks as long as they are not copyrights (and they do not misattribute a source of goods or services). This occurs all the time with things such as college/university marks, the Coca-Cola logo, etc.. So the fact that a univserity logo is trademarked does not limit its dissemination in the public domain. Anyway, I'll leave the UCLA userbox alone. BillTunell (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, this isn't a slam on you, but you have a few facts wrong here. The fact that the image is trademarked does put limits on its use. It cannot be used in such a manner that would imply sponsorship or endorsement. It cannot be used for initial profit (i.e. commercial sale, but selling your old "UCLA" sweatshirt at a garage sale is appropriate). The same kind of restrictions apply to patents, which are, by definition, PD; you cannot make that patented item and sell it, but you can create it and use it for yourself. Even the Coca-Cola image, which is PD, is still indefinitely protected by trademark. — BQZip01 — talk 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, since you mention the Coca-Cola logo, let me use it as an example of trademark problems: If a user created a userbox saying, “This user enjoys Coca-Cola,” he probably could use the Coca-Cola logo, for it is unambiguously in the public domain. If, however, the userbox said “This user enjoys carbonated soft drinks,” using the Coca-Cola logo would be trademark dilution.
Similarly, if Wikipedia allowed group accounts, and if a userbox said, “This group of users is a UCLA athletic team,” the userbox might use the Bruins logo (if hypothetically the logo were PD). But in a userbox that says, “This user attends or attended UCLA” it would be a trademark dilution, for UCLA reserves the Bruins logo for “athletics, recreation, spirit groups, support groups and student groups.” (See p 14 of this manual.) —teb728 t c 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the above except some of the commercial-related comments. It is legal to direclty sell a non-copyrightable mark, provided that you do not misattribute the source. People do this all the time in the context of college and univesity marks (i.e., print "OU" or "ND" hats and sell them without university permission). Colleges don't like it, and have responded via the CLC to limit market power of such knock-off artists. But it happens and is legal -- again, provided wee're talking about a non-copyrightable mark. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 MTV VMAs

I have a few problems with your add: "Unlike normal VMAs the rules did not entitle the winner to a Moonman,[2] and mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner.[3]" Rather than revert, I thought I should chat with you about them.

First, the phrase "normal".

Second, you supply no evidence as to what the rules of all the other VMAs entitle the winner to.

Third, you supply no evidence that mtv.com gave no recognition to the award or the winner.

Fourth, as you I believe know, MTV did supply recognition through its co-sponser, and through videos, and through coverage on MTV and MTV2, etc. So that sentence is both POV and markedly misleading.

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. By “normal” I meant only to contrast the local awards with other VMAs that I am aware of. I did not mean to suggest that the local awards were “abnormal.” Would you like to propose a substitute? “Ordinary” maybe? 2. You do acknowledge that most if not all other VMA winners get Moonmen, don’t you? In our discussion on the article talk page Andresg770 emphasized they did, and you didn’t object. Would you like to propose a substitute?—something that says ordinary VMA winners receive Moonmen, but the local award winners did not. 3. I did provide links to mtv.com searches which show no 2009 hits for "Best Breakout" and no hits for "MeTalkPretty". Unfortunately the MediaWiki software garbled them. Thank you for pointing this out; I will get them to work. 4. According to OurStage, the co-sponsor was not MTV but rather their parent MTV Networks. I am not aware of any videos supplied by MTV. (Indeed another thing that distinguishes the local awards from ordinary VMAs is that they are not based on videos.) I am not aware of any coverage on MTV as opposed to MTV2 and MTV Tr3s. What I am aware of is that neither the MTV winners page nor any place else on mtv.com mentions the local awards. —teb728 t c 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in adminship?

I've seen you around a lot at WP:MCQ and some at WP:HELP. You clearly know what you're doing, and a glance through your talk page archive shows that you have a record being calm, rational, and friendly to new users. As far as I can tell, you've never either stood for adminship or declined to do so after being asked, so I'll become the first: any interest in being nominated? Steve Smith (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you, but I have been unusually busy last few days. I am drafting a reply on my PC and hope to post it soon. —teb728 t c 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a pest, but how's that reply coming along? No hurry from my end, just wanted to remind you that the offer stands, if you're interested. Steve Smith (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still planning to reply. I've been on a l o n g wikibreak for the past year+ -- partly due to a flakey computer and partly due to other projects. —teb728 t c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Help on including images in Wikipedia articles

Hello TEB728. I want to thank you for your remarks at the help desk. I have been trying to get my poster into my article using your hints—and I am still confused. Some questions:

  • If I use your "non-free use rationale" do I still have to upload the file to Wikimedia?
  • Or, do I "paste" it directly into my article and just tag it somehow in the way you indicate?
  • You said, "Tag the poster with {{non-free poster}}" I do not know how to do this. Where do I do this "tagging"? In Wikimedia? In the article infobox? Into the file itself? I am at a loss as to what this means.

I understand the legal strategy of what you advised; I just do not know how to do it. You can answer me here or on my user page as you prefer. I hope I am not imposing on your time. Respond only if you think it is possible to help this poor technically clueless editor.--Foobarnix (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All images used on Wikipedia have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or to Commons but only free content there); there is no other way to show them. The upload page creates a file description page; if it isn't right at first, you can edit it like any other page. The file description page must contain a “file copyright tag,” which identifies what free license the image is released under, why it is in the public domain, or what category of non-free use you want. (For a non-free poster the tag is {{non-free poster}}.) For non-free files the file description page must also have a “non-free use rationale (to explain how the use accords with Wikipedia′s non-free content policy).” For a film poster the {{film poster fur}} template is a convenient way to create a rationale. This template has several parameters. The Article and Use parameters are always required. (Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space.) Since you want to use the poster in the infobox, the correct value for the Use parameter is Infobox. See the template documentation for all the parameters. Look at the wikisource of File:Avatar-Teaser-Poster.jpg for an excellent example of a poster description page. (Ignore the interwiki links at the bottom.)
See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more info. —teb728 t c 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More questions

Hello again TEB728. I am still struggling. Your info was so helpful, but I need some further clarification if you have the patience for it.

  1. Do all uploads (in my case, at least) start by going to the special page: Special:Upload? (which confusingly has the name Upload file when you go to it)
  2. On the page Wikipedia:Uploading images, which you directed me to, I found the statement: "You can upload an image by using the Upload file link in the toolbox" What toolbox is this? Part of the wikipedia editor? Part of my browser? I am unable to find such a "Upload file link" [OMG! I just found the Tool Box. It is right there on every Wikipedia page. I had never noticed the name before, although I frequently use parts of it.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  3. When I was looking at the images and templates for uploading, I ran into the statement (somewhere), "Please do not use cut and paste to create this page" or something like that. I would like to take the template in the Avatar page, modify it for my poster using the advice you gave me, and paste it into (and thus create) the page for my poster. That, I think I could do. Am I forbidden to do it that way? Is it perhaps OK to paste the filled out Film poster fur template into the field on the Upload file page. That seems like it should work.
  4. You said, "Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article". Where is it that I do this "tagging"? Is this additional info that I have to somehow paste into the Upload file page?
  5. Here is a partially filled out (and disabled) template. Am I on the right track?
{Film poster fur | Article = For the Love of Movies | Use = Infobox | Name = For the Love of Movies | Distributor = LEF Foundation | Publisher = | Type = | Website = | Owner = | Commentary = | Description = | Source = This poster can be found at Posters | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = }}
6.. I have photos for two other biographical wikipedia articles which are very similar to the film poster situation: The persons involved want me to use their photos. You said,
"and the way to go on this is non-free fair-use: one fair-use film poster is usually acceptable in the infobox of a film article to identify the subject of the article. Tag the poster with { {non-free poster} }, and in the non-free use rationale list the purpose as "to identify the subject of the article"
Can I use this same strategy to add these photos to their corresponding articles? Is there a template for photos analagous to the template Film poster fur? One of the photos is at Marc Culler photo. The other is with the film poster at Gerald Peary photo.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this damned image uploading labyrinth. I hope I have not taken up too much of your valuable time. You have been so kind to help me along this far. Sorry that I am somewhat technically dense.--Foobarnix (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Basically yes. It is actually better than where I would have started at Wikipedia:Upload. The reason I would have gone there is that you can get there from the toolbox (see #2); it also has the advantage that it takes you to Special:Upload with automatically created content for some cases. But since those cases do not include movie posters, and since you already know what you want on your file description page, going directly to Special:Upload is better for you.
  2. The toolbox is in the left sidebar of all pages, including this one. If it shows as a link, click on it, and it will open, showing a list of tools including Upload file. Clicking on Upload file takes you to Wikipedia:Upload.
  3. That’s exactly what I would do. (I don’t know where you saw that statement.)
  4. Yes, the Upload file page creates the initial content of the file description page. If you don’t get it right at first, you can edit the file description page like any other page.
  5. Looks good. For readability of the wikicode I would put each parameter on a new line, beginning with the | (like in the example).
  6. Sorry no. Here is a longer version of what I wrote at the Help desk: See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Non-free content must fulfill all ten criteria (including the sub-criteria). A film poster used in the infobox to identify the subject of a film article (or a logo to identify the subject of article that the logo identifies, etc) is generally considered to fulfill criterion 8. The fact that a portrait identifies the subject of a biography of a living person would seldom if ever help because the use would fail criterion 1: The portrait could almost always be replaced by a photo which could be taken and released under a free license. The Cullen photo is by Roberta Dupuis-Devlin, probably a professional photographer, and the Peary photo is probably also by a professional photographer. In order to use the photos on Wikipedia the photographers (not the subjects!) would have to release the photos under a free license, and unfortunately professional photographers are very loathe to release their work under a free license. The easiest way to get photos of the subjects would be for you or some other non-professional take a snapshot of them. The result wouldn’t be as attractive, but the articles would be reusable, which is a central Wikipedia goal.
I don’t mind spending time with you because you are earnestly learning how things work, which will make you an excellent contributor. —teb728 t c 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small breakthrough

  • I finally located and sort of understand the use of the template Non-free use rationale. Below is partly filled out template for it and also for template Non-free poster. Do I need to have both of them? Do these templates overlap in function with the template Film poster fur?

{Non-free poster}}

{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = For the Love of Movies | Portion = | Low resolution = | Purpose = to identify the subject of the article | Replaceability = | Other information = }}--Foobarnix (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going backwards. I strongly recommend you stay with your original {{Film poster fur}}. It creates a {{non-free use rationale}} with tailored content. If you use this basic template instead, you absolutely need a Source, and you really should provide text for all the parameters except Other information like so:

{Non-free use rationale
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = http://www.fortheloveofmovies.net/press-room/photos-and-posters/
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Portion = The entire poster. The entire image is needed to properly identify the film without tarnishing or misrepresenting the poster.
| Low resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| Other information =
}}

{{Film poster fur}} does all that better and much easier. Look how nicely it worked with the Avitar poster! —teb728 t c 09:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet more questions

Hello again most excellent explainer and patient person, TEB728

  1. I think you are saying that the film poster fur and the Non-free use rationale templates are mutually exclusive.
  2. Both templates contain the purpose field. The Avatar example does not have this field filled in. Was that because infobox was entered in the use field. Should I do the same, or is it helpful to put " to identify the subject of the article" in the purpose field and also put "infobox" in the use field?
  3. I am still unclear about the Non-free poster template. The Avatar example does contain this in the "Licensing:" section. Do I need to paste this template into the field on the Upload file page, or is it somehow automatically generated? If it does not appear, I will just add it later.
  4. Some of my questions could be answered if I just went ahead and created the Upload file page. But you said, "Because an article name is required, don’t upload the poster until you move your draft to article space." Can I create the Upload file page now and upload the file later? I am very unclear on this point. (I am not quite ready to move it to main article space.)
  5. I want to emphasize that my questions all along have had more to do with the simple mechanics of uploading images than with the intricacies of copyrights. When I am done, I am going to make a very simple page (with an example) of the steps needed to upload image files. Would you like to see it when I do that? [For example, I was not even aware of the fact that image files even required special pages or that step one is to click on Upload file (or alternatively go to the Special:Upload page). I would make this all clear by 1,2,3,... examples.]
  6. Both templates share some, but not all, parameters. I have made a new partially filled out (and disabled) template using all my previous information (as well as your suggestions in the Non-free use rationale example template you included) to create the template below. Is there redundant info in this template? The Avatar example does not have this much information filled in. Note in particular the fields Description, Distributor, Low_resolution, Purpose, and Replaceability. I am really just winging it here.

{Film poster fur
| Article = For the Love of Movies
| Use = Infobox
| Name = For the Love of Movies
| Distributor = LEF Foundation
| Publisher =
| Type =
| Website =
| Owner =
| Commentary =
| Description = The poster for For the Love of Movies
| Source = This poster can be found at Posters
| Portion =
| Low_resolution = Yes [when you upload, make sure you use a small version like the thumbnail on the poster page; even the "low-res" version is too large]
| Purpose = to identify the subject of the article
| Replaceability = Not replaceable. No free replacement could properly identify the film.
| other_information =
}} As always, thank you so much for your help--Foobarnix (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Something like that: {{film poster fur}} and {{non-free use rationale}} both create non-free use rationales. The latter is general purpose; the former is tailored for film posters, creating default text for most of the fields.
  2. If the Use parameter is “Infobox,” “Header,” or “Section,” film poster fur creates an excellent default Purpose. For example for Infobox it says “Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as poster art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services to film concerns and in turn marketing films to the public.” This includes the idea of “to identify the subject of the article.” If the use is something else, you have to provide your own Purpose to explain how the use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. Or if you think you can improve on the default text, you may provide your own Purpose.
  3. You provide it; otherwise Special:Upload would not know what tag to provide. (I think that Wikipedia:Upload provides a tag for some of its special cases, but then you tell it what the special case is.)
  4. You can’t do an upload without doing an upload. But can preview template results by putting the template in user space and clicking “Show preview” on the edit page.
  5. If you are talking about publishing a page to project space (i.e. Wikipedia:*), you might want as for comments at the Help desk: The helpers there know a lot more than I. They may know of a page that already does that.
  6. The shared parameters enable you to override the default values (except Article which has no default). You use them if you can improve on the default text. In your case your Source is better (more specific); for the others the default is probably better. I just wrote minimal text to show what a rationale had to contain if you used the general purpose template. BTW my [bracketed] comment on “Low resolution” was info for you, not something you would write.
—teb728 t c 11:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now understand both templates and how to upload. Soon my article will be ready for moving to article space and we will see. You are welcome to remove or archive our discussion. I have archived all of it on a personal page so that I may refer to it.
Thanks for everything TEB728.--Foobarnix (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atom

Nice catch on that help desk question/statement/thing. I would never have thought of that in a million years. :-) --Danger (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me when I was looking at my watchlist and noticed that the top line of the Toolbox in the sidebar on that page said “RSS” and “Atom”. —teb728 t c 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Still impressive to a person who can spend a solid hour looking for wallet and keys. --Danger (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONTORULE

Thanks for your comments. Don't worry, I know how things work here, that's why I appreciate your comments. Due to my relationship with the original source of information, I'm the first to assume the errors on previous versions of the article. So I'm working for improving it, and I hope now it'd be more useful for people from a encyclopedic point of view. Please, I ask you to unmercifully highlight any other possible issue. Sergioferlo (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2011 (CET)

IP bias

Even handedness sorta dictates that you drop the same template on User:Wtshymanski. It takes two to edit-war. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since your contributions log indicates you are new here, I believed you might not know about Wikipedia’s policy on Edit warring; so I thought it would be worthwhile to notify you about it. Since Wtshymanski’s contributions log shows he has been editing here since November 2004, I assume that he has become aware of the policy since then; so I believe it would be a waste of effort to notify him. (It’s not a matter of IP bias: I would consider it equally a waste of effort to notify an anon like say User:220.101.28.25, who has over 8000 edits.) But if you seriously believe Wtshymanski needs to be notified of the policy, you are could do it as I easily as I. —teb728 t c 08:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It strikes me as bias-y that you threatened me with a block, and didn't even contact him/her/shim, but I'm willing to let it go. Have a pleasant day. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is unfortunate that the standard template that I used contained a block threat. I posted it to inform you of the policy, assuming that being aware of it, you would comply (and would not need a block). —teb728 t c 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atacked First

I thought it was awkward you would erase that comment, when the user "bsuorangecrush" is the one who added fuel to the flame. Instead of taking sides you might want to review the whole converstation, I really don't care if people don't like me on here or not. SteveoJ (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with his opinion that the logos should be delete and believe his comments would have been better if he had not mentioned you, his post basically stated his opinion and presented rational (if mistaken) arguments why he disagreed with you. In contrast your post was a pure attack and had no redeeming quality. The fact that you felt attacked is no excuse for your attack. —teb728 t c 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with images

Greetings TEB728: You were a tremendous help educating me on uploading images. I have now both uploaded a Non-free poster at For the Love of Movies and a Wikimedia photograph with permission at Marc Culler. I must have done it right because neither image has been taken down yet. Thank you so much--Foobarnix (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Another editor has caused my image File:For the Love of Movies.jpg to be seriously reduced in quality. (He has evidently done this to a lot of people's work.) It is unclear to me why he did this to my poster. I thought the template Film poster fur had taken care of everything. Do you have any thoughts about this? Do not waste a lot of time thinking about it if you do not know. Thanks again as always for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reduction: The (boilerplate) text from the template says, “The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification….” The reduced image is still sufficient for that purpose. The original upload was 17.185x26.559” (at 96 px/in). That is certainly more resolution than is needed for the purpose. BTW, If you look at the edit history or the file, you will see that it was actually User:Sfan00 IMG who requested the reduction. User:Xnn is a user responds to such requests, which is why he does it a lot. —teb728 t c 08:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TEB728 Before leaving this subject, I just want to be sure I understand the policy. I did indeed originally upload a high resolution image. The producer of the film gave me informal permission in an email to use the poster, and in fact wanted me to use it—but, of course, this is legally irrelevant. Because the "fair use" principal is really just a loophole in the copyright law, it should not be used to include high quality images because that would violate the spirit of one-time-use that fair use allows. Furthermore, others could assume that the high quality image, since it is in Wikipedia, can now be used for commercial purposes. The thumbnail image gets around this problem because others cannot profitably use it because of its low resolution. I suppose that if I wanted to negotiate with the owner of the image the very complicated copyright permissions request procedure (which I assuredly do not) that I could get the high resolution image into Wikipedia. The upshot is: If you upload something using fair use, never upload anything more high res than a thumbnail.
If I have more or less summed up the situation, could you please just answer "yes" here. Thank you for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yes: I wouldn't call fair use a loophole; rather it is a feature of copyright law. Wikipedia's non-free content policy is more restrictive than fair use law (For that reason I tend to talk about non-free content rather than fair-use content.) I would say: If you upload a non-free image, make the resolution as low as will fulfil the encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 11:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures at night

Thanks for your answer on my shots not showing up in the category at commons, but the problem is still there. The file is at commons, but if you look at the category itself, the pix aren't there, but they were a couple of weeks ago. They should still be there, as that category is listed on their edit pages. Sardaka (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it at Commons:Category:Buildings and structures at night. It is the 4th file in the top row. —teb728 t c 11:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up multiple images in file history

Thanks again for your help regarding Eleonora and Ethel Olson. I also added a 1905 public domain photo of William F. Kirk to Wikimedia Commons. I must have done something wrong because the file history of this jpg. file shows four separate images even though they're all identical. Is there any way to clean this up? Thanks for any advice in this matter. Pfa (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is no way to delete the old versions of File:William F. Kirk 1905.jpg. I know there is no way to delete old version of text pages. —teb728 t c 06:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem solved and more questions

I uploaded the William F. Kirk photo with a different name and then marked the old photo for deletion as a duplicate. That solved the problem even if it was a little unorthodox.

A few years ago I wrote five articles about old-time Scandinavian entertainment. All of the articles were linked to photos but until recently none of them actually had any. Now I and another user have added public domain pictures from 1905 to 1920 to four of the articles. I would like to add one to the remaining article and then retire from the picture uploading business.

The picture I want is dated 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I am certain it is from the 1940s. It is located at the The Minneapolis Photo Collection of the Hennepin County Library. I cannot furnish a direct link. The MPC is at: http://www.hclib.org/pub/search/MplsPhotos/

To find the picture type "Slim Jim". It is number 4 of 7 pictures: M3833a.

I contacted the library and was told that it owned the photo but not the copyright. This was presumed to belong to the photographer who took the photo over 70 years ago. This photo is currently being used by a web site owned by the University of Wisconsin, and it was used on an album cover about 30 years ago. I doubt that either party owned the copyright.

The Hennepin County Library sent me a long form, which I signed and returned. It basically states that I (and not the library) am responsible in the event of a copyright violation. (Something that is very unlikely to happen.) For one thing, the photographer is almost surely deceased — as are the two men in the picture.

Otherwise I may use the photo as long as I credit it in the following way: "Courtesy of the Hennepin County Library, Minneapolis Collection, M3833a."

Can I date this 1940s and still tag it as public domain? Or what would the tag be? The library is granting me permission in a limited sense. Any advice or help in this matter would be appreciated. Pfa (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Free-speech-flag.svg

thanks for the pointer Decora (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh DeHaven

I corrected your edit because I corrected the spelling of the entire article title. GROW THE HECK UP!!!!! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page. I'll ask you once. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be reasonable

I do not see why you needed to remove the photo I had on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hg3300 "In the first place I removed the image, for non-free images may not be used except in articles. (They may not be use in user pages either.)"

  • Yeah...what the heck does that mean? What the heck is a "non-free image"?
  • I'll admit I don't understand this copyright stuff so I just "guessed" what to use. Maybe I'm wrong.
  • What's the REAL difference between "free" and "non-free" on wikipedia? Because clearly it has nothing to do with money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Free" means "free of restriction" not "free of cost." Specifically, a free image is one the may be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use and modification. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the policy. Specifically see WP:NFCC#9 for why a non-free image may be used only in an article. —teb728 t c 07:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rejiggering info

I am going to edit out the word for word and just give broad info. as is done in many synopses of info. from the information in question. I am thinking that takes care of copy r. issues. Check it out Technocracy Movement comment on the talk page then please. Also if you would edit the information to make it a non issue after I do if there is still a problem that would be nice. Just deleting it and not re editing removes some good information and a nice citation of some history of the thing in question and if it is just changing it a little,please help to do that, instead of deleting the info and the link. Thanks Fidel Drumbo 10:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Thank you

The Curator Barnstar
I'm so grateful to you for answering my call at WP:MCQ. Thank you for helping figure out which images we can retain. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I want to discourage you from looking more, but I'm a woman of my word. :) I really am grateful. I hate that this has come up at such a bad time for Tony, especially. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TEB728: FYI, I commented more at that discussion regarding which images can be relabeled. Since it's moved up on the page I didn't want it to be overlooked. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just now replied there. —teb728 t c 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
For giving extremely cogent advice on how to make a map that will be acceptable to Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response on the Help Desk

Hey there. While I truly appreciate your response to my question on the Help Desk, I am fairly ignorant of the ins/outs of copyright on photos. You said 'No Derivative Works' is not an acceptable restriction" That is confusing to me. So it's not restricted...but not restricted from what? Anyway, I re-asked the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Trying to determine if an image is OK to use if you want to weigh in there. If your busy, I'm sure someone else will get it...but I wanted to let you know since I mentioned your response in the new post (and that I was confused by it), so I thought it polite to inform you. Thanks again. Quinn ✩ STARRY NIGHT 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock? Or meat?

Doesn't this series of edits look a little odd, bearing in mind what happened yesterday regarding those images/articles? Special:Contributions/Bn_bt_ec01 - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varian photos and photo credit

Hi TEB, thanks for helping me keep the Varian images. However, I noticed you tossed the Ansel Adams credit on the Russell and Sigurd Varian photos. Now I did look at the WP guidelines that normally discourage such things, and here I think there is a place to make an exception: Ansel Adams was, of course, a very famous photographer, and he also happened to be a good personal friend of both men, but Russell in particular. For that reason, I think the credit is relevant here and within the scope of the WP guidelines. But I'd be curious to see if you concur or not. Montanabw(talk) 07:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reply that Adams wasn't mention in the article, but on checking he is. So OK. (Interesting guys!) —teb728 t c 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting family. I got to this via writing the Sheila Varian article. Montanabw(talk) 18:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

A minor, tiny, little quibble - I hope you don't mind constructive feedback; you said on HD removed your email address because we do not reply via email [1].

I know what you mean, and it's kinda true, but not entirely. It's true that, in general, requests on HD are unlikely to be answered via email. Although, they could be. For example, yesterday, there was some nasty business over a user complaining about an article about her - she gave an email addy. Although the addy was removed, I still wrote to her, to help sort it out.

Anyone could email a user - no harm there. The reason we remove email addresses is, to prevent them getting loads and loads of spam - because bots will crawl our pages and extract addresses, in order to email people fantastic offers about Viagra, etc.

So it'd be better to say, "removed your email address so you don't get loads of spam" or something like that.

As I say - a tiny, tiny quibble. Please keep up the good work; your answers are generally excellent. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. —teb728 t c 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pages on Law firms. Mtking (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply re: keeping oneself out of Wikipedia

Ummm... No biggie, but I think that WP:BEANS applies here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On personal attacks

Hi TEB728,

I saw your redaction and the advice to read WP:PA.

1 which of WP:NPA#WHATIS are you referring to? I can only surmise "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" but the evidence speaks for itself 1.1 he followed me to the help desk 1.2 yet he wasn't named in the request for help 2 assuming you agree that following me like this is not acceptable, how would you advise me best to deal with it?

Thank you for your attention. Obliged. FightingMac (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually with reference to the lede, “Comment on content, not the contributor.” WHATIS is not an exhaustive list, just some worst cases. But now that you mention it, your accusation did lack merit. There are other likely reasons for his visiting the Help desk and its talk page: For example, it may be on his watchlist; I know he does post there every few days. And surely the reason for his posting at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Should a noindex tag be placed on the page? is that Obsidian Soul referred him to that discussion from User talk:Obsidian Soul#help desk. Even if he followed you to the Help desk from watching your contributions, there is nothing wrong with that: I frequently watch contributions of editors I think are problematic. (If you want to watch my contributions, they are at Special:Contributions/TEB728.)
So how do I advise you to proceed? In the first place comment on content, NEVER on the contributor. Making personal attacks like “Wikipedia busybody” or speculating on another editor’s motives turns people off and tends to make them ignore any good points you make. Second, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Off2riorob might be mistaken about interlanguage links, but I am confident that he is here to improve the encyclopedia. You will deal with him more effectively if you realize that. E.g. understanding his point of view would make you more able to counter it. If all else fails, proceed with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but remember that the Help desk and its talk page are NOT forums for dispute resolution.
I have changed the section title to the real topic of this discussion (as is my right on my talk page). —teb728 t c 08:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Help desk is to give advice on how to use and edit Wikipedia. It is not to deal with personal disputes or content disputes. The following restatement of your post would have been in-scope for the Help desk:
“I am having a disagreement with another editor (Off2riorob). He thinks (if I understand him correctly) that interlanguage links should never be used in articles, but I think they are sometimes useful (for example [here]). Is there a guideline on the use of interlanguage links? If not, does anyone have a third opinion? Off2riorob and I have discussed the issue [here] and [there] and have not come to any compromise. How should we proceed?”
Such a post might have gotten a response like:
“WP:LAYOUT#External links says InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should only appear in the External links section. Probably the reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. But if there were an interlanguage link in the body of an article, and a mirror site did not mirror the foreign language article, the link would be broken.”
—teb728 t c 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this TEB728.
Regarding WP:LAYOUT#External links, interlanguage links are not [[WP:LAYOUT#External links | InterWikimedia links]]. The purpose of interlanguage links is clearly laid out at Help:Interlanguage_links#Purpose. Off2riorob accepts this is so (he opined it was badly laid out but he does accept it's policy) but was essentially saying it should not be policy in his disobliging manner eloquently expressed thus by  Obsidi♠nSoul
  • Am I the only one supposed to assume AGF then and you're exempted from it because you're too awesome or something? Everything you've said so far is laced so thickly with condescension, it's no wonder FightingMac came to those conclusions.
The position is that I applied for a Third opinion and have obtained one favourable to my position i.e. supporting my use of interlanguage links whatever Off2riorob might happen to think of them and in due course I will be contacting Off2riorob to see whether he accepts this opinion.
Your suggested in-scope edit no doubt preferrable. I'll remember next time I have to apply Help desk (this was the first time I've had to in 10 years of editing Wikipedia).
I notice you imply my contributions are problematic.
Of course Off2riorob followed me on my user name to the Help desk and given his creepy interrogation of me regarding his anxiety that I had edit warred him under a sock over Roman Polanski and Frederic Mitterand ( doubly creepy and threatening because both of these are infamous for extremely sordid sexual issues) I should think that reasonable enough cause for concern in the circumstances. Plainly you do not. Whether I elevate my concerns or not depend in part on how repentant (he's good at apologising, has to be on his form - blocked ten times so far) I sense off2riorob is when I contact him, but if I do elevate it I shall likely cite you as an example of how difficult it is to get heard on these predatory issues which we know are turning away so many new editors away from Wikipedia. Perhaps the help desk should deal with them. Just a suggestion.
You did not explain to me why you think I was making a personal attack, but I see you do at least concede it was none of WP:NPA#WHATIS thank goodness.
Thank you for your time and attention. Appreciated. I will let you know if I do elevate and cite you. FightingMac (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for providing the translation of Michèle Sabban. I've added the standard Translation template (which gets it categorised as a translated page, put the Brit flag on it (assuming you're Brit, change it to American otherwise) and added Wikiproject France. Thanks again. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you. My slowness in replying is because you give a lot to reply to, and I have other things to do. —teb728 t c 12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to respond TEB. Just thanks from me. And absolutely creating the stub must have taken you some time. It is appreciated but perhaps you better understand the point about it not always being practicable to do. There's also Irène Théry to be getting on with. :-) FightingMac (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I've noticed that in your contributions you tend to content yourself with making improvements to various articles in very non-showy ways, and helping out new Wikipedians when they have questions. You thought you could get away with it without being noticed, didn't you! Well, that won't stand. For all you help in many areas, I award you this shiny trinket. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewontin's Argument

Fllowing the recen afd our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content at Sacred Texts is PD

Please see sacred texts copyright disclaimer, virtually all of sacred texts is PD, and this source was last published in 1910. It is not considered good form to reproduce pd text wholesale, but that's not the same as it being a copyvio (and of course Wikipedia got started by importing the text of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Looking for the copyright status of the source, I got as far as the footer text at the Sacred Texts home page, which says that some of the text is PD and some all rights reserved. I regret I didn’t go one step further to the “Site copyrights” link there, which is the page you link to. Avicennasis pointed out at HD that that particular source was PD, and when I saw that, I withdrew the copyvio nomination. (I’m allowed to do that, right?) Is there anything else I should do to right things? —teb728 t c 12:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're fine, thanks for withdrawing. I happen to use sacred texts, so I know its copyright policies. The proposed article was a bit problematic anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply to "In reply to your post at Media copyright questions"

You asked recently at MCQ for a “foundation statement … to justify that fair use images can't be used in news stories”; since you may still be hibernating when my reply is there is archived, let me reply also here: Although it is not exactly true that fair use images may never be used in news stories, undoubtedly what you are looking for is wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which says that if a Wikimedia project allows any non-free content at all, it may be used only in accord with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) and that an “EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals”. The EDP for English Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 01:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teb. I moved discussion here because it's too little too late for me.
Just remember that deleting is a very forceful 'un-wik' action to be taken in cases of legal necessity. If you're gonna do it, you be damn polite about it and you better take a lot of time to walk people through the steps of why it's the right thing.
The deleters don't have that time-- they're too busy racking up deletions. So we shared pieces of each others' minds, had an unpleasant experience for everyone, managed to even degrade some articles in the process. Good work for us all.
Anyway, that's not you, you weren't involved. You just watch me burning out and notice that if you're going to piss on someone's work, be sure to do so politely, especially if they know more about copyright than you do.
IF this is the only wiki you edit, then I probably sound crazy. But I edit lots, and none are as hostile as EnWP. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me

Dear Editor,

I have written many versions of the information on the non profit school 'The British school of Bucharest" and each time I posted it as an article on Wikipdia it was deleted as advertising.

There are many Wikipedia lists asking for additional schools to add their information to complete the lists:

Categories: Education in Bucharest | International schools in Romania | High schools in Bucharest

I hav checked and the information I have on the page made at the user address below is based on the information offered by other school and is much less than many school have listed, such as AISB Bucharest.

Can you please tell me how I can have the information checked and tagged as acceptable before I load it as an article using 'article wizard'.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Madabucharest&diff=0&oldid=443833205

For all changes since your last visit. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Madabucharest for the current revision.

Thank you for your help. It will be a relief to finally get this done.

Best regards,

Mada 07:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Mada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madabucharest (talk • contribs)

Hi Mada,
I made some superficial changes to your draft which don’t really affect the acceptability of the article—mostly changing external links to internal links to Wikipedia articles, also changing section headings according to the Wikipedia:Manual of style.
The most important thing I notice about the draft is an almost total lack of references to reliable sources. I converted your external link about the ISI inspection into the only reference. All facts need to be verified by citations to reliable sources.
Oh!! I just noticed there already is an article International British School of Bucharest. Is that the same school?!
I don’t understand why you hesitate to use the Article Wizard. It helps beginners create draft articles, and I believe it finishes by submitting the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which gives the kind of assessment you are looking for. Since I have never used either the Wizard or AFC, I can’t help you with the details of using them. —teb728 t c 11:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please.

Hi TEB728! :D

I really need your help here. I'm currently writing a new article about a person who passed away last week, on the 9th. Before I go any further, this person, is notable, as I now have sources to coobarate that :) The only thing that I'll need, is an image. This person is all over the internet, but I can't seem to find an image of him on the internet that is labelled for reuse --- nothing on Google; Commons; Flickr --- they're all labled "All Rights Reserved" which is really annoying me :) Do you have any suggestions of what I can do? Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the article needs an picture? Pictures are nice to have, but an article doesn't actually need one. I would just publish the article without a picture but keep my eyes open in case something turns up. —teb728 t c 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just saying the article would look better :) But since the person has died - who becomes the legal copyright holder of an image of him (Sorry if that makes no sense whatsover, not good with copyright etc.) Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases the photographer (same as when he was alive). The exception is when the photographer was doing work for hire; in that case the photographer's employer (same as when he was alive). —teb728 t c 12:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you! :D fingers crossed they somehow release images into public domain, doubt it, but still. ;) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with my dispute on Jo Russell's page

Hughpugh still won't respond to me and I need to find out things :but NO_ONE will tell me what is wrong with our version. Hughpugh's version is littered with ERRORS which should not be on.. Mine is COMPLETELY FACTUAL but is not allowed on wiki. Can someone please tell me how to find out what is wrong with my version. Which bits? and why Hughpugh who knows nothing about my client, is allowed to type any old rubbish and completely delete the facts? I understand there should be no bias but how is it that Hughpugh can type things that are incorrectFoxyB (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teb728&oldid=446112086"