User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22

A question

NYSCholar, I can't think how to ask this without it sounding rude, but I have to anyway. Why do see a need to end every second posting with a "... going offline" comment? Honestly, who cares? Do you think you could stop this please as it seems to imply that the discussion must await your return before continuing. Talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not your editing schedule. I just find it annoying. Sorry. Moondyne 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my comments indicating that I would be offline after them as a courtesy to others, who might wonder why I haven't replied to them quickly or might not be doing so at all. Not everyone checks user and talk pages to see courtesy postings about online status, etc. Sorry that you find my attempt to be courteous to other Wikipedians "annoying". In the past, you (and others) have not [understood] my comments [as I have intended them] (see the archives); as you (and others) seem to mistinterpret what I write and to read intentions in what I write that I do not have, I have suggested that you (and some of these others) not engage in these kinds of exchanges with me; I do not find them productive. I am replying only out of courtesy (WP:CIV) and so that eventually this exchange can be archived by the automatic archiving bot. --NYScholar (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What some people find "annoying", others may find helpful or useful. One cannot please (or not "annoy") everyone. Sometimes people just have to be more tolerant of others' differences of style. WP:CIV, Wikipedia:Etiquette, particularly Wikipedia:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, relate to this point. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Before going back offline, I did strike out apparently-"annoying" comment at end of last section of comments in an article. When I go offline after a comment, I sometimes state that in my editing history summary, so people will understand why I might not be back to reply soon or at all to their responses. --NYScholar (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[One link in another article led me to still other articles with some problems; I've tried to tag them w/ the pertinent templates and updated their talk pages. Finally, I am logging back out. I'll leave such problems to others to correct. I have provided the alerts on the talk page(s) and/or via those templates. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees

[moving to talk page of article in question, where this discussion belongs. --NYScholar (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)] [I also updated my comments on the talk page of that article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)]

Hi there

A bit of advice: please keep your messages and talk page postings as brief and succinct as possible. Your writing is rather lengthy and difficult to read in a single block of text.

More advice: try to limit your time on talk pages. That's where fights begin, and we know what happened the last time.

Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout a shiny?

I'm not really a barnstar guy, but here!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		I've seen you around, mostly at Heath Ledger, quietly and unassumedly adding valuable content to a high profile article. You work with others, you have an excellent attention to detail, and I've enjoyed reading your work! I simply wanted you to know that your work here has not gone unnoticed. You are invaluable to the success of this project, I wish there were more like you! -- Keeper ǀ 76 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Much appreciated!! --NYScholar (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to move on

Hey there, I decided to cancel my adoption. You don't need me -- you are doing very well on your own, as this bit of praise shows. I am glad I could help you out when I did -- call on me if you ever need assistance. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too, Ecoleetage. Much appreciated! --NYScholar (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hey, just wanted to see how life was (mis)treating you on Wikipedia. Hope all is well.

Listen, I am in the midst of a jolly brawl in this discussion: [1] -- if you have time, feel free to come over and let the good folks on Wikipedia what you think of this. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ecoleetage. I was just about to log out to get a project in the mail when I saw this. I'll take a look later after I get back from doing the work, later tonight. Thanks for checking in. Much appreciated. --NYScholar (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. It is great to see you active on Wikipedia -- keep the great work flowing! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, someone likes apples! Thanks for your input in the Rogers Orchards article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[moved from the article page:] E: Note: re: your [I know] joking comment about my liking apples ... ; actually, I have no interest in apples [or orchards] per se; just wanted to help out with format since you asked me to take a look at discussion relating to this article; I am not engaged with the subject or by the subject per se at all. No interest in Connecticut, agriculture, etc.; just in the format of the article. Otherwise, no time to do anything in Wikipedia, as I will be away from home computer or doing other things for much of the time after this. --NYScholar (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, Ecoleetage. --NYScholar (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there, if you can get a moment, can you please take a look at this [2] -- if you feel I am correct, feel free to jump in. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there and also did some editing of the article, Bruce McAbee, to define the subject's notability at the very beginning (lede). Hope that helps clarify the notability issue. Otherwise, I will be offline doing other things. --NYScholar (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it does, too! The guy who nominated the article for AfD is quite the man: he failed to tell me the article was being considered for deletion, he accused me of sockpuppetry, he insulted a new editor as an SPA -- and his arguments are strictly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ah, at least it keeps us out of the pool halls, no? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here is another one for your consideration. But be forewarned, this one requires a strong does of WP:IAR: [3]. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded. --NYScholar (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are an extraordinary editor. Truly. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! [It is very nice to be appreciated!!] --NYScholar (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey, I wanted to make a request and I hope it is not a bother. I am being nominated for the role of admin, and I wanted to cite the circumstances of how we met as an example of what I've done here. However, I don't know if you would be comfortable having that mentioned in my RfA. I am asking you here (at the risk of being accused of canvassing) simply because I have no way to reach you privately. If you would prefer to tell the story when the RfA is in progress, I would have no problems. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I myself am not and would not be comfortable with dredging the "circumstances" up again at all. You have so many other positive accolades of greater longevity to refer to that to do so would be better both for me and, I think, for you (i.e., focusing on the positive). Your role as mentor and mine as adoptee was so short a time period in relation to your total work in Wikipedia. Plus, I myself really don't want to "tell the story" at all (it's still very close in time).

Of course, I am happy to say, in general, that I have found you very helpful, congenial, and a positive model of editing in Wikipedia etc. But to go over any of those contextual details is (1) not palatable at all to me; and (2) not something I want to take my own time doing.

I hope that you understand.

I was just about to sign off from Wikiepdia for what I hope will be an extended time period. I've spent far too much time trying to work on the articles that you brought to my attention, have become frustrated by the situation re: the photographs in an article you asked me to help rescue, which I fear jeopardize its existence (due to earlier attempts to delete it; why give it a potential "copyright violation" issue to distract from its actual content?).

If I'm not here, it will be difficult to contact me at all, and I certainly do not want to get involved in any kind of administrative matter. (I am sure you understand why. I'm exhausted by the image situation and all that editing I've done recently. I'm back to taking your advice and staying out of talk pages, and that includes administrative discussions.)

I wish you luck in attempting to become an administrator. I am surprised at your wish to become one, though; I thought you had mentioned somewhere that you did not want to be one and just wanted to add content to Wikipedia.

I think there is far too much time spent in Wikipedia "administrating" by far too many people and too little time actually working on improving the qualitiy and reliability of its articles (as I think you may have observed too). Administration is so counter-productively time-consuming in Wikipedia due to all the horrendous battles and edit wars and vandalism. I don't know how anything done soon will ameliorate that situation.

Is it possible simply not to involve me in this Rfa at all? People can look at your comments to me and mine to you, which are all a matter of public record (as they are archived--in my archive anyway). As for this discussion: I (or you) might like to delete it soon, but, it's here for the time being as my response to your request. If it's something we can delete, from this talk page and also not archive, please let me know. This is the only place I have to respond to your request. --NYScholar (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to blank the page, no problemo. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008

Image uploading

This explains what I was getting at earlier. It has been decided that in order for a work to be free, for Wikimedia's purposes, it needs to be out of copyright, or under a free license, in both the United States and the country of origin. I agreed from the start the images from Poland are copyrighted, but I am looking to see what else needs to be done. But I personally think that we should remove the reference to the youtube video and delete one of the actual photos. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But this image has been uploaded to Wikipedia, not Wikipedia Commons. The earlier version of the image was deleted from Wikipedia Commons due to "copyright violation" by an administrator [Ed. (NYS): corr.]. --NYScholar (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [corr. --NYScholar (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

The source is YouTube; the uploader took the material from YouTube and from a blog which took the image from that very deleted Wikipedia image from Wikipedia Commons; the copyright violations are in the uploader's sources. --NYScholar (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no "actual photo"; there is just a YouTube copy of an image taken from elsewhere; there is no way to know who photographed it; the video on YouTube is a compilation of stills taken from unidentified sources. It is wholly unreliable as a source. --NYScholar (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Uploaders in Wikipedia have to cite their actual sources; the photograph is not taken by this uploader (Poeticbent). The one uploaded to Wikipedia Commons was uploaded by another user in 2006 who hasn't been back since [2007]; it was deleted recently due to "copyright violation"; that user created the Kwoka article, which was almost deleted due to "notability" concerns; I've worked hard to document "notability"; the dubious image(s) should not jeopardize that article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to look at the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czesława Kwoka by User:Ecoleetage around August 28, 2008. Since then, I have worked hard to develop the article with sources of notability so that it could be kept in Wikipedia and other related articles on Wilhelm Brasse (Auschwitz photographer) and The Portraitist, a film about him. My awareness of Poeticbent only occurred in relation to what I and many others have regarded as the problematic images that Poeticbent has uploaded to Wikipedia, which I noticed only since August 28, 2008. My concern is with the integrity of the articles about Kwoka, Brasse, and the film; not about any one particular uploader. There is nothing "personal" about my discussion of the potential violations of Wikipedia image policies and guidelines relating to potential copyright violations, as I have investigated the sources for the articles that I have edited. I am one of the major contributors to all three articles and created two of them. The creator of the article on Czesława Kwoka (See its editing history)[4] (contributions listed there) also uploaded an image to Wikipedia Commons (and Wikipedia) which has since been deleted by an administrator [Ed. (NYS): corr.] (not I) for "copyright violation". The images uploaded by Poeticbent all derive from the Museum exhibition for Block no. 6: The Lives of the Prisoners; the copyright violations being perceived have to do with the larger photographic image previously deleted from which the 3-pose photograph and the single enlarged pose image have been copied. --NYScholar (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[added link to first version of the article; one can follow the editing history after that; Skyliber has not edited Wikipedia since 2007 and is the uploader of the image deleted from Wikipedia Commons for "copyright violation" by an administrator [Ed. (NYS): corr.]; the WC image page has related discussion and Skyliber's talk page in WC has discussion, I think. --NYScholar (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

[The original name of the deleted image is: Image:czeslawakwoka.jpg (log via that link is here); it was deleted from Wikipedia Commons prior to the uploading of the related images with fair use rationales by Poeticbent to Wikipedia; those are currently being reviewed: WP:FUR or WP:NFR. --NYScholar (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)]

Deleted offensive personal attack and threatening uncivil comments by an anonymous IP user; See "N.B." above. I delete unsigned comments and uncivil comments from my user talk space. The discussion is clearly taking place in WP:FUR/WP:NFR; comments can be made about the matter there. I maintain this user talk page as stated. The comments removed are visible in editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message

No problem :) After seeing the IP at WP:OPD, I immediately found out where it came from through Google. Spellcast (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)