User talk:Stephen Ewen/Archive 3

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

war image

Hi David. Thanks for your contributions to CZ! Please do me a huge favor and review the images you recently uploaded. They lack licensing information. Please see Help:Images#Copyrights and kindly remedy this situation. Thanks! -

Unfortunately, I've looked for copyright information and found none. I have attempted to contact the person who used it and I am waiting for them to contact me. --David Marcoe 19:34, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


I noticed your note about using for online texts but didn't know what that was so I clicked on the link, which timed out...

Webcitation sounds like a good resource/service, but this makes me wonder if it is reliable. I'll try the link again later, but I was wondering what your experience has been with that site. Thanks --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:33, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

See,732.0.html Stephen Ewen 15:59, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Need a little more information about a reported problem

You recently posted the following on my talk page: "Hi David. Thanks for your contributions to CZ! Please do me a huge favor and review the images you recently uploaded. One or more lack licensing information or has been uploaded from Wikimedia Commons and there is a problem with the author using a pseudonym. Please see Help:Images#Copyrights to determine the exact problem and kindly remedy this situation. Thanks!"

First, I wanted to make sure this was really intended for me, as my name isn't David. If so, then I can't find any problems with the images I uploaded. All appear to be correctly identified, and are either original to Citizendium, or had been previously uploaded under my own, non-pseudonym name at Wikipedia. If needed I can rescan the images, but if I was told specifically which ones were the problem that would be a big help. The articles in question are Telephone Newspaper, Reginald Fessenden, and Guglielmo Marconi.Thomas H. White 04:51, 2 April 2007 (CDT) Also SOS page. Thomas H. White 10:29, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the name mixup, I was dealing with lots of the same issue. The images are problematic. Who took the photo? Who holds it's copyright? Is it in the public domain. If so, say so. If not, get permission. Stephen Ewen 10:57, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
I believe each of the images is now fully documented according to standards. Thomas H. White 17:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, Tom. :-) Stephen Ewen 20:26, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


Hello. Where seems to be the problem? All the images that I have uploaded have licenses that are in accordance with [1]. So far I haven't uploaded images from Wikimedia Commons or from people that use pseudonyms, so I don't know what are you talking about. The images that I brought here come from the Flickr website; all have Creative Commons licences (it says here that you can use "any Creative Commons license" [2]) and all have the real name of author of the image, not a pseudonym. Actually, I think that it should be clear in Help:Images that all images should have the real name of the author, since there are other sites besides Wikimedia Commons where contributors can use pseudonyms. --José Leonardo Andrade 09:19, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

See Help:Images#.22Fair_use.22 and Image:AnnCoulter01.jpg. Thanks, Stephen Ewen 11:01, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

And...? Did I upload any fair-use images? I have nothing to do with that Ann Coulter image, I actually presented alternatives to the person who uploaded it (see talk page of that image). It seems to me that you are confused. --José Leonardo Andrade 11:26, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

ah, it seems to me I am. I apologize for the trouble! Stephen Ewen 12:39, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Regarding image for Julius Axelrod you flagged, the reference to US government was included. The WP template to US Government works has not been ported to Cz yet, as far as I can tell. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if you would add that. Thanks. -ScottYoung 06:24, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Scott, we just developed a new template system for public domain media. See here: Template:PD. I applied it on the image page for the Julius Axelrod photo. --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:13, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Steve, do I need to add an operant for images from the Federal Government? I don't want to make use of the template any more complicated than it already is. It would end up being a fifth option that would look like this: {{PD|gov}} --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:19, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Just go by your best judgment. The goal should be ease for the user. How to reach that goal by balancing it between available operants and an overwhelming barrage of available templates is something we'll probably just have to work out in practice. Just use your best judgment and dive on in. Also, take a fresh look at Special:Uploads and note the new drop down box for selecting licenses, which is populated at MediaWiki:Licenses and pipes in the templates we are creating. UPDATE: Now that I see how MediaWiki:Licenses works, which just got installed a few hours ago, it is probably going to be the better option to err on the side of creating the barrage of available templates, so each specific one can simply be selected from the drop down box at Special:Upload. The operants will still be available for those who wish to use them. This does make template creation more straightforward, if more numerous. Stephen Ewen 01:23, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Re [3]

Thank you for informing me about Help:Images#Copyrights. To the best of my knowledge, all of the images I have uploaded include licensing information, and have either been released under free licenses or are in the public domain. Therefore, I assume that your comment refers to some images which I have uploaded from the Wikimedia Commons, whose authors used pseudonyms. Neither Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia_or_Wikimedia_Commons nor Help:Images are linked from CZ:Policy Outline or CZ:Project_Home#Policy. Thus, in reviewing the Citizendium's policies, I was not informed of the policies stated in Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia_or_Wikimedia_Commons. A link to these policies was added to MediaWiki:Uploadtext on April 2 [4], after I had uploaded the images in question. Moreover, the provisions regarding "Images from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons" were added to Help:Images on March 28, after I had uploaded all but one of the images that were submitted to the Wikimedia Commons using pseudonyms. I do not regard Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia_or_Wikimedia_Commons as a corollary of the real names requirement stated in The Citizendium's Statement of Fundamental Policies, since it is still permissible to submit the text of Wikipedia articles, which are largely of anonymous authorship, to the Citizendium, provided that one intends to work on and improve such articles here.

Nonetheless, if the requirements stated in Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia_or_Wikimedia_Commons are to be applied ex post facto to images that I uploaded prior to their enactment, I can create a list of images that I uploaded from the Wikimedia Commons whose authors cannot be identified by their real names, which would need to be deleted pursuant to this policy. Alternatively, if this policy applies only to images uploaded after its enactment, only Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg would need to be deleted. David Ellis 23:22, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

David, you are not to be blamed here in any way. The info about not uploading images from WP or the Commons from pseudonymous uploaders has been around since Feb 14 - see here - admittedly not in the best place, which is why I recently placed it in Help:Images, in CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians, and requested the techs put it at Special:Upload. As we are in a beta, we are admitting we do not have everything worked out - yet! I do wish it were possible to anticipate everything in advance! As for why WP text and not images - that is an interesting question you should perhaps raise further on Images Help and maybe the forums. We are relying heavily on users here to point out what may wind up to be "bugs". We really do welcome your help. In the meantime, I do really appreciate you tolerating a few inevitable hassles while we go through our beta. - Stephen Ewen 01:04, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
The following is a list of the images that I have uploaded from the Wikipedia Commons whose authors cannot be identified by their real names, and would need to be deleted pursuant to Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia_or_Wikimedia_Commons:
Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg
Image:Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg
Image:Aurora australis panorama.jpg
Image:Red sunset.jpg
Image:Horseshoe Bend 1 md.jpg
Image:Monument Valley 2.jpg
Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg
Image:Pennant coralfish melb aquarium edit2.jpg
Image:Hebe x franciscana.jpg
Image:Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.jpg
Image:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg
David Ellis 18:46, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

your input needed

Hi Stephen, could you help us figure out what is going in at macromolecular chemistry and physical chemistry? The discussion is currently at Matt's talk page starting at this secion User_talk:D._Matt_Innis#Macromolecular_chemistry Chris Day (Talk) 13:49, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

OK, Matt just told what happened. Chris Day (Talk) 14:04, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
Steve, I restored the deleted Macromolecular chemistry/Draft talk page to make sure we did not miss anything. Chris, it looks like everything is still on the original talk minus the approval tag, so not missing anything. Guess we should delete the article/draft pages as well as the talk/draft pages. I'll let Steve do it since it was my mess up in the first place. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:15, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Metal Gear Solid article

Hello, thanks for creating my account. Just now, I started the Metal Gear Solid article and am planning to expand it. However, I read here not to create orphan pages, which this article is at the moment. I created it from scratch, but on Wikipedia, it is a featured article, and is one of the more famous PlayStation games. Do you think that I should continue improving and expanding this article or would it be better to focus on one that has been red-linked from elsewhere? Thanks again. Oliver Smith 10:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Your choice, Oliver! - Stephen Ewen 14:35, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Great - I was just checking that it was fine to create orphaned pages. Oliver Smith 15:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I see you are probably meaning creating "stubs". You should see CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians for the relevant policy on that. Stephen Ewen 15:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


Hi Stephen,

Hope I didn't interrupt any testing by unblocking some IPs just now. Just keeping a close eye on the blog log right now due to the issue we had last night.

Cheers, --Mike Johnson 14:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Roger that. ;-) - Stephen Ewen 14:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


Dear Mr. Ewen, thanks for your message. I will contact Mr. Snible and I will forward the email to you if he agrees to release it under public domain. Cheers! Soso Mamukelashvili 16:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Thomas Jefferson image...

Hello Stephen,

I apologize for the Jefferson image. I have contacted the Library of Congress by phone numerous times whenever I would read "photo may be restricted" and they would always redirect me to general copyright information that was irrelevant, or the librarian couldn't find the copyright info for the photos in question. The librarian would always tell me that the photos were donated to the LOC and in the majority of cases the LOC simply didn't know the copyright status and that is why it was listed as "copyright may be restricted" as a legal precaution.

I strongly do not believe that the image was copyrighted because it was an aged photograph of the Jefferson painting located in the U.S. Capital. I would have contacted them by phone but all of the information that the library has about the photo is presented on the page. It's really impossible to get the copyright status for an image when it has the following label. I just wanted to clarify the issue to let you know that I care deeply about Citizendium complying with US copyright law.

In the future should I just ignore LOC photos where the copyright status is undetermined? But either way I will do what Citizendium directs but it's just a huge headache. Thanks for understanding.

Eric Pokorny 02:06, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Oh boy, do I know images can be a huge headache! Sounds like you were being directed into a black hole by the LOC. Can you show me the exact location of that image at LOC? — Stephen Ewen 02:12, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Is this resolved yet? As far as I see Jefferson doesn't have a picture yet on his article. Yi Zhe Wu 20:10, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Another image question

  • Do you know if it is kosher to use images of foreign currency? I had this in mind.
  • Also, I found this image on Wikipedia. It says that it has been released to the public domain but the uploader uses a nickname, so I'm not sure if I can use it.

Thanks --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:24, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Low resolution images of currency are considered in the public domain.
To the other, with a little Cyber sleuthing done we do not need to upload that image from Wikipedia. Whois says the source of the photo,, was registered by Marco Palma[5], whose first name appears (at least) here where you can contact him to ask him for permission to use the photos under whatever terms he chooses (I would address him in your message as Mr. Marco Palma as a way of receiving implicit acknowledgment of that fact and not having to directly ask him if that is his real name). In point of fact, we have no clue whatsover - no proof - that the pseudonymous person who uploaded them to WP represented the licensing information with integrity. The images could be pure rips. This is actually a part of what makes so many of the "free content" images at WP a charade, a house of cards. No one can actually use such images as free content unless they are tied to someone with a real name where things can be verified! It's a nightmare.
But what I have described is I think the best path to us using the image. Contact the author. Ask him to release them or grant permission and then follow the steps at Help:Images#Images_by_permission_and_documenting_releases.
Stephen Ewen 11:46, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Tim Chambers gets welcomed

Hi, Stephen. Thanks for the friendly welcome yesterday. Re. my professionalism, your point is well-taken. I need to remember to get out of the tshirt and jeans I wore when working on WP, and put on my coat and tie here. I promise not to use the s-word anymore unless I'm talking about vacuum cleaners. ;) <>< Tim Chambers 23:41, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Tim. Thanks for the note. But do note our acceptance of casual attire! Here :-). — Stephen Ewen 00:07, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Project Gutenberg

Thanks for letting me know. --Peter J. King  Talk  16:37, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

whats your objection to e-mail off wiki?

or whats the reason to delete my short remark as I do think it can or is important?

Only because the implication is because everyone MUST therefore have email enabled. We'd need a policy stating that for the other to work. — Stephen Ewen 00:51, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


is undo :)

Copyrighted image

I'm not sure if you have admin privileges or not, but if you do, could you please delete Linus torvalds.png? It is a copyrighted image. Thanks, --Joshua David Williams 12:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Done. I am a constable. See this under "Constables" for what that means. — Stephen Ewen 12:34, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you :) Also, I do not understand what the problem is with Image:Gnome_screenshot.png. It's placed under the GNU license, not Creative Commons. If I need to provide proof for this also, that's fine. My cousin took this screenshot. Thanks for your help! --Joshua David Williams 12:38, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes, you need to provide proof. Also, you need to provide it for Image:Linus_torvalds.jpg. I went ahead and did it for that image. — Stephen Ewen 12:50, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Okay, thank you for being patient with me. I'm not very good with the copyright information. I'll try to get a scan of my cousin's signature for the GNOME screenshot sometime today. --Joshua David Williams 12:52, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
An email will work. It is just a screenshot in this case. — Stephen Ewen 12:54, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
How about an IM log? I have that. --Joshua David Williams 12:54, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
That will work if is screen name is his real name. — Stephen Ewen 13:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
I use aliases in Gaim, so his name shows as "Clint" instead of his screen name. I'm not sure whether that's okay or not. I could always ask him to send an e-mail when he gets home though. --Joshua David Williams 13:04, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Sounds good. Just follow this. — Stephen Ewen 14:06, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

BTW, you can probably get permission for any image of Linus you wish. Here is his homepage and here is a unique historical photo you can ask him about. — Stephen Ewen 13:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

That's a terrific suggestion! I'll do just that. I really wish to avoid using the same image as Wikipedia uses. --Joshua David Williams 13:20, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
We have the same wish. ;-) — Stephen Ewen 14:03, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Dear Stephen, thanks for your kind welcome. I added( I hope I could) the copyright notice to the image in my user page. I hope it is ok. thanks, Olcay Sert 12:34, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

I placed the release info on the image page. No need to put it on your userpage. Thanks, Stephen Ewen 13:36, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for creating the attribution box. Jeff Dean 08:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Great job

You're doing a great job keeping on top of the copyright issues. Thanks for the reminder. - Annette

Thanks, Annette :-) — Stephen Ewen 20:44, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

GNOME screenshot

Shouldn't Image_talk:Gnome_screenshot/Permission instead be at Image_talk:Gnome_screenshot.png/Permission? Right now it's kid of floating out there on its own lol --Eric M Gearhart 00:25, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Heh. I thought that didn't look right LOL! Once again, thank you for your patience as I learn this stuff :P --Joshua David Williams 00:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
The first redirects to the second. — Stephen Ewen 01:19, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Images from the Principia.

I've added copyright information and a link to the Sacred Chao. The apple is from Wikimedia Commons. Since it wasn't published under someone's real name, I'd ask it be removed. It is Image:Apple of Discord.png. Sorry about the confusion, and have a nice day. I'll find a public domain apple or similar, later today. Michael MacNeil 03:20, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Real names authenticate transactions. Requiring a real name before using an image is not a uniquely Citizendium thing. It is a real-life thing, nearly everywhere. Although it is not commonly realized, free images released under pseudonyms are not very free after all. Thought you might like to know more of the rationale. —–Stephen Ewen 03:28, 9 April 2007 (CDT)


Steve, when I clicked on the "archived" link on Anthropology, I get a connection error. Is it me, or is there something in the link? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:05, 9 April 2007 (CDT)


I responded to your changes to this image at Image_talk:MOS_6502.jpg.

I replied to your reply at Image_talk:MOS_6502.jpg. Good eye sir, good eye. --Eric M Gearhart 05:16, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Dog approval

  • Dog has been waiting approval a few days now. Are you able to do the honours? I cannot. David Tribe 08:32, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
Matt beat me too it! Stephen Ewen 12:47, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
Again:-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:10, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


The badimage template is doing very strange things at Andrew Swinehart. Maybe it needs a restart. When I type at that user I switch to the Template page automatically. Its a recursion type bug I think. regards I dont think the user A S is out of line necessarily. David Tribe 19:59, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Problem solved?

I deleted the badimage text at the user Swinhart and at the template. The stange problems went away. The History logs retain the old copies. David Tribe 21:06, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Quiché reference

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely look into it - I'm pretty solid with matters of costumbre in that part of the world but don't know much about Evangelicalism (despite the fact that I lived with the pastor of an evangelical church, go figure).

Tecum Umam is almost done. Probably tomorrow. One more paragraph to fill out - bet ya can't guess which one. I'm waiting on a response about one really fantastic photo here, so keep your fingers crossed! --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:53, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Check your email for a note about this photo. I feel like it might be a special case... --Joe Quick (Talk) 12:49, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
It does. I need to think about it, though. Stephen Ewen 13:10, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

I got impatient (and a little bored) and came up with my own solution (on Tecum Umam). I think I've fulfilled his requirements, but I don't know how I feel about listing a for-profit URL in the article. This amounts to an endorsement in my book and I don't think we're very comfortable with that type of thing. If I had another image, I think I would just use that instead - I'll take another look around. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:23, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Please remove it. I emailed you. Stephen Ewen 18:29, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Got it. Thanks.


What's the period I have to get the permissions until the images you mentioned are deleted? (I'm on it with the permissions) --Rion 10:38, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Technically, 0 days and 0 minutes. Also, make sure you first try to obtain a free image! Stephen Ewen 12:21, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, I feel a bit rumbled by my experience of uploading an image and I need advice. Having consulted with Rodney Shakespeare, we wish to illustrate the usages of interest free loans with images taken from the internet; examples of which are a sewerage works; Bangladeshi women, students in mortarboard and gowns, a hospital, a crushing plant, and, in particular, clean electricity generation technology. There will also be a one or two pictures of Trisakti University.

What do you advise us to do about copyright? On each photo we note that there is usually an e-mail address. Shall we write to the address as saying that the use is for a Citizendium article and the use will occasion no financial profit, and, if there is no reply, assume that the permission has been given?--Janos Abel 17:15, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

No, we cannot assume permission! (Hey, it'd be nice, though). You should first try to obtain free images available at places like Flickr and Wikimedia Commons. Failing that, you may use images by permission, which must be documented on at Image_Talk:Name_of_Image.jpg/Permission as described at Help:Images#Copyrights. You should write to the copyright holder, documenting each attempt. It sometimes takes some persistence, see Talk:Tux/ccpenguin.jpg. If you show me where the images are located, however, I can be more specific. Stephen Ewen 01:40, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Topic informant

Hey Stephen Ewen, the policy CZ:Policy on Topic Informants says a biography can be deleted per request of the subject. However, it makes exemption to "politicians, celebrities, and other luminaries", while I fully agree with it, I would just like to ask if U.S. judicial figures, like Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. are in this category of exemption of "right to deletion". They are not technically "politicians" or scientists, but should an article on the chief justice be deleted if he requested? Seems like there is an ambiguity in this policy. Yi Zhe Wu 19:09, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I think he would not qualify for right to deletion of his article. He could rightly be considered a politician even though appointed (by a politician). Failing that, "luminary" would seem to cover a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Representatives of the Topic Informant Workgroup would be the ones issuing the actual decision, however, should the actual case arise. —–Stephen Ewen 20:05, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


Loved the comment about the period in Life/Draft. Its inconsistent spaces on the refs that drive me mad. Chris Day has just given some comment that will enable us to roll through all these edits into approved, I'm confident, so your attention wont be wasted. Its like keeping a waggon rolling in mud, I think. cheers D David Tribe 23:53, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Hoping and :-D Stephen Ewen 23:58, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

single drop of blood theory

The suggestion that "Mostly" is insufficient. It must be 100% your own work from WP to exclude the check box. is pretty strong stuff and needs some justification. Fact is that Wiki and CZ draw their information from the same large corpus of information out there. For that matter so do 'most all reference books--it's how they are created. In history, for example, the editors rarely do much original research (and are not allowed to do any in Wiki). Richard Jensen 01:35, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree. The spirit of that would certainly make room for phrases oft repeated. For example, it would be ludicrous for you to have to come up with a new name for "The Civil Rights Movement" in the 1960s U.S. And no one is excluding you from quoting Andrew Jackson or a scholar, obviously. The idea is that if someone compares the CZ and WP version, they should certainly not see any sentences written by Wikipedians appear in CZ verbatim. And we know this is possible to avoid through paraphrasing. If you can come up with a better yet still succinct way to state the policy that captures this idea of it, please do suggest it! Stephen Ewen 01:48, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Also, the history behind us using the "mostly is insufficient" phrase is we have had people upload WP articles and say, I wrote 90% of it and other Wikipedians only wrote a few things here and there, so I don't have to check it. Sorry, that just won't fly. Stephen Ewen 02:02, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
It's quite impossible to discover who originated each sentence in a Wiki article. The Abraham Lincoln article (for which I claim a lot of credit) has been edited over 500 times in the last month alone by many different people. So I propose a simple 80% confidence level rule of thumb: if over 80% of the content was written by a CZ editor then there is no need for a Wiki reference. Richard Jensen 02:08, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
I understand how you'd feel that way. However, I also understand that will not legally fly, although I am not a lawyer. One lawyer (on the CZ wiki) who has weighed in on this matter took it even further than the current "one sentence rule", to include cadence and structure![6] Dr. Sanger initiated the "one sentence rule" at CZ:How_to_convert_Wikipedia_articles_to_Citizendium_articles#First.2C_check_the_.22Content_is_from_Wikipedia.3F.22_box (or possibly somewhere earlier). I suggest you might bring the issue up on the forums. We are all very open to sound arguments around here. It is only the fundamental policies as stated there that are not open for debate. Stephen Ewen 02:22, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
let's see what the lawyer said---what is the issue here? copyright or something? Richard Jensen 03:38, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
It's there linked in the text above. Here it is again. Stephen Ewen 03:43, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Sorry that is not legal enough for me. I've given papers at copyright conferences and listened to a lot of talks--all of them longer than 100 words. We need some legal citations not casual comments. Court cases. Law review articles, that's what counts. Meanwhile I suggest editors look at the Chicago Manual of Style re what comprises fair use. All reference books depend on that legal doctrine. Richard Jensen 03:51, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
I was just mentioning it in casual conversation. But yes, I very much agree we need real legal opinion -- on several copyright-related matters. We've been keenly aware of this since the Pilot. The issue is money, and also that we have yet to decide our basic license(s) yet, which will, for example, condition the answer to "what is 'fair use'", I think. If I may, do you know any lawyers who might be willing to assist us on these matters pro bono? I already plan to look into the Chicago Manual of Style, based upon your suggestion of it earlier, I promise I will. We may soon start a page and collect user arguments on a lot of these matters, too. Keep in mind this is a Beta. We are admitting not everything is worked out, and hoping people come along to fill in "puzzle pieces". I do hope you continue to offer your input. It'd be very nice if it turns out to be as simple as following the Chicago Manual of Style! How about if we do this. I'll review that probably tomorrow and we can carry this on from there? Stephen Ewen 04:04, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
The pro bono idea is excellent. I'll sniff around. As for the Chicago manual, it stresses the need to NOT ask permission to exercise our rights. (They are no longer rights if you ask.) The bottom line is 1) that an encyclopedia is a synthesis of public ideas -- (as opposed to a Hollywood movie, say, which depends for $$ on its exclusivity of artistic expression, or a patent on a new drug), 2) we are not-for-profit and copyright law is very strongly in favor of the not-for-profit dissemination of public information. Richard Jensen 04:46, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Just to let you know, I have the Chicago manual and am reviewing it right now. Stephen Ewen 15:47, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

template editing

By the way you might find this page useful if you get more involved in writing the templates. Chris Day (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey, I'm stealing that link;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:42, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Check the status of this photo:

Image:Sodstream.jpg --Joe Quick (Talk) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Joe. :-) ---Stephen Ewen 20:52, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Bill Gates

Hello again Stephen, can I ask why was Bill Gates deleted? He is a celebrity and historically influential figure so I guess he really doesn't have the right to deletion. What was wrong? Yi Zhe Wu 23:14, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

For why, see CZ:Article Deletion Policy, third item. Please allow me the privileged of refocusing your good energy a bit by pointing you to CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians#On stubs and lists and the April 1 entry at CZ:Notice Board which is also at CZ:Policy Outline#Stubs. Best, ---Stephen Ewen 01:02, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
Ah sorry must have overlooked that. So the Bill Gates article was too short. A while ago I wrote Eggshell skull, although it's short but it isn't really a "stub", can you take a look and see if it is safe from deletion? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 16:50, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
It is > 50 words. Stephen Ewen 18:05, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Approvalat Life/Draft

If you're awake, Life/Draft deadline Version 1.1 has arrived. Sneaky Dixielander Matt may read this and approve it, but I'm trying again to give you the honour of approval action. You may have altered a comma and a " but that does not count as involvement in my book. If ,in your book it does, ask Mike J. all the best. Thought the style "issue" conundrum was hilarious.;o) David Tribe 07:27, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Where to place Granting of Licence letter?

I have a letter of permission to form the American Academy of Pediatrics use two figures form a 1954 issue of the journal Pediatrics in the Citizendium article on Infant colic. They are quite specific about their licence (e.g. the licence applies for use in that article only), and I think it should be available to a reader, so that the pics do not get abused. Unfortunately it is in pdf and protected word format and stuck on my PC. Is there someplace I should post it, or a jpeg image of it? Or should I just refer to their letter, or post a summary of their conditions? ...said Christo Muller (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

A low resolution jpeg image, but not so small as to make the letter unreadable, would be perfect (basically, make it as small as possible yet retain the ability for it to be read). Directions to place the letter are at Help:Images#Documenting_free_content_releases_and_images_by_permission. Also, Ghostview will convert pdf to jpeg easily, or you can just take a screenshot of it. If you need more help, just let me know. Stephen Ewen 12:03, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you Stephen, if it is all right, I suppose one could use this as an example of using a jpg image file in the Help pages (which I somehow couldn't find, I think because I used the Search function instead of going directly to the Help button ;)). Apologies for the lack of signature above. Christo Muller (Talk) 15:16, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I will use this in the help as an example. Thanks! Stephen Ewen 15:34, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Recently uploaded image(s)

Hi. Thanks for contributing to CZ! I hate to have to tell you this but one or more images you recently uploaded are lacking clear copyright data. Please carefully review the image(s) you uploaded while referencing Images Help—Copyrights. Please fix the problem rapidly, as the image(s) will otherwise have to be deleted. Thanks! — Stephen Ewen 18:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
See particularly Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia.2C_Wikimedia_Commons.2C_Flickr.2C_etc.. Stephen Ewen 19:40, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Could you be specific about which images? I'm guessing Image:Seasons.png, but I'm not sure if you intended that one or another or more than one. I only remember uploading two images. When I uploaded them, I was not prompted to choose licensing information from a menu, as would happen on Wikipedia. I did note in the edit summary that the one I mentioned here was copied from Wikipedia, which would imply a GNU license, I think. Is the edit summary the only place for such information? Michael Hardy 15:47, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Dear Stephen, re Image:BinaryLoansGraphics.jpg. Sorry but I find image authorisation/copyright quite confusing. The link you suggested in [your message] seems to say that I need the following note, (but I do not know where it should go).
Image of (Creation and distribution of interestfree loans) by Janos Abel 15:02, 19 April 2007 (CDT), released under (or "to" in the case of public domain release) theCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
Hi Janos. You understand it right. For proper placement, just follow the example at Image:Longhorn_beetle_4130.JPG. —–Stephen Ewen 20:47, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Thank you. Have I got it right [now]? Janos Abel
Just fine! Stephen Ewen 18:04, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


Thanks for your comment about Linguistics on Richard Senghas's Talk page (although the article did start as a reasonable WP version and two or three people who have since disappeared made several good edits). If you have time, you could go in and edit anything that makes it difficult to read or seems obscure, etc., plus any content changes you think are relevant - if you screw up we can always revert. :-) John Stephenson 03:04, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Secret Societies

Hello. I tightened up the definition and the article. Please check before deleting the piece.

Thank you. --Mark Mirabello 16:20, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Constables cannot on their own delete articles for non-maintainability. An editor must request it. Stephen Ewen 16:24, 22 April 2007 (CDT)