User talk:Stephen Ewen/Archive 4

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

Help with Copyedits & Infant colic

Stephen, (1) Life was an example of how hard it is can be to proof an article. I'm committed to making the process a better one. As Ass't Chief Constable, and as somebody who not only writes well but copy edits well, I'm hoping you can help implement a better process. If you have any specific ideas in how to do so, could you put them on my talk page? (2) Now that we have an approved version of Infant colic, please put your revisions right on Infant colic/Draft, we can work from there. Nancy Sculerati 22:39, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, look at my talk page for reply to your question. I put it there so that it will make sense to others who might read your question- and important one. Nancy Sculerati 07:46, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- Stephen Ewen 21:25, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Stubs

From my my talk page (you can answer there, thanks)Matt Mahlmann 20:41, 23 April 2007 (CDT):

Matt, thanks much for your many contributions to CZ! I wonder if I might also persuade you to consider CZ:Policy Outline#Stubs. Also see the third item at CZ:Article Deletion Policy. Just a thought here—I certainly do not wish to throw any water on your good efforts. Stephen Ewen 01:02, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
I understand your concern, but I'm confused exactly to what you're referring. I think I have only created two new pages (Texas and The University of Texas at Austin) and they to the best of my knowledge are beyond stubs (although in need of lots of work). I have done a lot of clean up type activity. I have been adding categories, article checklists, fixing typos, getting rid of orphan and dead-end pages. Are you attributing some of these articles to me, or are you asking me to nominate those for speedy-delete instead of doing some of these clean up activities to them? I am just trying to understand your concern. Thanks again for your assistance. Matt Mahlmann 21:17, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I see I may have misinterpreted some of what you've been doing. I do apologize. And yes, if articles meet the deletion criteria, you it is best to nominate them for deletion. Thanks! Stephen Ewen 13:33, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Image Copyright

The Image HrmJpg is from the Free Maps of Nova Scotia of the government of Nova Scotia which state " The following map images have been made available for you to use and are intended for general reference or educational purposes " How do I insert the copyright info ? --Victor Matthews 16:24, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

I fixed the image page, thereby offering a model that can later be followed for this type of image. By the way, note how the licensing data for the same image at Wikipedia is falsified.[1] --- Stephen Ewen 16:59, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Regular Sherlock Holmes

Nice sleuthing for copy vio. That would have been a bad one to slip through! Chris Day (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I am obviously now concerned that in our push for approved articles, we are not being careful enough. Stephen Ewen 01:52, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Stephen- I don't know if the above refers to Aikado- but it could. How did that come to your attention? Nancy Sculerati 02:02, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

It does refer to Aikado. I checked the references in the article and the first one was the one from which the copyvio came. Simple comparison. I have also learned to spot-check articles with Google: select well-worded sentences here and there, Google the whole sentence, and see what turns up. We might consider buying a subscription to Turnitin and running all articles through it as part of the approval process. Stephen Ewen 02:09, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

If you would check out the cost for a non-profit- I see they have a "request a quote", I'd consider donating it. That could be a standard step before approval. Thank you for finding this! Nancy Sculerati 02:17, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Infant colic

Stephen, I know you are busy with many things. I was hoping you might, when you have the time, go through the Infant colic/Draft. Now that there is stable version, please feel free to edit as you please to try to improve readability. Christo has tried to improve the caption. He is also trying for some "crying baby" pictures. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 04:14, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

image

Hi, sorry for not responding (extremely busy and not editing yesterday...). Looks like it is fixed now. See you, --AlekStos 19:43, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

aikido

I saw the article was deleted. Why did you delete the Talk page too? I lost those comments. Also, did you check to see if the author of the website was the same as the author who wrote the article? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 11:30, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Aikido is still there. The deletion is doubtful permanent in this case. I am right now trying to acquire what is needed to restore the article. Stephen Ewen 13:44, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Basketball

i can't seem to find any copyright information on the basketball picture located [2]... i can't figure out how to delete it though.

Hi Charlie. Thanks for showing that to me. Only constables can delete stuff. If you cannot find where it came from, it will need to be deleted. But I found an image that will work and will upload it and let you know where it is. Stephen Ewen 20:35, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
I placed the new, free image into the Basketball article. Stephen Ewen 20:40, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
By the way, remember to sign posts with four tildes, ~~~~, so no one has to go into the history to find out who they are talking with!  :-) Stephen Ewen 04:37, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Images

I'll take care of it. Might take me a few hours. Thanks. I'll give exact links. All in public domain.Peter A. Lipson 21:27, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Ok, i fixed or replaced images, let me know if still not appropriate, thanks.--Peter A. Lipson 22:09, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, Dr. Lipson. I realize that is about as fun as formatting bibliographies by hand (!) but it is very important. I hope in the near future to make a push for some tick boxes and forms and drop down boxes to make all that a lot easier. Stephen Ewen 04:41, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Some of the fair use, etc stuff is still unclear to me. I want to add images to my stroke article but I'm having trouble figuring out what images I can legally post. Any suggestions? --Peter A. Lipson 17:35, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Basically the whole CZ policy on images can be summed up as,

  1. Strongly prefer libre images. Keep re-users in mind and try to craft articles as units that can be re-used as wholes.
  2. When availability or adequacy of libre images becomes clear, you may seek permission to use copyrighted images in CZ. In this case, also ask for the permission to extend to re-users of CZ. It's at least worth a try.
  3. Totally avoid "fair use"--at this point. This rule is subject to modification in the future.
  4. Document everything assiduously--all license releases, and all permissions.

The two images at Infant_colic#Postulated_causes_and_associated_conditions and the links to the permissions pages there may prove helpful to you in the stroke article. However, it may be that the NIH or another government site has public domain images you could use.

Stephen Ewen 18:18, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what "libre" means. Could you help me out. There is a lot of jargon that is new to me.--Peter A. Lipson 19:03, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Sure. Libre denotes free as in rights, free of restrictions on re-use. Free denotes something that is available at no monetary cost. Libre images would thus mean that people are free to re-use them in various ways, with any limitations stipulated by license. The most libre is public domain. You can read about the most commonly used libre licenses at Help_talk:Images#To_read_about_libre_licenses. Let me know if I can help more. :-) Stephen Ewen 20:22, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Logo Images

I asked for speedy removals for the logos I uploaded. I have now sent emails to the various companies asking to grant CZ permissions. I used this text as the basis of my email requests:

Subject: Copyrighted Image use for encyclopedia project

Text: I am writing on behalf of Citizendium, a new wiki-based encyclopedia project founded by one of the co-founders of Wikipedia. The website is http://en.citizendium.org/.

On the Citizendium project, I am creating articles on Aerospace companies. I feel that the articles could be significantly improved with images such as a company logo and other important educational images you can provide, to illustrate your company on this site.

Citizendium does not currently allow images to used under "fair use", and before uploading any images, I and Citizendium need explicit permission from the copyright holders (i.e. your company) to do so. Would it be possible for you to grant Citizendium permission to use your logo and other images you can provide?

Respectfully,

Robert Winmill

If you have further guidance please inform me as soon as possible. Robert Winmill 12:27, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

need help in wholesale removal pf code

By mistake dozens of ships were coded into the History Workgroup. I've been manually removing the code from their mainpage but that leaves the talkpage. Like Talk:USS Sidonia (AKA-42). How do we uncode them wholesale? Richard Jensen 23:00, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Yikes. I am not sure there is a way except the good 'ol fashioned way by hand. You might consider making a community announcement for help and organizing a way (say by the numbers of the ships) so no one duplicates anyone's efforts. Stephen Ewen 23:53, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
we'll ignore them. :) Richard Jensen 00:25, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Three-domain system

Its not particularly good (a typical WP animal), and in Evolution of cells I will eventually produce something far better (if not already) covering this ground.

So you delete it, as you should know the "legal" context well. David Tribe 13:11, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

McClintock Stamp

From memory, the fair use argument was copied from the wikipedia copy. I didn't question whether it is legal. The WP author is an author here and she should know. If only I could remember her name. Shes an Australia from CAnberra. David Tribe 04:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Boas Photo

Could you confirm for me whether the American Philosophical Society owns the copyrights for photos from this page? Searrch within the page for "U5.1.13" to find the particular photo that I'd like to use. Thanks much. --Joe Quick (Talk) 17:34, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

the Wiki photo at [3] is dated 1915 and is pre-1923, so public domain.Richard Jensen 17:52, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Richard. The photo I'd like to use is of Boas dressed as an Eskimo and is dated 1883, so it should be fine, but there is a copyright notice at the top of the page, and I'm not clear on whether that applies to only the page itself or also to the images shown on the page. Can a group like the American Philosophical Society extend the life of a copyright? I don't think so, but I wanted to make sure. --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
all items published before 1923 are public domain. Richard Jensen 21:05, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
Perfect. Thanks much. --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:08, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
See my comment further down the page, as well as here. Even though an image is completely free of copyright (as this one is), the owner of the original retains a proprietary right in any deriative images. Art museums, among others, use this right (which falls under property law, not copyright law per se) to charge fees for reproductions of items in their collection, even if the items themselves are hundreds or thousands of years old. It would be far better to get permission from the APS, or find an image of Boas the original of which is not in an institutional collection. Russell Potter 10:26, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Same name people

Hey Stephen Ewen. I have a question. How do we write articles on a person that has the same name with another famous person? Wikipedia has what's called "disambiguation" page, do we have similar mechanism for same name people? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 20:49, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, we do. See here: CZ:Naming_Conventions#Disambiguation_in_page_titles --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:07, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


Images

Hi Steve I'm working on getting permissions for the two images still on the page. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage The others perhaps should be deleted because I cant verify their provenance. User:John J. Dennehy

Hi John. I did delete the three not in the article. You might enlist some help on the talk page for people to create graphics. Also, would the NIH site have free photos of the phages? Stephen Ewen 12:33, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Update: I got permission for one of the two phage images (2nd on pg http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage ). Let me know if everything is done correctly there.

Xena- warrior puppy

Steve, I uploaded 3 images of Xena and her puppies in Rottweiler. Forgive my stumbling over this, but the owner of the dogs and the photographer have given me premission for unrestricted use of the images (I own the female puppy pictured at 5 weeks). I don't have a clue -even after looking at the licensing link- what I should do. I would have picked GNU, but reading it, it really looks like it's for software rather than images of hardcore canines (;-) - or anything else) Would you fix it for me- pick any suitable license. It's ok, as long as we do not deprived them of use of the pictures, they have donated them to CZ for unrestricted use here. Nancy Sculerati 12:36, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

You and I share sentiments over the GNU - strange license for an encyclopedia project, eh? Sure, I will select a suitable license for the images. Stephen Ewen 12:40, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I agree, apparently the creative commons was a smarter design. Lawrence Lessig is right. Yi Zhe Wu 20:55, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

ibid

how do you recite a previous reference? Thanks.--Peter A. Lipson 07:23, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

When you include the same reference again it stacks it up to the initial reference and adds a link back to whicever number of ref it is. This is the much preferred way to work it. There is no way to get mediawiki to cite Ibid. except manually (Mediawiki ain't no EndNote!). However, you can mimic the effect by inserting <ref>''Ibid.</ref>. I'd avoid that, however, as it simply is not standard in this format, nor as useful to readers. Stephen Ewen 18:50, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Image:Papua_new_guinea_northern_province.png

Hi Lou, sorry to have to do this. This image that you uploaded to here from Wikimedia Commons has the problem described here. You can try to contact the user on his Polish talk page here. He very probably can read some English but you can include this link in your message if not. Your goal in your message there could be to just get him to email you. His name will probably appear in his email to you, then you can ask him if it is alright to post it here with the image. In that case, you can post the email as documentation and it need to trace back to Wikimedia Commons. Let me know what you plan to do, because this image otherwise needs to be deleted. In point of fact, we have no real basis to know whether the image is as the user claims and a real name is the minimum requirement for authentication. Stephen Ewen 22:49, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Louis_F._Sander"

Stephen -- Too much trouble. I have zero interest in getting involved in anybody's intellectual property issues, either real or imagined. "The CZ author who acts as his own copyright lawyer has a fool for a client." (I posted a photo of me that my wife took, and somebody complained because I hadn't specified the right license, or something like that. Who needs that sort of thing?) Best is probably just to stop posting any sort of images on CZ.
Maybe there could be a special way to link to the pages elsewhere where images can be found. Maybe a special graphic that, when clicked, follows a hyperlink. Image could say "click here to see an image" or something like that. Louis F. Sander 08:35, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
A perhaps better image, and one in the public domain from 1943 from U.S. Division of Ocean Science (OCE), is at http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/engineers_v1_1947/new_guinea_airfields_1943.jpg Stephen Ewen 17:56, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
There are many excellent free maps of PPG at http://maps.nationmaster.com/country/pp/1 Stephen Ewen 17:59, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
You could also use this map with probably just an email requesting use to AUSPIC . Or this map with just a simple email to this fellow. Still more: Here are several more, this in the public domian: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/papua_new_guinea.html - if you need help getting them from pdf to image files, just let me know. Stephen Ewen 18:40, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Template:Bypermission

Since some of the images that are used by permission have very specific restrictions on their use (like those used on the infant colic page), I think it is important to include a short statement on the template directing people to carefully read the permission page before using images elsewhere on CZ. --Joe Quick (Talk) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Good point! Stephen Ewen 22:48, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
See {{Bypermission-noreuse}}. Stephen Ewen 23:06, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Yep. Looks good. Why the longer name? --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:15, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

To make room for by permission WITH reuse. :-) Stephen Ewen 23:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Gotcha. Good idea, by the way. --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:17, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
BTW, do feel free to go around and place this new template wherever it belongs. Stephen Ewen 23:20, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Already on it ;-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:24, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

no documentation of permission on this one

Image:DSC_0021_large.jpg --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:32, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Image:Snail_leech_eggs_03.jpg

Image:Snail_leech_babies_02.jpg --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:42, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Cool, thanks! Stephen Ewen 23:46, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Template:Attribution

Two questions (I'll use Image:Red_Queen.jpg as an example):

  1. Should I remove the lengthy description of CC-BY after inserting the template?
  1. More importantly, according to the PLoS site and the description provided on the image page, the author retains the copyright for works that they publish. So for this example, the entity listed in the template should be William F. Duffy and not the Public Library of Science, correct? Or should it be both, maybe? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:32, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Let me look into it.... Stephen Ewen 00:37, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. The PLoS licensing info is here. It looks like it might more be more appropriately marked with Template:Cc-by-2.5? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:46, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Let's hold off on applying other templates for now. I'd like to tweak them anyway. Have you made templates before? Stephen Ewen 00:49, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
No, unfortunately. But I'm happy to learn and they don't call me "Quick" for nothing :-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:52, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

What do you think of this? I started with your Template:Attribution and fiddled with it a little to make it appropriate for CC-BY. See User:Joe_Quick/templatetest. Please comment on the talk page there. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:17, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Before you change too many more templates, Chris Day and I have been toying with a couple different ideas. Do you prefer Template:Cc-by-1.0, Template:Cc-by-2.0, or Template:Cc-by-2.5? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I think I like Template:Cc-by-2.5 best, except the lead text looks to flush left. Stephen Ewen 00:29, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I'd like to make the less free one with yellow backgrounds, the most non-free red. The freest of course green. Stephen Ewen 00:29, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead text looks to flush left." I had a similar idea about the continuum of colors. How many combinations of restrictions does Creative Commons support? Or do you mean that all of the "intermediate" licenses would be yellow? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:37, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Basically, all the intermediate ones would be yellow. That means all except CC-by and CC-by-sa, as I see it. Never mind about the text. You and Chris seem to prefer 1.0 version; I'm cool with that, so I say let's just go with that. Stephen Ewen 00:40, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, actually, 2.5 is growing on me, but there's something just slightly off about it. I think it's the placement of the big text, which is closer to the right side of the box than to the image. Is that what you were referring to? Red-yellow-green is a good idea; I had been trying to figure out how to make green fade into red by using a blue and then purple, but the idea just wouldn't resolve... --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, that was my same issue with the text up top with 2.5. Hmmm. The idea of fading green into red is intriguing. here's the honey pot for picking colors. I'm not sure it (the meaning) would be apparent if they faded, however. May be better to keep it more simple: high-free = green, intermediate-free = yellow, barely free or not so = red. For people less sophisticated about licensing, that is one way to make it easier when picking one and understanding them, initially at least. Stephen Ewen 00:50, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I think the reason for the 100px was to be able to fit four icons below without the last one protruding. But ask Joe for clarification. We can always upload a larger image than the one currently in CZ. Also note we have a second version uploaded by another user. See my last edit to 1.0 Chris Day (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Red-yellow-green is definitely better here. Stop lights. And yes, the 100px was to fit the other icons. Didn't notice the other version. The value of the example on 2.5 is that it doesn't leave that ugly space beneath the icons, but this other version of the CC icon helps dramatically. Let's use the new version of 1.0 --Joe Quick (Talk) 01:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe the top icon doesn't need to be that big after all. The Creative Commons Licenses don't ever include all four conditions. This makes sense, of course, because there is no need to combine Share Alike with No Derivatives.
But if we shrink the top icon to 75px, it looks pretty bad, so what if we just center them? See my edit on 1.0. --Joe Quick (Talk) 01:33, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Yep, I like it. :-) Stephen Ewen 01:40, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Communication

Do we have an IRC channel or other live means of group communication? Peter A. Lipson 18:02, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

CZ does not officially have either open or invitation-only IRC rooms. That issue has been brought up before and it is felt that the Forums should be the hub of discussions because of their availability to all CZ contributors plus public openess. Is there something special on your mind you might like to discuss with someone that niether the forums nor email will work well for? Stephen Ewen 18:37, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
No, I just have to get more familiar with the forums. I like the RT aspect of IRC, but RT has the disadvantage of requiring people to be there. Thanks.Peter A. Lipson 18:41, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I have logged into a CZ IRC channel before, so one has been set up. Admittedly there was no activity but it would be easy to coordinate a meeting. Chris Day (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
That's not official. I understand that is just Jason and Zach and usually just an invited MediaWiki guru or two. Stephen Ewen 20:23, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Oops, we might want to delete my advertisement above then? I have no idea how I found out about it, although it doesn't take a brain surgeon to type in citizendium. :) Chris Day (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I went in there once. I yawned at the inactivity and left. :-D Stephen Ewen 20:28, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

telephone/newspaper

Stephen, I had contacted Matt about Telephone_Newspaper being up for approval, but he must be away. Could you kindly look at the talk page and take care of the templates? Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 15:27, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Sure, I will in about an hour when something I got going on is wound up. Stephen Ewen 15:32, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Workgroup introduction

Thanks I imagine that I will join a few in social science and the humanities, but I'm biding my time until I'm done with the semester and research. Thanks. Justin Anthony Knapp 19:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

More about license templates

Do we want to maintain the public domain license templates separately or should I be thinking about how to combine them? --Joe Quick (Talk) 19:59, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I think WP probably goes overboard. I think for users' sake it would be good to simplify whenever possible. Stephen Ewen 20:07, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Right. I have an idea. I'll pop back in when it's ready. --Joe Quick (Talk) 20:14, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

The text could probably use some cleaning, and we'll need to rename it, but I think I've got a pretty good start: Template:PublicDomain. To see how it looks with the operants, see here. This is pretty cool stuff, I think. --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Very nice! I did tweak the text. Stephen Ewen 22:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I noticed. I planned that you would. I just copied everything from the existing templates without checking their accuracy, so I expected that we'd need to change some things.
I think I'm done for the evening (or at least a little while), but feel free to continue tweaking. Once you're satisfied, it should probably be moved somewhere else so that it doesn't have that tricky capital letter in the middle. Once I see it move, I'll start applying it. --Joe Quick (Talk) 22:08, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

All images using the old PD templates have been updated except for Image:ADN_animation.gif, for which I couldn't find a real name. The author appears to be an active WP contributor, so one might only need ask on his talk page there] to learn his last name (his first name is Brian), but I'll leave it up to the constables that be. :-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 02:46, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks lots, Joe. I do appreciate your help very much! I just left a note on your talk about using {{mediaflag}}. Stephen Ewen 02:48, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Payback?

You got faster:-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:14, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

[Smile]. Got to get this one. - Stephen Ewen 21:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT)


Bigelow Images

I first posted the copyright permissions at: "Image talk:Bigelow Logo.gif/Permission". But I uploaded a new logo image and asked for File:Bigelow Logo.gif to be speedydeleted, and the image was deleted. However the Image talk:Bigelow Logo.gif/Permission still exists and should be deleted. The New image is "Image:BigelowLogo.png" and now on Image talk:BigelowLogo.png - I re-posted the email that grants copyright permissions. Robert Winmill 06:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT) Robert Winmill 07:14, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Images

Thanks for the "easy upload" info. I will give it a try. Here are some suggestions that might lessen the need to be a copyright lawyer when uploading images:

1) The number of licenses available for took-it-yourself pictures is bewildering as I remember it. Instructions for dealing with them could be: a) This procedure will work for took-it-yourself pictures, followed by step-by-step instructions for the simplest or most preferred way to license such pictures; b) So will these, followed by a link to instructions, detailed information, or whatever, for the other available licenses.

2) There could also be simple instructions for public domain images: 1) We need to have positive ID for anybody who uploads one (your CZ username is enough); 2) It's up to you to determine whether they are public domain or not; 3) If you are claiming an image is in the public domain, here's what to say about it; 4) If you are wrong about the image being in the public domain, or if somebody challenges it, here is what happens [explanation of what happens]. If the explanation is long, substitute a link to it.

The essence of these suggestions are that there would be very simple instructions for these two kinds of images. The "fine print" would be elsewhere, and accessed through links. Something similar could also be done for images from Wikimedia Commons. (I think there are some instructions about them already, but they weren't easy to comprehend, as I recall it.)

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of there being a simple, scheme for linking to non-CZ pages that contain interesting images. The link should be a graphic that could be substituted for the image itself. Using it could lessen or eliminate the rigamarole and copyright concerns that might be involved in uploading the interesting images themselves. Louis F. Sander 07:25, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

I just thought of this -- a lot of the images that I want to upload are already in folders in My Pictures. They came from many places, typically scans or the Internet, and often several years ago. Often I don't have a record of their source. What do I do about 'em? Louis F. Sander 07:47, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
More on public domain photos: Some of 'em are very clearly public domain, such as those that include the public domain info in the image itself. Others are clearly public domain, but less so, such as those whose source includes some text about public domain. Still others are probably public domain, but not very clearly so, such as the maps at the site you referred me to a few days ago (the site claims copyright, but it's probably not a valid claim). Maybe CZ could give us some guidance about what to do in these various cases. Louis F. Sander 07:47, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Hi Lou. I am working very hard on these sorts of matters. Take a look at Special:Upload now and notice the directions there...and also notice how there is a drop down box for selecting licenses, which I am working right now to fill in, while myself and others are putting together some templates (think "guts" [chuckle]) that work with it. I will address your specific questions after that drop down box is nailed down well. Cheers, Stephen Ewen 01:16, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Help templates

Very nice. I made this one too: {{articlehelp}}. Feel free to delete if it doesn't fit into the overall plan. --Joe Quick (Talk) 10:38, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, nice idea. I tweaked it to say article mechanics, so it is real clear that constables don't get involved with content disputes. Stephen Ewen 01:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Henrik Shipstead

I initially imported from Wikipedia, and I have changed it many times, can you take a look and see if it qualifies as live? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 21:21, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

I added it. Keep up the good work. :-) Stephen Ewen 21:30, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Contraception

Stephen, are we all right on Contraception? If you would like me to work on it some, you could put in an outline of headings and I'll try to help with the writing. I have done a rough Contraception (medical methods) but really have to go through the hateful hormone stuff and its so hard, I'm putting it off. I made a Sterilization (surgical) that also needs work, but I would like to have at least something acceptable for the lead Contraception - can you help me with it? Nancy Sculerati 22:53, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

P.S. I started (and I hope I won't be writing it solo) Natural Family Planning. Please help. Nancy Sculerati 13:00, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Time to archive

I was just informed that "This page is 76 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." Time to archive, I think. See my talk page for an idea about the upload drop downs. --Joe Quick (Talk) 01:43, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Image copyright

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001186 This image is a portrait of a founding father died in 1822, but I'm not sure when it was painted. Normally it would be in public domain if there is no attribution (means Congress made it), but this one says it's from "Library of Congress", but in the LOC website I can find this image nowhere. I don't know if this image can be used here or not. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 13:36, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi. Thanks for asking. This is a case where the copyright on the media has expired so use {{PD|old}}. Stephen Ewen 13:55, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Boas image on Anthropology

Hi Stephen -- could you check out my comment here and see what you think. APS has some great stuff; maybe we could get a blanket permission of some kind -- or do you agree with the uploader that this one is OK? Russell Potter 10:20, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

p.s. I now see there was an earlier discussion on your page; have posted a note there. I believe this issue is one that the constables may wish to consider -- I have spent many an hour, and many hundreds of dollars, getting clearance for proprietary (derivative-work) rights from museums and libraries, and I would hate to see CZ get caught up by this aspect of legal rights. Russell Potter 10:29, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Russel, thanks much here. Learning something new everyday about all this! Would you suggest CZ get blanket permission from such an entity? Stephen Ewen 13:53, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
What's the difference between copyright and proprietary right? What kind of work does "proprietary right" exist after copyright expires?Yi Zhe Wu 14:59, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
I am studying the issue right now. You can too. :-) Stephen Ewen 15:03, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Hi Stephen, thanks for your reply. I've started a thread here with a basic outline of what I know. I've also found great resources at Stanford's fair-use site. Getting UK law clarificarion on this issue is much more murky. If you could post anything you find of use on the forum's thread, I'd be enornmously grateful. Russell Potter 17:32, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Complex #

Could you kindly do the approval honors for Complex number? (or ask one of your merry men and women to do so? :-) thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati 16:39, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Prime Numbers

Stephen, Prime number is also ready for approval, please. Nancy Sculerati 17:32, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I see David got it. I have been very busy getting a new Constable setup and walking through some things. Stephen Ewen 22:30, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

IMPORTANT-which version?

Please see my talk page, Russell Potter asks me- with an upcoming article for approval, after nomination the template points to a version, meanwhile the draft is being developed. WHICH version gets approved? I have put this question on the Approval board, please answer there http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Announcements#May_8.2C_2007. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 09:35, 8 May 2007 (CDT) cc:David Tribe

France images files

Hello, I'm here for my pictures' licenses. I did the flag of France by myself but i took the COA from a site (I do not remember which). I have asked a friend of mine if he could remake it in SVG, during that time what do I do ? Should I deleted the picture ? For the flag how do i set the license afteward in order to set it to GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 ? Regards, Jean-Baptiste Perriot 11:28, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

A 19h century perspective on anthropology

Stephen: check out http://www.webref.org/anthropology/a/anthropology.htm. If you have not already seen it, you might find some interesting articulations for consideration in your introduction. Or even a quote.

BTW: Marvelous job you've done on the article. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:49, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Judaism

Steve -- Well, maybe I already messed up. Tried creating Judaism but it seems to have created an endless loop with Insert Text. Would you please fix it? Meanwhile, I'll try a different title and later change the title. Thanks. David Hoffman 15:53, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Not sure what you mean by "endless loop with insert text". Are you trying to import the Judaism article from WP? If so, just go to that page at WP, click edit, select and copy the text; then come to CZ, click edit on Judaism and Jews, then paste in the text and click save, making sure you check the Content is from WP? box. You should then make sure you work at the text in ways discussed at CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles or it can be deleted within just hours. Stephen Ewen 15:59, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the TOC. Eventually I'll learn some of that stuff... David Hoffman 22:14, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


Steve -- Hi again. I'd like to do some re-arranging. First, I'll try to move Jews and Judaism --> Judaism. Second, I'm getting a warning about the length of Judaism. So I'd like to break off 1 or 2 pieces into other articles. I've made some revisions but probably won't really work on those sections/articles for awhile. Could you and other constables hold off on deleting them, even if I separate out those sections as articles? David Hoffman 12:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I can't do the move myself. Would you please delete the Judaism redirect and move the Jews and Judaism --> Judaism. ThanksDavid Hoffman 12:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Done! Stephen Ewen 16:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

2 articles for approval

Stephen, Telephone newspaper see:Talk:Telephone_newspaper and Tux/Gallery Talk:Tux/Gallery are both past dates for approval. Could you kindly approve them? I have ot myself checked the copyrights for the images in the latter article and leave that for your discretion. If there is a problem with them, kindly contact me. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 11:06, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I e-mailed Russell Potter-the nominating editor- he says "I looked over Telephone newspaper; the last few edits were copyedits; the only other changes since the verision nominated for approval have the addition of one bibliographical source and the inclusion of a start date for the "Telephone Herald." It would be my preference that the current version, marked "This page was last modified 12:53, 11 May 2007", be approved." Thanks, oh-as it is Saturday, I will also e-mail constables. Nancy Sculerati 11:37, 12 May 2007 (CDT)