User talk:Stephen Ewen/Archive 8

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


Please delete a couple of food categories

Hi, Stephen. I have set up new categories for Italian, Thai, Belgium, etc. foods and have added all of the items that are now in "Exotic foods" and "Popular foods". So you can delete those two categories. I have additionally created, as per *your* suggestion, I believe, a Catalog of global cuisine, to which I have added a couple of items. I assume that these are what you mean by global. What about Bread, Rice, Beans, etc. Everything can be debated one way or another, I suppose.... Hayford Peirce 14:10, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

help!

Hello sir! :) I'm having some problems fixing my images i.e. attributing and all. How do I edit the images I've uploaded? It says I need an external editor or something? I'm stuck.--Yim Kai-mun 23:31, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

All you have to do is go to the image upload page, the page where the image you uploaded is, and click edit. What happens when you do that? Try it at Image:Meister_der_Reise_des_Kaisers_Ming-huang_nach_Shu_002.jpg.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:38, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

subpage upgrade for biology

Stephen, now that the biology article is being cited as an example of subpage templates in action we really need to upgrade both Biology/Gallery and Biology to the latest template {{subpages4}}. If you could replace {{subpages|group=biology|approved=yes}} with the simpler {{subpages4}} and place {{subpages4}} on the approved article that would be great. I can't access those pages since they are protected. thanks. Chris Day (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Done. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:41, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, that was quick. You reverted on the Gallery? You could use {{Subpages9}} if you were after the horizontal one? Other wise just subpages4 should work, no need for all the parameters now we have the info temnplates active. Chris Day (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

I placed 9.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:50, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Image copyright holder asking for 'permission' link to be removed

I uploaded this image recently having got permission from the UK Treasury. Now they say that they don't mind us using the image, but want the emails in the permission page removed. I will do this, but does it mean that without a permission page we can't use the image? John Stephenson 03:42, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

See the email I sent.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:47, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, an ad hoc solution for now: this which removed the history from view and the link to securely off-wiki. That works! :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:12, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Images for Global warming

Thanks Stephen.

Actually, the help request about images to be used in Global warming is quite old - now I set different priorities and I find very difficult to contribute to that article. HOWEVER, there is now a new Earth Sciences editor who is a real climatologist, and did a terrific work on the article: Raymond Arritt. I am to post your offer in his talk page, I guess he'll be happy.

Well, since I'm here in your talk page, I also have a request of help. I'd like to archive some of the discussion in Talk:Global warming. How do I do this? (Never mind, Larry did it after putting the page under dispute watch... Nereo Preto)

Ciao! --Nereo Preto 01:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Catalog of Italian cuisine

Hi, Stephen. I think we need you to do two things:

Done!  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:50, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Great! Now if you would kindly vanish Catalog of exotic foods and Catalog of popular foods, as all of these items have been moved into other Catalogs. And would you please take a look at my last comments in Talk:Catalog of Chinese cuisine and input your own thoughts. This is a very important point that we are at with all of this cuisine Catalog business and we should make sure that we get it right. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:26, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Done. Not sure which comments you mean at Talk:Catalog of Chinese cuisine, though.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:23, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! I meant the on-going discussion about what we should be putting into each national Catalog: basically, only authentic foods from that country/culture, or food that is widely popular in that country/culture, no matter its origin, or both, or some combination? At Larry's suggestion, however, I have moved the entire discussion to CZ Talk:Food Science Workgroup. Your thoughts would be welcomed, since you have certainly contributed to this on-going cuisine cataloging business! Hayford Peirce 11:45, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Photo without source details

I left a note on Paul Austin's Talk page about an image which may not be cleared for use on CZ; he hasn't provided sourcing details as yet. Can you check this when you get a moment, make sure I've got this right? John Stephenson 21:04, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Flawless, John. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:08, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Image

Stephen, sorry about the confusion, I believe I've fixed the images to conform to standards. I have emailed the US Mint for clarification on the coin copyright, and in the meantime I have put a fair use tag on it crediting the designers and engraver listed on the linked page. I had originally chosen PD after referencing it against what is on Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do.

Also, I realized that I mistakenly named the file "william_canon.jpg" when it should be "walter_canon". I don't know if that is a big deal, but should probably be fixed. --Todd Coles 10:38, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Mississippi

Not sure what to do with this one. It is essentially just a bibliography (by Richard Jensen) so I copied it to the bibliography subpage. But now do we delete the main article (stub over a month old)? If we do then noone will ever see the bibliography either. Maybe we just need to ask Dr. Jensen to start a short article? --Joe Quick (Talk) 20:15, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

See the page again. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:20, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Now why didn't I think of that? Sometimes my thoughts are too complicated for my own good. ;^) --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:09, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

french fry gallery

Hi Stephen, I have uploaded a picture of french-fry pizza I took in Italy last year at Image:Italy 2006 Abano French fry pizza1.jpg. You might want (or not) put it in the French-fry gallery. Pretty gross, eh. Luigi Zanasi 20:38, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Fabulous! Do you have it in a larger resolution?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:28, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
I do, the cropped original was at 482k. But when I tried to upload it, it said that the maximum recommended size was 150k, so I "downgraded" it (or whatever you call making it smaller). Should I just upload the bigger file? Luigi Zanasi 22:35, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, please, the bigger and highest resolution the better. I'll probably crop the photo closely. Alternately, you could email it to me and I'll upload it, see my userpage for my address. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:42, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
I will email you the original uncropped image and you can do your magic with it and upload it. Remember, CC-BY-SA-NC licence! I already have your email address from when you rapped my knuckles on my user name. :-) Luigi Zanasi 02:06, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Okay, cool! Can't see it now, though--for some reason the image is not showing at the upload page or in articles so I wrote bugs about it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)


Double voting

I suppose you know that you voted for 2 articles in Article of the Week ! What you may not know is that only one counted, which apparently is the [fractionally] first that you selected.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:05, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I wondered about that but then saw, "You may vote for as many articles as you wish (but you can only nominate one at a time; see above)." Probably needs to be clarified.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:31, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Egads!

I have temporarily returned to haunt. What have I missed?--Robert W King 11:32, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Bug-page created, in a basic form: CZ:Buglist

Hey, cool bug pic! {shivers} I think the main thing you missed not showing up in recent changes right now is an experiment with CZ:Dispute_Watch.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:44, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

E-mail

Did you get my e-mail, sent ten hours ago? --Kjetil Ree 15:04, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I just found it in the spamfilter, got inadvertently caught. I just replied now.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:13, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Almond pressed duck photos

Hi, Stephen, there's a guy in Palo Alto, I think, who has taken a lot of pix of how he prepares Almond Pressed Duck, or Mandarin Pressed Duck, or whatever. I can't see how to get an email address for him to ask permission to use some of the photos in the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Almond_Pressed_Duck article. Miracle man that you are, could you try to contact him and get permission? Many thanks! There's a Flickr link to him at:

http://flickr.com/photos/96779408@N00/323495488/

I can't find any other photos at all of this item except at maybe two restaurant websites. If this guy won't give permission, I'll have to wait until the next time I make it and then take my own. Sigh.

Hayford Peirce 12:07, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Release under a CC license requested.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:15, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Samantha Smith

I'm intending to contact the Globe for permission tonight. As for the article, would you be willing to help me in editing it to achieve CZ Live status? Paul Austin 05:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'll see what I can do, no promises.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 10:14, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Candle photo

Thanks for the legwork on the image for fire! Much appreciated. --Robert W King 13:24, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Butler

Yup, will do so now. Anton Sweeney 05:52, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Ah - I was beaten to it. Next time :-) Anton Sweeney 05:56, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I saw you working on this - Edward I has passed it's approval date too. --Todd Coles 13:50, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Edward I

Done, with some help from Chris. Anton Sweeney 04:52, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Cool. I saw the template issues going down. :-) I announced it at CZ:Approval Announcements. We should probably just make an entry there part of the approval process for constables, I think, since the approving constable can certainly best keep tabs on such matters.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 05:02, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
It might be worthwhile adding in a 'Step 0' to the approval process - along the lines of 'State on the talk page that you're going through the approval process steps, so noone else does the same'. Might be worth a second set of instructions for articles that have subpages/metadata pages? Anton Sweeney 05:15, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Looks like much of that procedure page will have to be rewritten to deal with the new subpage and metadata pages. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 05:40, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Butler 1

Steve, we may be getting into some over-editing here: I understand why you most recently changed that "The" to "A" in the Butler article, but you may have introduced an ambiguity as a result. It is my understanding that a house typically has only one butler - making whomever THE butler in A house. Thus, some combination of The and A makes sense in that sentence, so if you begin with "a butler" it should probably be "the house" (or vice versa, as it was.) Roger Lohmann 18:55, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Ah, very good point. I think my changing it was simply to get away from the association I made between "The butler" and the "The butler did it!"  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:58, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
I concur with the over-editing bit. This article is excellent, although minor improvement can be made. So let's go onto another one. [You could try with "Race", God help me] --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:07, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
I'll think about that, Martin. Off the bat, I think Race (biology) ought disappear as a separate article.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:23, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
Yep. This is partly why I havent written the section, I have about 1000 pages to read on the matter. Interestingly, the most complete discussions are in two journal volumes devoted to it, and one of them is a British social science journal {Ethnic & Racial Studies]. The other is American Psychologist.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:31, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

anthro

That would be great - my main problem with the article as it is - is that the sub-disciplines are not clearly defined e.g. physical anthro doesn't really include genetics, it USES genetics... Additionally, it is written very much from a social anthropological bias, which is ok, but probably doesn't reflect the enormous diversity of modern "anthropology". Another way to do this would be to create stubs on the sub-disciplines I listed and then bring those stub summaries into the over-arching article?

Talk to you in two weeks,

Lee R. Berger 10:10, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

  • by the way - I see you are a micronesian fan - is that for fishing or diving? My teams and I have just made a major discovery in Palau which we will be announcing in the next couple of months.

Lee R. Berger 10:27, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I taught adult education on Saipan for two years. You are right that anthropology is written from a socio-cultural anthro bias., and American anthro bias. That's because its principle authors (Joe and myself) have those biases but are very cognizant of them as a shortcoming.  :-) Hope we can hammer it out well.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:11, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Image:MGS.jpg

Per your suggestion, I edited the permissions section of Image:MGS.jpg so attribution is not required within CZ. I've also removed the {{Image|Oliver Smith}} template from the Metal Gear Solid article as well. Oliver Smith 17:44, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Yep, that's your right but you have to give notice of it, see Help:Images#Attributing media within articles. Thanks.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:09, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Submissions and user page.

Stephen;

Thanks for setting up my account. I have submitted a short article on 'Action' as a theatre term but it is not clear if I have to do anything further to get it approved. Do I contact someone or is there someone on the lookout for new submissions? Is there a special code I have to put after the article. I am ready to upload another quite long article and I thought I'd quiery the proceedure first. Next, I'm not sure how to Example.jpg add an image to my work. I press the button but it doesn't ask me to search my computer as I expected. Rather it gives me the notation above. I want to create an attractive user page. How did you go about creating the box and heading and the colour of your user page? Many thanks for your help, Launt. PS. Will I find your reply by going to User talk: Stephen Ewen? ...said Launt Thompson (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Hi Launt. Thanks for your contributions. To add images you go to Special:Upload and follow the directions there. If it does not work, make sure you have javascript turned on in an up-to-date browser. To turn on java script, fiddle around in the preferences or options of the browser until you find where to do that. To work articles toward approval, first see CZ:Approval Standards to make sure the article is at that stage; then, CZ:Approval Process to get the full run-down. In brief, you need to get hold of a theater editor; they get the ball rolling. To find one go to Category:Theater Workgroup (that link, which I added, is at the bottom of the article you made, and you should add it to all Theater articles) and click the link for Editors and contact one. Currently we are in scant supply in that department - there are two, but neither are active. You should therefore email one or both of them; use the Email this user option from the Toolbox on the left of your screen. If their emails are not public, let me know. As for creating all sorts of advanced cool stuff with wikicode...you'll learn in time just by progressively doing stuff on the wiki. :-) Let me know if this helps you or if you need additional assistance. Also, see the info I added to your message above, saying how to sign your posts on the wiki.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:56, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok

He, it is ok. People can read the page anyway, and if it never gets approved, it is not an issue for me and if it gets deleted, it basically is a loss for CZ. Kim van der Linde 13:58, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, maybe I am perceiving things wrongly, but there is no need for guns-a-blazin'. As best I can tell people want to help things along here, help and listen to you, and improve the system where it may need to be. Just a thought.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:29, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Stephen, I appreciate your help. Thanks! Kim van der Linde 14:51, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Deleting pages

Staphan, it seems that what I did with porting good pages from WP to CZ is not allowed without substantial editing. Therefore, could you just delete them for me. Kim van der Linde 15:36, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

It is not that cut and dry, see CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium is not a mirror.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:40, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Image help

I think I'm reasonably technically literate (what with it being my job and all...) then every so often I hit some frustrating problem... I've uploaded this and I'm trying to include it in Sea Stallion - and failing. What am I doing wrong? Anton Sweeney 10:40, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

I fixed it. --Robert W King 11:46, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

copyright claims

no one can claim copyright on PD images and Google does NOT claim any copyright whatsoever. PD is public domain and that means FREE use by everyone. CZ should not invent purported copyright restrictions that no one else claims exist (in this case , Google does NOT claim there are any copyright claims). If there are issues here they should be resolved by CZ lawyers. Richard Jensen 02:39, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I agree they are not claiming copyright. The point is to inform the reader that the digitizer of the PD image has asked people to adhere to certain requests, in this case. That's all. It's up to us to inform of that with {{PD-butclaim}} and not hide it, if we are going to use the image. It's up to the re-user to decide what they shall do with the information. See? Note that the PD images where no such requests were made use only {{PD}}.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:49, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
RJ comments: we can note Google's polite, non-legal request but we cannot suggest that PD status (lack-of-copyright) is somehow restricted. The only legal restrictions come with copyright and Google agrees that it does not have one. A restricted CZ code like {{PD-butclaim}} will surely confuse CZ users since Google does NOT assert any rights at all. Their main request is no-commercial-usage (because THEY are commercial and do not want to help Yahoo and other competitors), which CZ adheres to because we are non-commercial. We of course reject Google's suggestion that our use be merely "personal" or private. We are public, and Google's request violates the policies of the libraries from which Google borrowed the books. Richard Jensen 03:58, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
What you have to keep in mind is this is about a lot more than CZ's using of images. We are not just hosting images for our articles. We are hosting images in view of redistributing them! That's the main point of the templates, after all. WP and their Commons are patently irresponsible by flipping the finger at media providers by not informing their re-users of their claimed restrictions and, in the case with Google, their polite requests. That's not the way to build a project with a good reputation among the people we depend upon to provide us with content. That said, I agree {{PD-butclaim}} in this case is too strong and knew that when I placed it--its use of the word "rights", particularly. They are not asserting a restriction right--right or wrong, that is irrelevant, the point is to inform the re-user--but are only making a "polite request", as you say. I am trying to avoid creating a gazillion templates for every nuance! But I just thought of a great idea, one that even saves doing a lot of work in the future, and will adjust the template tomorrow.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:13, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
I think we're pretty well agreed here. I suggest CZ has to insist on its rights to FREELY redistribute PD images and texts, with no restrictions whatever on us. That's the law and it protects our operation. The books are owned by U of Michigan Library NOT by Google. Richard Jensen 04:27, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
We should not take a position. We should fully inform and let people make up their own minds. BTW, next time one of us is in Michigan.... :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 04:31, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
we have taken a position, and I agree with your new solution. :) Richard Jensen 13:30, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Sorry for being stupid, but where *is* the solution? Hayford Peirce 13:49, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, technically it is a position, but it is one of neutrality. Hayford, the "solution" is on the image upload pages for the images in Poland attributed to Google Book Search. They've digitized some Public Domain books, where we got some images, but have requested people not use them commercially and that Google Book Search be attributed. The language of their request made {{PD-butclaim}} too strong, but {{PD}} was a poor choice because it did not inform the potential re-user of Google's request. Thus, in what winded up as yet-another-template creation, darn it, we now have {{PD-butrequest}}.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:17, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
let's not give multiple credits to Google on images. They get credit on the image page, not on the pages where the images are used. If we start this path every sentence will have a footnote! Richard Jensen 14:24, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
See Help:Images#Attributing media within articles. To see how photographers feel about the matter, read the blog of photographer James Duncan Davidson. To see the same photographer demolish Wikipedian arguments for not attributing images within articles, see here.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:38, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
citing photographers is not at issue. Google took no historical photographs. Richard Jensen 14:54, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Yea, its attributing the digitizer or archiver who has done the service of making it available, in this instance. So, for example, if we get a picture of Abraham Lincoln from the Chicago Historical Society, they get attribution in the image box.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:36, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
No it is not customary to cite the technician who runs a scanner or xerox machine (in this case the guy was unprofessional and incompetent as shown by many blurred pages in the Norman, Poland book ). Primary attributions (author/photographer) belong on the article page; All secondary attributions belong on the image page, not on the article page. Richard Jensen 16:01, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Agreed that Google flubbed up a lot of pages. Pretty amazing, really. But normal publishers attribute within the article. Original authors and who made it available seems the most informative and courteous way to go.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:23, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
No, I have a strong objection as history, politics and military editor. There is no good reason for additing secondary attributions (like which library owned the book, what was the original publisher's name, which subcontractor did the scanning, who did the uploading, who typed the captions, which search engine we used) on article pages. I just looked at cdrom World Book and Encarta Encyclopedias: they do NOT give attributions of artwork on the article page (not even the photographer) . We have already gone overboard to meet Google's requests and it stops there in articles where's I'm an editor. 18:40, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
When we start paying fees to use images like Encarta and EB, we will be talking equivalences here so we can do as they do. Until such time as you digitize the images yourself, we honor the request of the person or entity who made the image placeable in the article at all. I'm done here. If you insist on using them without attributing them in the normal professional manner, they need to be deleted. I've removed them for now.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:04, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

As for the substantive issue, we have full legal right to deal with PD images in any way we choose. In fact we have honored Google's 2 requests (1, non-commercial; 2, attribution so people can find the source.) Richard Jensen 21:34, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Poland&action=history  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:54, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me weigh in on this tomorrow. Please, everyone, remain calm and civil; we all want the best for the project. Dr. Jensen, though you are a history editor, this does not mean that you have the authority to set policy about the legal requirements of CZ's use of images, even for history articles: we will have a unified policy about that, not different policies for different groups. That was evidently Steve's assumption, and I agree with that much. It might have been out of line to delete the images, however. Let's consider this all calmly tomorrow. --Larry Sanger 22:05, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

I did not delete the images, only remove them from the article.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:10, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi Steve and Richard- stepping in as a mediator, it seems that 1. this is an issue which straddles both of your domains (media assets coordinator and History editor, respectively); 2. it's unclear precisely what practical legal rights Citizendium has for using public domain images which digitizing companies assert rights over (personally I'm closer to Dr. Jensen's position, but from a practical standpoint, caselaw isn't settled, so as a matter of organizational due diligence I personally think we should at least consider such claims until caselaw gets settled); 3. it's difficult to decipher how to interpret Google's request. Presumably they're phrasing it in terms of a request as they're not sure of the legality of making claims on public domain images.

Having said that, at this point it does seem we've done what was requested of us by Google (at least for some images), so I think restoring (some of?) the images is quite reasonable (Steve, would you disagree with this assessment? Perhaps I don't know all there is to know here). This doesn't really speak to the deeper question of how to handle public domain images-- whether to pay attention to these requests in the first place, for instance. I think we've got to get a group of interested people together to talk about this.

I'm not sure this is a constabulary issue, and I'd be happy to have someone who might have more relevant authority jump in. But for now, I'm unprotecting the page. I'd ask that we honor Google's request for attribution for the time being. I'll also email the Google Book Search people and see how they view their request. Best wishes, --Mike Johnson 22:41, 26 August 2007 (CDT) edit: I now see Larry's post and will wait to do anything until tomorrow.

My position is that we have fully honored Google's two requests (on the image page) and this does not have to be repeated on every article page. (book publishers typically have a page of small-print acknowledgements at the end of the book re permissions for photos which are purchased)Richard Jensen 01:11, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
My position is Help:Images#Attributing media within articles, and that such attribution must be default and standardized across all articles for it to be workable. Start making exceptions based upon editor whims and forget it--and forget about having a good reputation among content providers and drawing in fantastic photographic contributions.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:09, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

CZ needs a policy on this, which apparently has been emerging pragmatically. I am not sure that is the best way, in the sense that allowing redefinition of public ownership by a multinational giant like Google is not part of our Neutrality Policy. I have started on thread on urgent copyright issues here: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1172.0.html --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:49, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

thanks for the hard work

I don't want to sound angry--I really appreciate your hard and very useful work! Richard Jensen 02:40, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Manga & anime

What workgroup would articles about manga & animes fall into. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 19:00, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Depends on the form--Literature, but Media when made into a film.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 19:07, 26 August 2007 (CDT)


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Need help with licensing of images from open-access PLoS Biology articles

Stephen: I have started adapting a PLoS Biology article as a "Signed Article" for Life/Draft.

See:Working adaptation here

Problem: I uploaded two figures from the article, but they do not show in the article. Licensing issue, I guess. Since the entire article is open-access under Creative Commons Attributed, I assume all text and figures reproducible.

What must I do? The image filenames you can find in article.

I would appreciate your help. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:38, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Here you go Anthony, Image:CZ Whitfield Fig2 plos biology.jpg is all set to go as are Image:Hurricane_Diana.png and Image:Demise_of_a_sun-like_star.jpg.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:10, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Creating related article

hi Stephen - back from Madagascar. I have just created the Gallery of living primates - how do I make it a subpage of Primate?

Lee R. Berger 05:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Lee, welcome back! You just click the move button and move it to Primate/Gallery. I did it. It is showing up in the subpage template now. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Stephen, I have started to work on each individual species of primate - a thankless task mind you! - could you take a look at the format and see if these make adequate stubs, stylistically and content-wise, for bright young sparks to take over? So far Indri, black lemur, Common brown lemur, Black and white ruffed lemur.

Thanks,

Lee R. Berger 04:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Also, would you look at the style of reference in the Primate/Bibliography? Before I add a bunch I need to know if anyone has reached a reference style consensus for the wiki?

Lee R. Berger 04:46, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

One more idiot editing question (I promise I'll get the hang of this eventually!) - I was trying to create the nice metadata template (the grey box with subpage links) for the top of the Prosimian article so I could create the appropriate subpages - I went through the nice step by step metadata template instructions for idiots - and in the end I had - you guessed it - no template at the top of the page! Is there an even more idiot proof instruction manual to create one of these for an already created article? (I thought I was so clever adding a checklist too!

Thanks in advance!

Lee R. Berger 06:03, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Figured that one out all on my own...

Lee R. Berger 06:15, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Another little editing snag - why is it that when I create a template page for any article with a title longer than 3 words I get an error when I add subpages9?? See Common brown lemur or Black and white ruffed lemur as compared to Black lemur or Indri??

Lee R. Berger 07:16, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Wow, let's get Chris Day for that one.. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:57, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
Hi Lee, I replied on the talk for Primate/Bibliography. On these template matters, the feature is too new for me to have mastered so I will defer to the creator, Chris.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:59, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

i just did Black and white ruffed lemur and it seems to be working. There is one snag in that the main article tab is not blue on the article. I'll try and fix that bug, but I don't see any errors as described above? Chris Day (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

All is working nicely now - it was giving me this green box with "an editor has approved this article" and other gibberish - again - I think it was a time thing - but all is well in lemur-world now!

Lee R. Berger 15:01, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Seems alright for common brown lemur too (except the annoying bug I mentioned above). Maybe IE is displaying that bug with an error compared to my minor "off button" ? Chris Day (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
I recognize the "green box of gibberish" problem. This has happened to me a couple of times as well. That's the approval template showing up with all of the information missing. It happens when you add the subpages template to a page before the metadata page has been created. It's really not a problem, just a reminder to create the metadata page. :-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:38, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Problem at Jack Crawford

Hi, Stephen, I used Larry's new CZ:Start article template to create an article at Jack Crawford but something is wrong. I'm pretty sure that I followed his instructions carefully. I said in my Summary that something wasn't working but no one has replied or tried to fix it -- could you kindly take a look? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 12:23, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Image copyright issues

Hi Stephen, sorry for not replying earlier, I haven't really been active since creating the Finland article. Anyhow, what would be the best course of action regarding the image Image:480px-Coat of arms of Finland.svg.png? Should I perhaps try to contact the uploader of the image at Wikimedia to get that person's real name? Or what do you suggest? (I must admit that I didn't read the media guidelines closely enough before uploading that image; my humblest apologies.) Elina Rantala 10:15, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks

For the heads-up regarding the media assets group. Was your post prompted by my new page, or unrelated? I find if I copy my articles over from wikipedia, half of the templates I usually use over there don't work over here. Is the assets group working on fixing those sorts of problems as well? Images are less of a worry - I just need to upload them to here. Cheers. --Russ McGinn 05:19, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I saw you were active at the Commons and thought you might be interested to know. As for the templates, it may be that there is a better way to do many of them.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 09:52, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Please look at this article

Good Morning Steve,

Could you take a look at this article TI:Unertan Syndrome - its a med article thus I am concerned about its general style (and thus the interpretation of people who read it} - it reads like an unrefereed paste from a "scientific" article (or one in a journal mis-quoted - note - I've removed the "we's" and "Ours" in certain sections which makes me suspicious). Also, how do I, as an editor, paste a "need references" template without just typing "needs refs" in the body of the article.

Lee R. Berger 13:05, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Unertan Syndrome is an article written by Dr. Uner Tan. It has a prefix "TI" because it is under (inactive) review by the Topic Informant Workgroup. This just needs to be pretty much left alone, for now, except my a medical editor and the topic informant folks--unless you'd like to join that workgroup, which might be a great idea in this case (I see your note on the talk page for the article). I'll alter Larry to the matter. On adding citation needed tags, we don't do that. Instead, and generally, just express your concerns on the talk page. For anthropology articles--any article placed under the anthropology workgroup--that's different, since you are anthro editor. You have authority over anthro articles, especially when they relate to your area(s) of expertise. You can remove problematic text, and even request that a constable delete problematic articles altogether. Hope this helps.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:31, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for that answer - I removed my couple of (ref needed tags). Larry has emailed me and I have emailed Dr. Tan concerning possible changes. If, in the end, they leave in the evolution bit - which I think needs to be significantly altered... then this should also fall under the auspices of the anthropology workgroup as well as med and TI(the whole article is, in a funny sort of way, anthropological in tone anyway).

Lee R. Berger 05:00, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

P.S. - how do I "join" a workroup? - its not clear to me on the main workgroup page - as much of what i do overlaps both biology and health sciences I'd like to get involved in those.

Lee R. Berger 05:06, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Stephen: I am interested to know in what way you intend to "alter Larry". Are you open to suggestions?:-) More seriously, if you have any expertise in this area, Lee, I would appreciate a quick look [and maybe more] on the article I have rescued from sabotage on "Race". It would benefit from some anthropological expertise. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:49, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

will do.

Lee R. Berger 07:02, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

ROFL. My silly typo went on Robert W King's ongoing list of laugh-at-ourselves ha-ha's. Will reply to Lee later, gotta run.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 10:12, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Special symbols link

I sure will! Its absence has been driving me freakin' bananas! Doesn't anyone else use it? Hayford Peirce 14:58, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Just checked this morning (Tuesday) and it still isn't fixed.... Hayford Peirce 13:52, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Ticking the box

Hi Stephen, re. this. No problem, just that I was given to understand today that yes I tick that box if content is from WP, but not if I'm the sole author of the article over there. Is that not right? --Russ McGinn 20:41, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah, my bad, I apologize--I forgot to look at the talk page where I would have seen your note. I'll revert myself.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:46, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

New editor

We seem to have attracted a qualified new author who editsUser:Kim van der Linde- please encourage!

Lee R. Berger 13:23, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

adding to the workgroup page

When you get a moment, could you add any additional "to do" headings to the anthro workgroup page - particularly in sociology/classical anthropology? I want to get this list in order - format it and make a decent welcome page (unless of course you find the time to do that...............)!

Many thanks in advance!

Lee R. Berger 14:54, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. I added quite a few major biographies we should have, and a few others.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:04, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
    • I have just posted a plea for assistance on the biology workgroup talk page to try and bring some of those editor/authors into the fold. Maybe we shold do the same in Geography - we overlap a lot. Also, could you begin putting your mind to a sexy look to the workgroup homepage and list that is colourful, user friendly and will make us look like we actually know what we are doing? My thoughts would be to go "live" with such a page in a week or so once we have a pretty good "to do" list up and running. Your thoughts?

Lee R. Berger 00:44, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

      • Go for the networking. As for the page...sounds fun! I will be pretty slow at everything this week, however, as I'm under a flu. Also, User:Richard J. Senghas has expressed a desire in the past to approve Linguistic anthropology. Perhaps you two might do whatever final things need doing for that. I'd like to see the article expand and read a tad easier, but there is always the next approved version for that.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:53, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

PD question

Thinking a bit more about the PDB's "special version" of "public domain", does this even make sense? Is this like being vegetarian except for the occasional pot roast? If this is so paradoxical as to be nonsensical, I'd rather get the PDB to clarify their license rather than perpetuate this screwball version of something that (I think) should be a simple concept. Thoughts? Andrew Su 12:46, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Yea, its like saying "boneless fish" but it really has bones.  :-) I think their requirements are actually very clear, however, and they are just using the term "public domain" wrongly. It would certainly be erroneous, given their language, to tag it {{PD}}. What I made {{Attribution-commercialrestrictions}}--that is more fitting than the other tag I made ad hoc. While it is clear they allow the whole database to be sold commercially, that clearly does not apply to individual images, and they also clearly require attribution. That's for the meantime. I have additionally asked them review http://www.rcsb.org/robohelp_f/site_navigation/citing_the_pdb.htm on their website.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:14, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Thanks... Just to confirm, you've already harassed the PDB folks about clarifying their terms of use right? (I'm hopeful that they'll drop the fine print instead of replacing the "public domain"...) And, barring any change from the PDB/RCSB, we should use {{Attribution-commercialrestrictions}} when loading PDB images, right? Thanks, Andrew Su 15:19, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
You got it.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:58, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Licensing

Hi Stephen,

Hope you are feeling better. I have been following the various discussions on the use of images and am more than a bit confused. I will be uploading probably hundreds of images - I have been choosing "copyrighted, no restriction on usage but author attribution" or something like that as the licensing - I really am giving these but would like attribution - I don't particularly want people after-selling them for profit but am not that paranoid (nor am I that good a photographer to have to worry about that!) I just go to rare places! Is that the best agreement for this purpose or should I click on another?

Thanks in advance!

Lee R. Berger 14:42, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

{{Attribution}} means you are giving away rights to anyone anywhere to use it for any purpose so long as you are attributed. Based upon what you said, I'd suggest {{cc-by-nc-3.0}} as most fitting. It allows you to maintain control over who and who does not use the images commercially. Or, you can use {{cc-by-3.0}} if you wish to give a blanket right for anyone anywhere to use the works commercially. all three of these require attribution. Moreover, you may state on the image upload page precisely how you should be attributed.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:53, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Image:175px-Questionmark_copyright.svg.png

You may want to make that the same dimensions as the "stop hand" icon next to it for pure aesthetic reasons. --Robert W King 18:50, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Workgroup welcome

Can we move towards a neutral welcome note? Edit mine as you see fit please.

Lee R. Berger 10:58, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Since I have had questions from all the other editors, I thought I would head you off at the pass - I'm clearly not being clear - clearly - I am clearly talking about editing the welcome note on CZ:Anthropology Workgroup so that it clearly is not from clearly an individual but clearly from all of the editors!

Ah, yes, that's perfectly clear. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:33, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Typo

I'd say just go and fix it. I'd do it but that would be an abuse of trust. You're a constable though and I think this should be within your jurisdiction. And if not, we need to make it happen. Chris Day (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Image problem

Moved to User_talk:Stephen_Ewen/Scratch_Pad5.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:30, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Archive

What's the code to archive a talk page?

{{archive box|auto=long}}. You have to create the archive page first. The code goes on all archive pages plus your current talk page.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:43, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Much better

That's much better! [1].. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:58, 18 September 2007 (CDT)

...better better better better much better much better better

It looks extremely screwed up when I go to the page, but if I click refresh, then it looks just fine. --Robert W King 17:02, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
How's about now? I got it working for IE, and not just Mozilla....I hope :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:07, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Same problem. I'm starting to think there may be a site-wide problem with the css implementation. Or we're collectively doing something extremely wrong or bad. --Robert W King 17:08, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Hey, maybe you should get IE? But you'd still have a hole in your subpages ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:44, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Actually it is nothing to do with us. Everytime a problem arises a quick search reveals these are IE problems not CZ problems, not that this helps much. Just out of interest Matt, what do you see using Firefox? Chris Day (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
It's true that they are IE problems, but there are FF/Opera problems too. I just want to establish that although IE7 is released, it doesn't mean a lot of people upgrade to it and I feel that it would be in our best interest to support IE6/7, and whatever the current release of FFX/Opera are, which means some kind of minimum baseline--what that is though, I don't know. --Robert W King 21:58, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Well, for sure we need the subpages template to look right in ALL browsers. Is our current gap problem limited to IE7? I have to admit I have been hoping it would just fix itself. I'm like an Ostrich in this case. ;) Chris Day (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
I have not yet seen it exhibited in FF 2.0.0.6 --Robert W King 22:13, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Maybe we should just mandate everyone use firefox ;) Chris Day (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
One would wish. Sheesh, IE is a real pain in the you-know-where.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Are we talking about the page with a vocabulary of one noun? You will get people talking that you're trying to make Bush look good! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:11, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
What? --Robert W King 17:16, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Butler butler butler butler. Butler butler.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:41, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
Nobody ever answered my question of some time ago about what butlers got PAID -- surely they didn't work just for all the "tweenies" they could grope?! Or all the left-over port they could drink after the table was cleared? Isn't this an aspect of butlering that ought to be addressed at some point? At least if we want to have an "approved" article that seriously considers butlering in all its aspects? Hayford Peirce 23:01, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
I've been thinking abut it, Hayford. I'm gonna try to dig for that, and add stuff like a gallery, for version 1.1 of the article.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:06, 18 September 2007 (CDT)
This does bring up an interesting point which I was wondering while reading the article. Isn't part of the definition of a butler the very fact that they are "paid" - this differentiates them from a "Slave" where regardless of the status they are not technically renumerated for their work? Just wondering - as the history of butler section might be confusing these two possibly different types of historical "houshould service personnel"....

Lee R. Berger 03:33, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Copyright van der Waals photograph

Stephen, are you sure about the copyright? I own a Dutch book that has the very same photo. This book credits the van der Waals archive of the University of Amsterdam.

I copied the original credit line (d. in 1923, hence PD) from the Dutch Wikipedia, but that line may be in accordance with Dutch law, I don't know about that.--Paul Wormer 03:15, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

No, I am not fully sure, but am going by the very best info I can find. I searched with "van der Waals archief" and found nothing connected to the the Univ. of Amsterdam, unless I just can't decipher the Dutch enough; and, in English, and the Univ. of Amsterdam site specifically but found nothing. The archive seems like it may be physical only and contained within the U of A's library. What is most important is that re-users be able to trace the image to some solid end, to determine whether they can use it soundly--and CZ, too, can certainly use it soundly as sourced from the Smithsonian. If you can also cite the book at the image description page and additionally credit The van der Waals archive of the University of Amsterdam, that would be great and a very nice service to re-users. I also wonder about the 1910 date on the photo. Are your estimating that date (expert estimates are just great, when the sources otherwise lack data)?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:53, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
Steve, please look here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1910/ . Noble prize people claim copyright :-) --Paul Wormer 09:50, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
Hi Paul. Thanks for asking about this again. I admit I was in a hurry last night and was sloppy. There IS an issue with using this photo from the Smithsonian Library--they are asserting their physical property ownership rights over it, unrelated to copyright, and that they may thus permit or deny access and usages to it. See http://www.sil.si.edu/imagegalaxy/imageGalaxy_About_FAQ.cfm and scroll down to item #10. We should work to find this image from a source other than the Smithsonian Library.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:52, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
Also, the date is not clear.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 18:54, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
I have asked for a huge tiff file to be emailed.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:15, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
According to a librarian at the University of Amsterdam, they do not have a digitized image of the photo of van der Waals that they may forward to me. I have requested an image of a sculpture they have. I've also sent a letter to the Nobel Foundation requesting to use their photo.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:52, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
Hi Steve, I wrote the following simultaneously with you:
I wrote an e-mail to a history of science professor (A.J. Kox) of the Unversity of Amsterdam, who wrote a lot about van der Waals and used the same picture in the article that credits the Van der Waals archive. He wrote me that an old print of the photo is now in the University of Amsterdam Museum (which opened relatively recently), and he thinks that we should simply credit that. He doesn't understand why the Smithsonian would get credit. Personally, I'm starting to believe that it is an official Noble Prize photograph, because van der Waals got this prize in 1910, and the Noble Prize site strongly suggests it. However, prof. Kox apparently isn't aware of this origin.
Further, it seems clear to me that use of this very widespread photo cannot have any legal repercussions. For instance the largest Dutch paper encyclopedia (the Winkler-Prins of 1974, long before scanners and internet) has it, without credit. Another Dutch book I own also has it, with credit to the UvA museum. So I would reinsert it, possibly with credit to the UvA museum, or else to the Noble Prize organization.
So I hope the Noble Prize organization will react so that its origin will be clear once and for all--Paul Wormer 03:01, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
Agreed it's unlikely we'd get sued. But I'd rather host it cut and clean. Like you, I have come to believe this is the photo the Nobel Foundation took of van der Waals in in 1910, and that the (marred and stained) version the Smithsonian Institution Library holds is just a copy they were given. I emailed an attached and signed letter to Nobel (see text here), so hopefully it'll just be a few days to hear back. We'll use it...one way or another! Meanwhile, looks like we'll also have this to use if we want. The librarian at UvA is very helpful, by the way.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 03:24, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Image:Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals_photographic_portrait.jpg - matter satisfied, at least in my mind.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:01, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

requesting deletions in Computers

Stephen, As you noticed, I have requested to delete several of the little-linked, inactive pages in Computers that are virtually identical to Wikipedia, don't seem to be actively of interest to any of our current authors, and just aren't that good to start with. How do I flag that? Can I just say, "Let's start these over; they aren't that good and no one seems to own them"?Pat Palmer 22:27, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Use {{delete}} and place a note on the talk page.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:36, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
alternatively you can use {{speedydelete|reason}} like so:

--Robert W King 22:54, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

LOL, Robert. But Pat is needing to have things deleted as an editor, things I can't delete as a constable.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:46, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

I saw that. --Robert W King 01:52, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
As an editor, can I act on this and delete Stephen's talk page then? Do we have consensus? Lee R. Berger 02:17, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
You have my authority, whatever that counts for. --Robert W King 02:18, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
P.S. - have you fellows seen this discussion - [[2]]? Lee R. Berger 02:20, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Here's the deletion link. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:22, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha...... Lee R. Berger 02:25, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Image information style

I kind of liked the old template better; it had less "fluff". --Robert W King 21:54, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

You mean the style or the extra info?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:59, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
The style, the table layout. --Robert W King 22:14, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Photo Disclaimer

I have just posted a photo disclaimer on two photos (Mari Holden and Amber Neben). While such a disclaimer is not legally required, I felt it was appropriate in view of what I have come to believe is an unacceptably high liklihood of misuse of such material due to misunderstanding of the commercial use CCPL licenses. I sent a lengthy note containing more detailed explanations to Zach Pruckowski via private email. If you are interested, you might ask him to forward that note to you. The "article" attached to that note was originally sent to A. Beesley in connection with the Highland Games wiki in 2005 (nearly two and a half years ago)! James F. Perry 17:29, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, James. I'd not worry too much about Image:Highland_Dance_001.jpg, I could not tell the person from another. I've thought it might be wise to just avoid commercial-allowable photos of identifiable human subjects--it's always commercial use that gets people in trouble in these regards, to my knowledge. I need to study this issue out some more.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:39, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
Such disclaimers are probably a good idea on photos of identifiable, living persons. Maybe we should routinely add a disclaimer to all photos of living people? The Wikimedia Commons has a similar template, see Commons:Template:Personalty rights. --Kjetil Ree 21:33, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
Yep. I am thinking it needs to go into the Notes section of the template I am working on. An example of it is at Image:Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals_photographic_portrait.jpg  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:50, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, I will send you a note concerning this matter which has concerned me greatly for a number of years since I post photos of "famous people". And yes, CZ should definitely and routinely post a disclaimer similar to mine on all such photos of living, identifiable people, whether actually identified by name in the photo or not.

By the way, the use of NC (non-commercial) licenses doesn't really solve the problem, at least not in principal, though it may remove the temptation of profit. The problem is the potential violation of an individual's privacy and publicity rights. And just using the photo is a non-commercial way doesn't change that. James F. Perry 21:53, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree such a disclaimer should go up when the individual is identifiable (which I do not think is the case with several of your low red photos, James). This author says breaching personality rights of famous people in particularly commercial usages is likely to get one sued. Placing anyone in a false light is also big trouble, commercial or not.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:03, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
The word "identifiable" has a special meaning in a legal context. There is no requirement that the individual subject of the photo be easily identifiable, or identifiable by any particular person. For example, the Highland dancer who is the subject of Image:Highland_Dance_001.jpg is identifiable. James F. Perry 13:47, 23 September 2007 (CDT)
Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People is useful. James, let's avoid peculiar templates and use standardized ones, please.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:58, 23 September 2007 (CDT)
The disclaimer is not really a template, in the sense that it cannot be called using curly brackets. It is a copyright notice. The terms of the cc-by-sa license allow me, as the creator of the work, to specify how I want to be attributed, including terms of service (see section 4c of the license for the specifics). I will likely rephrase the notice slightly and then attach it in its final form to any cc-by-sa photographic work of mine (on the actual image page) whether on CZ, or WikiMedia Commons, or Highland Games wikia. The creator of any work needs to have the freedom to craft an individual copyright notice / disclaimer.
I must say, though, that due to the possibility of end users misinterpreting the cc-by-sa license (or other "commercial use" licenses from CC), it would not be remiss for CZ to consider making it offical policy that such images with "identifiable" (and here I use the word "identifiable" in its legal sense) persons be allowed only under NC licenses. I would certainly have no problem with that. I have tried to make my work as "free" as possible, hence the cc-by-sa license. However, it may well be that it is more trouble than it is worth.
That said, note my previous comments about NC licenses. They too can be misused in violation of the subject's privacy/publicity rights (as well as other rights rooted in public policy). James F. Perry 12:06, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Add stipulations about attribution and so forth in the Notes section, James. You may need to add the new image info template to the image upload page, which you can grab from Special:Upload. I'd like to avoid user-designed templates, whether residing in the Template space or not. They'll never end, otherwise, I'm afraid!

BTW, I have never been a fan of any commercial-allowable license. They enable many lurking things to bite one in the hindparts. One thing I have noticed: the more people become educated about them, the less likely they are to use them.

Lawrence Lessig's blogpost "On the Texas suit against Virgin and Creative Commons" is definitely worth a read.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:44, 24 September 2007 (CDT)


This should do it:

Attention niels epting.png

Notice of privacy and publicity rights

The subjects of images and other media hosted at Citizendium, or in some cases their heirs, should be presumed to enjoy certain rights of privacy and publicity associated with their images and names.
These are separate and distinct interests from copyright interests. Persons desiring to use images and other media from Citizendium bear the responsibility of making individualized determinations as to whether privacy and publicity rights are implicated by the nature of the materials and how they may wish to use such materials.


 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:33, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

The original version of the "Rights of privacy and publicity notice" read:
"The subject(s) of this image, or in some cases their heirs, should be presumed to enjoy certain rights of privacy and publicity associated with their images(s) and names(s). Caution is advised when using this image."
As a legal notice, this wording is inadequate and even dangerous. The problem is that users of the material, under whatever license it is issued, need to respect the subject's privacy / publicity rights (that is a paraphrase and not intended as suggested language). The notice should inform them of this fact.
Instead, this notice appears to actually license precisely that which ought to be forbidden by telling them merely to "use caution" (Your honor, they said it was okay as long as I was "cautious" in my usage").
James F. Perry 11:22, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

If how it reads now does not make it idiot-proof, I give up. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:27, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Problem uploading my flowchart

Thanks for helping with the image for Guilt in U.S. law. Since you seem to be into this sort of thing, let me tell you what the problem was, because other users will be having it, too: I had replaced those images before, but this time when I went to do it, the 'browse' button on CZ's upload page didn't work -- when I clicked on my folder citizendium, it filled in the window box with something like 'c:\desktop\windows\citizendium.url' and wouldn't drop down to the contents of my folder. I eventually realized the way around it was to type the full path in that box, but it took me a couple of more tries to realize my display wasn't refreshing when I clicked on my browser's 'refresh' button, so I had to do a 'CTRL F5' hard refresh to see the current version. Since you fixed the mess with the -01 figure, I've replaced the -02 one, so you might want to fix whatever I messed up with it, too. These problems are partly my fault and partly the fault of my antique hardware and software. Again, many thanks for your help. -- k. kay 22:10, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a browser issue, Kay. Which browser are you using? Is it the latest version of it?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:18, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm using IE5.5 which is the latest version my WIN95 computer will run, but CZ's upload software was working okay with it before now. -- k. kay 21:51, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Privacy rights

Just a question, do all pictures of living people require a privacy rights template? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 17:12, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

I think it'd be a good idea for ones where the person is clearly identifiable. But all images are going to be gone through in a type of Big Image Check in the future. That's the plan, anyway.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:14, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Image:Brit-gas.jpg

See here. I left a note at RJ's talk page as well. --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:25, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

SOoooooo Close

I was sooooo close to speedydeleting this page!!!!

Tee-hee. --Robert W King 21:53, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Phossil fotos

Hey Steve, have you looked at the pics over at Fossilization? I think those all came out of a couple of books from the bibliography. We might be able to use them under fair use but I doubt that anyone has tried simply asking for permission to use them yet. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:49, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

I can look at that - I'm actually an author on one of the chapters... P.S. could someone check why the "Talk" button isn't coming up on her page? By the way, this is one of my students who recieved their assignment last week. They are being graded on how close to approval they can get their topics so ANY feedback and interactions with them would be greatly appreciated - I'll be holding off but watching these pages as they start up so will need the help! Lee R. Berger 23:43, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
We really need more specific information on where these images came from and I do need to approach her about the matter.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:09, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Her talk page is User_talk:Natasha_Barbolini.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:21, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

I actually meant that I could not see the "Talk" button on Fossilization. Please go ahead and contact her about the images - it wouldbe a good learning process for her to get the permission from us and the editors.

Lee R. Berger 00:36, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Not sure why the talk tab is not showing up. We do need to find out who holds the rights to these images. A good learning experience indeed! When does her project need to be completed by?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:39, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
The images will generally be held by the contributing author in this case (although a few of them were created specifically for the book History of Earth and Life that we published here in S. Africa) - Let's let her find out on each case and handle them one by one which will assist in teaching the students the process of copyright permission. The project will be graded in probably the first or second week of November. By the way, all of my students claim to have signed up, but only three of them appear as authors in the Anthro workgroup - who owuld I query about this?

Lee R. Berger 00:45, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

The disappearing Talk tab is a long-standing issue that neither Chris Day or I have any idea as to the cause. It happens intermittently; I'm sure it has something to do with the drawing of html/div/css elements because if you immediately resize the browser window you'll see it appear (which is not a real fix in itself, but there you go =[ ). --Robert W King 00:47, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Lee, you can see exactly who has signed up at Special:Log/newusers. To appear in the anthro workgroup, they must be added at their userpage in the form [[Category:Anthropology Authors|Last, First M.]].  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:00, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Stephen - found them all hiding there!

Lee R. Berger 01:11, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Stephen. I have spoken to my head of department on the permission issue, because he is the author of one of the books, and the other was written by a past student of his. Thus it should be no trouble obtaining permission. Thanks for your help, and I will upgrade permissions as soon as I get them.Natasha Barbolini 04:10, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

This sample permission letter and this one may help. Either way, we need to have the permission documented.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 09:55, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Ham pix

I thought that I had 3 or 4 nice pix of a roast ham I did for a party a couple of years ago but when I finally located them they're not as good as I remembered them being. So I'll let you find some PD pix to stick in. Thanks, Hayford Peirce 14:30, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure. There are some truly delectable photos about. I'll shoot to create a gallery. BTW, some of the Italian hams are unspeakably good.  :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:35, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
To eat or to view? And/or either? I gotta say that I like prosciutto sandwiches.... Hayford Peirce 15:49, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
Both!  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 16:00, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Upload page

Are you responsible for the changes on the upload page? It looks way cleaner. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:00, 26 September 2007 (CDT)


Undisciplined articles on Core articles page

Hi. I have commented that most of [I think] your suggestions really fit ok into social science disciplines. Feel free to move them there if you agree. By the way, any advice on rewording the short account of the two speeches in NY, will be gratefullt received. The point was actually that news accounts are heavily biased and unacceptable for an encyclopedia, but there is no intention to offend! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:17, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Waldo photo

It's terrific! Many thanks. I've made a couple minor changes. Also, Michael's name is misspelled in the title of the upload, but, I suppose, that really doesn't matter. I'll try to get the article revised and created tomorrow. (PS -- he was indeed universally known as Waldo, as the article will point out.) Hayford Peirce 18:56, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for reassuring me -- I was feeling that I was *exceptionally* stupid, hehe.... I'll just keep writing the article and will worry about the images when the text is finished and in place. Hayford Peirce 23:34, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Editing patterns

Stephen, I've been observing your edits for a while now and I've noticed that when you are stating a point on a talk page, you tend to make one initial major edit, and then a rapid succession of minor edits over the course of the next 10-15 minutes or so. The effect this has is twofold: one, the rapid-fire editing might cause an editing conflict (in terms of server queue, two people are editing the same page at once); two, sometimes it can happen where your initial point is responded to, but then your additions make additional points which require response and thus the cycle begins again.

My recommendation is that you use notepad to fully develop/formulate your idea and then post. You might find more satisfaction is developing the entire idea in a thought-out, complete manner ;) Just an idea. --Robert W King 07:48, 29 September 2007 (CDT)