User talk:Stephen Ewen/Archive 6

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

© issues

Steve, PLoS stands for Public Library of Science, short PLoS. ALL that material is PD per definition. Robert Tito |  Talk  22:14, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Not PD but CC-by. See and scroll down to the bottom. That seems a really great journal. Non-scientist as I am, I only heard of it very recently. :-) ---Stephen Ewen 22:29, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
{{Cc-by-2.5}} to be exact. The license is here: --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:57, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Architecture PD

Stephen Ewen, do you know any public domain repository of pictures of famous old architectures? Yi Zhe Wu 20:41, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Image:Mrodriguez.jpg and Image:Gruposalinas logo.jpg

Hi Stephen, I got the Gruposalinas logo from wikipedia, and tried to copy the licensing information, but looks like it’s not that easy to post logos/photos. I'll see if I can find other images that are license free. ...said Alfredo Castro (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

I replied on your talk. Stephen Ewen 23:37, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Disambiguation page policy

Not an urgent issue, but I've had a few comments (here) from José Leonardo Andrade about disambiguation pages. I requested a speedy delete for Vasco da Gama (disambiguation) because there was only one link, and no evidence that the other articles were planned. He wonders why I did this. In your view, is it acceptable to delete disambiguation pages, either newly created ones like that or WP-imported red-link-fests like Bombay (disambiguation), at all or if no articles appear to be in the works? Thanks. John Stephenson 22:55, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


Hi Stephen, Ok, as you can see I'm not very good at verifying the licensing information, so you tell me I can get additional maps from the Web site you provided? Under what license? I´m planning to add additional articles about different countries, each one with its own map. --Alfredo Castro 15:46, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Simply, don't upload anything until you verify the licensing info and can include a link to that info. The CIA World Factbook has maps of every country in the world. As a work of the US government, everything in the factbook including its maps are in the public domain, {{PD}}. Stephen Ewen 23:35, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

templates and infoboxes

I see some templates and infoboxes being copied from WP, do they need to be given credit to WP though a tag? Yi Zhe Wu 23:21, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Technically, I think so, if verbatim especially. The Content is from Wikipedia? checkbox does not work on template pages, for whatever reason. Probably just a note between <noinclude> and </noinclude> will suffice. Can you list specific templates where this is an issue? Stephen Ewen 23:31, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Almost all templates on this page, and also Template:Hangon. Yi Zhe Wu 10:32, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Chandrashekhar Image

Ah, thanks! I was not referring to the actual use of the image, anyway :) Just wanted to know the right procedure if Fair Use claims can be made or not.

By the way, I did not know that U of C denies Fair Use claims explicitly. Thanks for that information. It is definitely important. ...said Anupam Srivastava (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Simply put, in the case of an image of him, I seriously doubt that a fair use claim would be needed. Stephen Ewen 13:27, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Size seems to matter at dog

I've been editing away at the dog draft article, and I'm getting a message that it's getting too big and needs to be split up. Can you tell the right people? Thanks. Aleta Curry 23:15, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry about the message. It's nothing of real concern in a draft. Just keep writing away. Dividing the article, if it happens, is something for later. Stephen Ewen 23:47, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
Okay, thanks! Aleta Curry 20:59, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Map of the world? I suppose CZ is a volcanic island growing somewhere near the straits of Web 2.0? --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:59, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

LOL, that's great. I liked the "Here Be Anthropomorphic Dragons". :-) ---Stephen Ewen 21:41, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

What does this rule mean?

News: NEW RULES: ... (3) Citizens must now link to their CZ user pages.

Link what to my CZ user page? where?? WHY??? One more blasted techno thing to do...

Aleta Curry 20:49, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

p.s. This is regarding joining the 'conversation' on the forums--since I didn't explain myself--finally decide I must become active on the forums because that's where all the discussion seems to be taking place--and frustration sets in within the first ten minutes....


Aleta Curry 20:55, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

It's real simple:
You are done.
This is the way we know we are talking to CZ contributors and who they are.
Stephen Ewen 21:37, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
copy->click->paste->scroll->click! Yessssss! I can do this.
Thank you for your patience.
Aleta Curry 21:49, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Australian public domain picture of Harry Hopman

Hi, Stephen: At Wiki I imported a ton of tennis pictures from what seemed to me to be very clearly Australian public domain sites. I see now that almost all of them have vanished from Wiki. Maybe I didn't label them correctly; maybe there was some other aspect that I was overlooking. In any case, I just now came across a long listing of supposedly public domain Australian pictures and here is a tennis image that I used in several articles. If you go to this picture, you will see that it is *clearly* (to me, at any rate) labeled public domain. When you have a moment, no great hurry, I would appreciate it if you could eyeball this and then give me your opinion of this particular picture. If you give it the OK, I could, I think, find lots of other tennis pictures with similar credentials that I could use in my various tennis articles. Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:32, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

What's the source of the image? I don't see any such data at the page so I have no basis to check it. Can you find that source again? Stephen Ewen 17:38, 6 June 2007 (CDT).
Ah, so *that's* the problem. Okay, let me do some checking. Are you saying that even if I find what appears to be an official Australian government site, where they have a bunch of photos in galleries and call them "public domain" because they were made prior to 1955, UNLESS there is ALSO something saying: "This photo is from the Melbourne Daily Star of 14 December 1936, and was snapped by Bob Smith" it isn't good enough? In other words, even if it's labeled PD, it then has to be *proven* that it comes from a date in which it is PD? Hayford Peirce 17:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
We need to see the URL you got it from. It is just like citing a source. If you got a quote from somewhere, you cite it so the reader can check it. In the same way, if you got an image from somewhere, you cite the source in a way the reader can verify it is so. Policy-wise, we also do that so we can be sure of copyright statuses. Stephen Ewen 17:56, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Okie, take a look at this:;jsessionid=7F29735591FB4175A72B0EA551DD61AF?action=PADisplay&mode=display&rs=resultset-146466&no=7 This is what I found several years ago, when I started out with the Australian national library or some such. Eventually I found a lot of tennis pictures. But, as I recall, at the time they didn't give as much information at the bottom of the picture as they are doing now. Hayford Peirce 18:47, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Oz is mostly new territory for me. I see what the WP page says about Australian Law regarding Public Domain; however, I doubt that is the whole picture (no pun intended), since the image at its source states, Reproduction rights owned by the State Library of New South Wales. So, I just don't know...though I am exceedingly more inclined to believe the image source than WP! What would I do? I'd ask for rights to reproduce from the library, just as it says. I'd also ask about Oz Public Domain from the library, and why the photo is not in the PD if the situation is indeed as the WP page says. It will certainly be instructive to hear their reply. Libraries and librarians can be very nicely helpful to work with in sorting out these sorts of things. ---Stephen Ewen 04:12, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Sigh. I was hoping you could give a yes/no type of answer :) Well, since this is a fairly rich vein for old tennis pictures (and, I would imagine, for all sorts of other pictures), I guess I'll have to try contacting and seeing what we can learn. As you say, librarians can be *very* useful. A Bangor, Maine, librarian researcher has just wasted a large amount of time on a couple of fruitless inquiries of mine -- and seems ready to continue his research into the questions, all on his own "free" time. So, thanks for the help. I'll keep you posted as to anything I find. Hayford Peirce 10:28, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Systems theory

Can you take a look at that article? It now looks like a mess. Yi Zhe Wu 18:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Yep, looks like someone copied and pasted the text rather than the wikicode. :\ You might place a suggestion on the person's talk to see if it might prod them to do the clean up. Stephen Ewen 18:32, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

avoiding encyclopedese

Stephen, on my talk page, I can't tell what rights you're referring to. I don't know what policy you intend to apply here. I'm reminded of problems at Wikipedia where supposed policy application is used for other purposes than to produce the best article. I do agree with the information you linked to that says, "You're probably used to well-developed Wikipedia articles being divided into many short sections, full of bulleted lists, and written in dense prose that shows off erudition more than really introducing a topic. We think Citizendium has a better way. We don't like to speak 'encyclopedese'. Rather, we want Citizendium articles to be lucid, highly readable introductions written in compelling, narrative prose that really does the job of introducing a topic to people who need an introduction. This doesn't mean our articles will have less information or be more lightweight. It means we simplify the difficult, engage our readers, and allow a narrative voice to come through. In short, we want to make it hard for anyone to click away from an article until they have read it all the way through." I refer you to the information on encyclopedese,[1] and note that it says "We can, and should, enliven dull prose and retain the personality and punchiness of livelier prose." That's exactly my aim, and it would be more helpful if you brought up, on the talk page of an article, where I failed to make prose livelier or more compelling, or removed information worth keeping, or failed to honor a prevailing narrative voice. Nathaniel Dektor 14:44, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

As a constable I do not get involved in the content of articles, only in behavioral issues. Just like you cannot insist on your view to editors in matters of content, you cannot insist on it in matters of style where your take on differs--and insisting to editors is a behavioral issue.

Just some etiquette advice for here, that when acting as an author I have had to learn myself: Go ahead and make your stylistic changes, preferably all in one edit so it is easy for others to see the before-and-after in the diffs. Then post a note on talk with a link to the diff, saying what you did. Don't be offended if editors disagree, or disagree in part, and if they do, it's just not worth pushing it. There are much bigger fish to fry--there are some very poorly written articles on the wiki at this point. Stephen Ewen 21:45, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, I understand. I didn't see any of my changes as being in any way controversial so I didn't think to post about them at Talk. I also took care to honor the prevailing style I found, while bringing the expression into greateraccordance with CZ's desire to avoid encyclopedese. I've edited, and hopefully improved sentences here maintaining styles I'd never think to use myself. Nathaniel Dektor 22:04, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Just don't lose sight of this and all will be well: Just like you cannot insist on your view to editors in matters of material content you cannot insist on it in matters of style where your take on Write lively prose, not "encyclopedese" differs. Editors have final say in content and style is a content issue. However, insisting to editors becomes a behavioral issue for constables, since it breaks the spirit of CZ's Professionalism Policy. Stephen Ewen 22:44, 8 June 2007 (CDT)


President Taft redirect to William Howard Taft, but it seems broken, what's wrong? Yi Zhe Wu 19:06, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm stumped. Give it a few hours to see if it is a cache issue that clears up. If not, notify Stephen Ewen 19:13, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I fiddled with a few minor things and it accomplished nothing. Then I put in REDIRECT instead of redirect, and now it works. Are there other cases where the latter fails? Michael Hardy 20:23, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

The same thing happened with me a couple of times at Wikipedia -- drove me crazy: sometimes caps were needed, sometimes not.... Hayford Peirce 21:02, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
The really kooky thing is it did not work with caps; so I changed it to small letters to see if that would work. :D
Anyway, glad it finally works!
Stephen Ewen 21:20, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

self promotion example for your amusement

Stephen, You had asked for the "private islands" example I cited in a forum discussion on inappropriate user self promotion. The sister article has since been removed from Citizendium, but it still exists in Wikipedia: [2]] and note that the originator of the article happens to be user [[3]], who is a real estate agent selling islands. Pat Palmer 12:44, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Picture and constabulary matter

Stephen, I sent a second picture for possible use in Venereal disease, it has a swab in it? Did you get it in yiour personal e-mail? Also, I e-mailed you a constabulary issue. Please reply. Thank you very much, Nancy Sculerati 15:04, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

I will reply about 10 minutes, trying to finish something right now. :-) Stephen Ewen 15:08, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Did you steal my idea?

And copy the template off my user page? Ha just joking, I took it from Wikipedia, so I'm guilty too. I just think it looks making tables out of wiki code is still kinda new for me. This is the first time knowing HTML hasen't worked in my favor. Anyway, hope to see ya around on the wiki *cough* I mean, "compendium" ;) Mike Mayors (Talk) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey you're a constable ...I didn't realize that. Well, lets hope that when we talk it'll be on good terms (not that I'm a troublemaker). Talk to you later :) Mike Mayors (Talk) 22:26, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm busted. :D I am going to turn it into this really glaring chanteuse color, however. Just kidding, more like blue or something.[4] See ya around! ---Stephen Ewen 22:32, 11 June 2007 (CDT) :-)
LOL Oh my god, why is there a Wikipedia article listing colors? I swear, as many problems as Wikipedia may have, it never ceases to amaze me with its off-the-wall articles on obscure topics. Haha, I guess some people have lots of free time ... *cough* myself *cough* :D Mike Mayors (Talk) 22:39, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

PS: AND the article has a warning stating it doesn't cite any sources! Now we need a source just to state that red is red? I mean ... wow....I'm going to take a break - my head hurts.

The colors page is actually one of the pretty useful "List of" articles. What kills me is featured articles on things like Jabba the Hutt.  :\ Stephen Ewen 22:48, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

This one is instructive. Today's featured article on one particular song, Hollaback Girl. Pinch me. I think I see WP's real specialization emerging. ---Stephen Ewen 04:29, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


The Image:1944barkley.jpg was a scan of a button that was not copyrighted (in those days you had to register with the copyright office and mark (C) on the item.) The scan is from my own collection and I was the one who uploaded it to Wiki. Richard Jensen 05:23, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

my talk page fiasco

Stephen, I saw you apparently successfully archived my talk page, but a minute later undid it. Since I don't know the how or why of either, I'm leaving it as you left it, but: HELP! Sorry that I've created a bother here. Nathaniel Dektor 12:31, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

No bother. It for some reason did not work properly, thus my reversion if it. I'll look at it later. Stephen Ewen 13:38, 12 June 2007 (CDT)


Hello Stephen, just a question. For biographical articles, is it better to use <references/> or {{reflist}} ? Yi Zhe Wu 16:04, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Check out the code for {{reflist}}. Basically all it is doing is breaking it into two columns for certain browsers. On principle, I think choosing ease of reading is the way to go. For short reference lists, it is probably easier to read them in one column, since is keeps the text larger. For longer ref lists, into two so as to not make the list terribly lo-o-o-o-ng, with the same ease of reading principle in mind. But it is certainly your choice, Yi. Experiment and just go with your best judgement.  :-) ---Stephen Ewen 17:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Extra code?

On Jefferson Airplane (imported from WP) there is a tiny extra slim box (look like a line) in the bottom of the article, can u take a look and see what's going on there? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 11:06, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Catalog nomenclature

Thanks for the tip -- I dunno why I couldn't find the forum thingee again. I guess I was looking for an article or discussion and forgot about Forums. As for the name change: thanks! Personally I think the new one is an improvement, in that even though the dictionary does indeed say that a catalog can be a list, among other things, I *still* think of it as a "mail-order catalog", a "Sears-Roebuck catalog" a catalog for the Picasso show, etc. I think I'll change Catalog of prominent mystery writers to Prominent mystery writers. Hayford Peirce 15:10, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

U.S. Navy...

There are some good pictures in the U.S. Navy website, and there copyright notice is here, I don't know if that wording implies public domain. Do you know anything about it? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 21:51, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Yep, those are public domain. Just make sure to credit the source when fill in the upload page. --Stephen Ewen 22:43, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks. Guess what? The Navy has a nice picture of Britney Spears, which I just uploaded. Yi Zhe Wu 22:54, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
Ha! Who would of thunk it! Stephen Ewen 00:07, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Evidently, the Wikipedia editor got it first, I guess that person was a Navy insider? :-) Yi Zhe Wu 08:57, 14 June 2007 (CDT)


I need some help on Great Depression, Canada. Somehow the formatting looks horrible and I don't spot the problem. Help would be ewelcome. Richard Jensen 01:03, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks like Mike beat me to it! I formatted a minor thing or two. Stephen Ewen 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
awesome-- THANKS! Richard Jensen 01:30, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Steak fries

Yep, I think you're correct about this vital point.... Hayford Peirce 14:37, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

don't forget that there are also "home fries", "Crinkle fries", "waffle fries", "shoestrings"...--Robert W King 14:38, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
And "curly fries".  :-D --Stephen Ewen 14:41, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I think we need a special request-for-media (RFM) on the varying types of french fries. We should get this article to approved status as quickly as possible.--Robert W King 14:48, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Concurred. Strongly concurred. :-D ---Stephen Ewen 15:12, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Food photography tip page 1, Tip page 2 --Robert W King 15:19, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm starving. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:13, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm asking Hayford what time dinner is tonight, his place. ---Stephen Ewen 15:17, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
I guess freedom fries taste better (see political controversy section). :-) Yi Zhe Wu 15:23, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
In the summer it's generally 8 to 9, out by the pool, as things cool off. Tonight it's blanquette de veau -- enough for 2 if you can make it. Maybe I'll make the Joel Robuchon fries over the weekend -- they're sure great! Maybe about 2% less good than the best 2-batch ones, but sure a lot easier!
Dag-nabbit, now Hayford's gone and really made me hungry. First he goes and puts French fries on the menu, and then some mouth-drooling Rhubarb pie. Now he's talkin' about some kind of barbeque I think it is, and to top it all off, he's sitting there at his computer, sippin' a Martini.  :-D ---Stephen Ewen 18:29, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Mon dieu! Eet ees zeez Americans talking about zee barby-que when we are talking about zee veal stew smothered in zee reduced white sauce and enriched with zee cream and egg yolks to make it riche, richer, et encore plus riche, plus zee little onions et mushrooms, to make it zee "beloved French stew", miam, miam (Froggie talk for yum-yum)!! As for martinis, right now it's 96 in my unA/Ced office and a sip of martini would probably knock me on the floor. But in a couple of hours from now....
Oh, to die for, that French BBQ. :-D ---Stephen Ewen 18:42, 14 June 2007 (CDT)


Thanks muchly for the very clear intel. I had no idea! I thought that the GFDL was the *easiest*, hehe. Dumb me. I will make certain that in the future I always use the Attribution. And I'll go check any other images of mine that I've uploaded to make sure they're correct....

You can choose as excellent for what appears to be your stipulations, too. Stephen Ewen 19:00, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
What precisely would I put into the Martini picture, say? I've already put "Release I release all my contributions to Citizendium, including those texts which I originally wrote for Wikipedia, under the Creative Commons CC-by-SA 2.5 license." on my User page, because I saw it on someone else's page. Is this the same thing? Sorry to be so stupid about this, but all the time I was at Wiki I saw Administrators arguing like crazy between themselves on this image issue and I never did understand it....Hayford Peirce 19:20, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
Hayford, one way to get a quick primer is to start exploring at Category:All media. ---Stephen Ewen 02:33, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
But Stephen, is GFDL revocable? Yi Zhe Wu 19:10, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
It is theoretically not exclusionary. Thus, I can release something under the GFDL and a CC license. It is possible the re-user may then choose which license to use the material under. Stephen Ewen 20:53, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Attribution vs. Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0

It looks to me as if Attribution gives more rights away, whereas the other one restricts more. And the green color of the Attribution notice apparently means that it is freer than the yellow of Cc. So I guess that in respect to my own photos that I've uploaded it's Attribution that I want. Thanks for the help! Hayford Peirce 17:53, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Television images

Hi Stephen,

Many thanks for your attention to the television images; the smaller-size link credits do indeed look much better!

I'm skeptical, though, that the Smithsonian would have anything comparable -- well, at least that they have anything comparable that's been photographed, scanned, and made available online. They are very open with what they have, but their online presence is meagre compared to what they have in their vaults -- only they charge a good deal for the first photo & scan to be made, as they like to do an archival image on 35mm, then scan. But if you are aware of any images of their that would illustrate this era, I'd be delighted to know of them.

The image of Farnsworth at the era of his Franklin Institute demonstrations is, I believe, unique to Very little on Farnsworth is available in PD collections.

The Baird materials are very hard to find, anywhere, without licensing fees. Tvhistory is a good site; I am also on good terms with Baird's son Malcolm, and he is another possible source.

As for individual sets from the mass-production era, I'm not wedded to any one of these -- there are likely others available; I am always looking.

With advertisements, I've stuck with companies such as DuMont and Philco, particularly because they're been out of business for years; RCA ads from the same era would be fine, but their corporate heirs are still in business, so copyright would be an issue.


I do try to avoid anything that demands a permission -- but here, with History of television, I think we could not only have a much better article, but a much much better illustrated one, so I think that's worth getting a few nonfree issues with permission if they really add something dramatic.

all best, Russell Potter 14:23, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I realize having free ones is a longshot. Tagging them means nothing more then that it may be possible, not that you have to start looking for replacements or something or that a foreboding deletion has now hung itself over the images. Just call the tag a friendly note to someone somewhere, just in case. :-) I tried to word the template to convey that, maybe it could say it better? I am curious how the Tvhistory fellow got all those images. Any ideas? ---Stephen Ewen 14:34, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Stephen, thanks for your reply. I just tried -- results are Farnsworth = 0, Jenkins = 0. I actually quite like the wording on your template, as it will encourage anyone who knows something about such images to think "hmm, I think I have another source for that!" These tv and radio history guys are quite a crowd; it's been an amateur interest of mine for ages, but I've rarely had much luck getting images; they tend to guard their little hoards very closely, not even wanting any of their photos used anywhere else ever; Tom Genova at is by far the nicest of the bunch and has helped me out many times in the past. I'm always looking, though! all best, Russell Potter 14:36, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes cc by SA as guessed. I slipped up clicking the box, it seems. probably because I had to reload due to size warning i think David Tribe 16:29, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Roadmap image

Stephen: Thanks for doing the work I should have done, writing to the Flickr photographer.

Question: If I take my own photo of a section of an urban roadmap, will I need permission from the mapmaker (e.g., AAA)? I would presume yes. I would like a better image, more closeup, that coordinates with the text. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:55, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Here, kitty, kitty

"Chatton" is the French word for "kitten". I suppose that someone could be named Kitten.... Hayford Peirce 12:30, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Evidently so! See ---Stephen Ewen 13:38, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
Someone could be named "Shoe" as well, like Geoffrey Chaucer! Russell Potter 13:42, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
My goodness, in 55 years I've never thought of that! Chaussure, chausson, chausette.... Hayford Peirce 14:01, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Systems theory article

Okay, that last exchange has me a bit worried. I trieds to stick up for the author, and his response was to lash out. Okay, no big deal. But what really caught me off-guard was the way he referred to general systems theory advocates as "we". I've tried following the development of this article because I think complexity and emergent phenomena are very interesting, but I don't see how it can move forwards without a different author. Greg Woodhouse 19:12, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I responded off-wiki. ---Stephen Ewen 23:27, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Boas image update

I finally got the permission sheet back for Image:FranzBoas-Eskimo.jpg! I don't have a scanner at home, so I uploaded a photo of the page, which I will replace whenever I get access to a scanner. Could you add Image:Boas-Eskimo Permission.jpg to Image_talk:FranzBoas-Eskimo.jpg/Permission, please? Thanks much. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:07, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Awesome! Done. I also lightened the letter image and tidied the pages some. --Stephen Ewen 22:35, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Proprietary rights

Since the Boas photo was posted on the internet and still enjoy proprietary rights, does all pre-1923 photos posted on websites have the same thing? Yi Zhe Wu 10:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

If I may respond (Stephen, correct me if I misspeak), a low-resolution scan was "made available on the internet," but only on the site of the original holding institution (the American Philosophical Society). Unlike some digital archives, however, APS not only "asserts proprietary rights" in the digital image, but restricts anything it sees as "additional" or subsequent use -- including, apparently, additional Citizendium enties or revisions of the same! It's the most restrictive demand I've ever seen for an image which, if I myself bought a copy at a flea market and scanned it, could immediately be released into the public domain due to its date!
But no, not all pre-1923 photos have such rights -- in fact very few do. The rights are in the digitization, not in the original, which is clearly public domain. Most commonly, sites hosting copies pre-1923 images make no claim on them. Some such as the National Library of Canada, explicitly say when an image is public domain, and eschew any claim. Some, such as the Chicago Historical Society, assert only a demand for a credit line (this is most common). But until the law is settled, we will have to do just as places such as APS demand. Hopefully, not too many images of this sort will eventually be used at CZ; we all look for and hope for public-domain, or freely licensed images to take their place, but in some cases there are no alternative sources. Russell Potter 10:30, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Perfectly stated, except I read the documentation as allowing the image to appear in as many different CZ article titles as we want, just not different revisions of those titles unless those revisions are essentially the same.  :-) Stephen Ewen 13:46, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

The APS demands are pretty restrictive, but the people who work there (though slow to respond) were very willing to help. If we get things hammered out as far as procedures for negotiating block permissions, I think they would be one of the first to get on board. Maybe not, but I imagine we'll be able to get a couple of very open agreements with the Chicago Historical Society (for example) and set a precedent that other, more restrictive archives and museums will be willing to follow. --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:57, 20 June 2007 (CDT)


The website stock.xchng gives this sort of semi-free license which is once used but now rejected by Wikipedia, can you take a look and see if that license is compatible with us? Thank you very much! Yi Zhe Wu 11:10, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the images will be usable. Let me figure out how they should best be uploaded, however, and get back with you. Stephen Ewen 12:18, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Show me the image you want to use so I can see more detils to know how to respond. Stephen Ewen 13:27, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
I have not yet wanted to upload any of their images, just saw the potential use and all the raucous Wikipedia drama. I might upload in future though if any article needs them. Yi Zhe Wu 13:35, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
In principle, there is no image in existence that may not be used on CZ if proper rationale and documentation are provided. :-) So in the future, if you find an image you'd like to use from, let me know and we'll come up with just what needs doing to use it. Stephen Ewen 13:43, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Thank you for explaining. For the article disk jockey, I uploaded the best one about DJ I could found from Flickr, but apparently has this one which seems to be better (download the large resolution requires registering). How should it be uploaded? Also the user there intended re-users to inform him, which I just sent him an email. Yi Zhe Wu 21:37, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that is a really weird license and the people who upload their images there are in a rather predatory situation. Stock.xchng's parent company is Jupiterimages, a fee-only stock photo company. Seems like they have set up stock.xchng (in Hungary, hint-hint) as a place for amateur photographers to upload their material, and then Jupiterimages occasionally scours the site for material they can buy from the photographers. Meanwhile, their images are pretty trapped at stock.xchng because they cannot be shared. Basically, the license (which on the surface sounds good) is written so you must get the image from stock.xchang so they can be very sure to not miss out on the nibble of advertising revenue they get when a person goes to their site to get the image. Thus, the images their are trapped under Stock.xchng's proprietary rights, a concept probably not even on the radar screen of most of the folk who upload there. At any rate, because of this and other reasons, I categorized the license as Category:Proprietaryrights-noreuse. This means use photos from stock.xchng only when you have to! I browsed Flickr for probably 30 minutes and could not come up with a photo of a normal DJ booth shot in the day time. The info you need to tag the image when you upload it is at {{Stockxchng-standard}}, or just copy the tag right from here. --Stephen Ewen 00:41, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that's intense. I guess I'd refrain from getting their stuff now. Though the photographer who took the DJ picture on there just sent me permission, but the website is rather tricky. Yi Zhe Wu 12:32, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Diffusion of inventions

Hi, Stephen. That's what it looked like to me also, but it seemed strange enough to mark.... Hayford Peirce 17:22, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Two deletion requests

Can you delete Jig-A-Loo and Image:Applephoto.jpg? --Robert W King 12:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Image help!

Stephen, can you fix the image to the requirement as listed on Image_talk:Mtvernonli.jpg . I super goofed it up.--Robert W King 12:45, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

what is an 'orphan'

..WRT articles?

I have unsuccessfully skimmed through 'article policy' and 'article mechanics'.

We are not supposed to create 'orphans'.

I usually created articles by creating and clicking a read link inside an already-existing piece, but I have created more than one article by simply doing a search, which leads to a page that says something like no article with this name exists do you want to start one, and I click yes or whatever it says and then start typing away. Hope that's not what is meant by an orphan because if so I have to stop it.

Aleta Curry 21:41, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

speedy delete


I would like you to delete the article Macromolecular chemistry. It has no future. I therefore and because the article is dead for over 2 months I opt for deletion. As main contributor I would like to ask you to execute the speedy delete.


Isn't this deletion premature? Chris Day (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
I removed the template. Rob, this is an exceptional amount of work another could build on. I agree with Chris. ---Stephen Ewen 00:31, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

This is not merely premature, it is directly contrary to our policy about how the speedydelete template is to be used. See Article Deletion Policy and compare what Constabulary Blocking Procedures has to say about the misuse of the template. --Larry Sanger 02:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I was going to write, "removing template placed with absolutely no basis in policy." I was trying to prod others to work on it through my edit comment. Stephen Ewen 03:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
Kidding? This article is a serious subject and well-written, it probably should have be approved instead of deleted. Yi Zhe Wu 10:58, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Delay till Jul 2

With Felix the fage man. Done. David Tribe 04:34, 22 June 2007 (CDT)