User talk:Brian0918/Archive 03
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] More Congratulations
You made it! I want to add that I have been watching the process as it has developed. Not unlike some of the leaders we have been writing about in CW campaigns, you have been honing your skills through the setbacks as it went along. You should be all the wiser and better administrator for all of that. Vaoverland 23:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Another DYK possible
I just finished a new article Building the Virginian Railway. I am not sure where to pull DYK blurbs from it. If you have any energy left after the recent exhaustive campaign, would you take a look? Thanks. Mark 23:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] And another DYK
I just finished a short article on H. Reid. As you may have noted from my user page, this fellow wrote some of my favorite books, most notably The Virginian Railway after his favorite railroad became a fallen flag when it merged with another. Could/would you whip up a DYK for either (or both!!) the H. Reid and Building the Virginian Railway articles? I'd be grateful. Vaoverland 02:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
BLURB: How about this:
Rail historian H. Reid helped define rail photography as a hobby. Building the Virginian Railway is the subject of his favorite railroad. Vaoverland 06:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Vaoverland - administrator
Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DYK Carl G. Fisher
I believe this is an excellent cadidate as a new Wikipededia article for DYK consideration. Please check it out for me. Thanks. Vaoverland 19:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Possible blurbs for Wikipedia "Did You Know" feature:
Despite a sight-impairment disability, Carl G. Fisher became an American entrepreneur. He helped develop sealed beam headlights, the Lincoln Highway (the first U.S. transcontinental paved roadway), Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and the resort city of Miami Beach, Florida.
[edit] image commented out:
The problem was, it wasn't turning them off, not was it cahcing them right ... it was just being slow. Jamesday asked me to hit a bunch ... i got to what i could get to. If you have a better list for me to work on that will be more effective, I'll use it. -- Dbroadwell 19:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Carl G. Fisher
We missed u last day or 2. This one is up for FA. Could you read it and support if you feel justified? Not Civil War, but a good story nevertheless. Mark. Vaoverland 19:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Used with permission
Hi,
Thanks for those beautiful snowflake pictures!
It would be nice, for documentary purposes, if you could post the email granting permission to use them. If you get run over by a teacart tomorrow, Wikipedia becomes very hard pressed to claim it's using those by permission... if you're not comfortable posting private email, fair enough.
Thanks, Andrew 06:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added Civil War Battles
I have added three more battle articles Battle of Chalk Bluff, Battle of Devil's Backbone, and Battle of Elkin's Ferry. bakuzjw (aka 578) 17:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Picture Licensing
Hi Brian,
I just wanted to drop you a note to encourage you in your efforts to locate high quality images for Wikipedia. Quite an explosion of good WP:FPC candidates appeared over the weekend.
There is a mild problem though (and this isn't signposted enough). There was a decision taken sometime last year to disallow non-free images (apart from FairUse) on Wikipedia. Much of the point of the decision was to encourage people to license images that can easily be reused by forks and mirrors and most particularly print version of Wikipedia that might have to be produced on a commercial basis. The decision was obscurely posted on the Wiki-L mailing list by Jimbo Wales April 2004.
Without seeing the full email, I suspect that the clearance you've got on the Z-Machine image is a good one and probably qualifies as {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#General_non-free_licenses).
However, the agreement given on the Snowflake images seems to be for Wikipedia only. Crazily, whilst this seems like it should be fine, it is actually one of the depricated tags that are liable for deletion (see Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#General_non-free_licenses). The reason being that licenses limited to Wikipedia only, obstructs reuse downstream. As such I doubt they can qualify for Feature Pictures. So although I'd love to support the snowflake pics, I'm going to have to vote against.
In any case as I say, good work on locating some great images. And I applaud your efforts in clarifying licenses by contacting the copyright owners. Not enough people do this. But try to ensure that they are not 'Wikipedia only' licenses. -- Solipsist 21:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What should I specifically ask the snowflake image creator, and others, when asking for licensing? I doubt they'll just release it under GFDL. Should I just ask if it can be used on any encyclopedias or on any Wikimedia content? Would that be enough? The only reason the snowflake licensing is currently restricted to Wikipedia is because that is all I asked him for. I'm sure he'd extend it if I asked. -- BRIAN0918 22:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Its tricky. I'm pretty sure there is a pro-forma licensing request letter somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace, although I suspect it is too formal to bear fruit. Possibly the best compromise is to shoot for CC-by-SA, in that it is functionally very similar to GFDL, but is easier for most people to understand and makes it clear that they retain copyright whilst releasing the image for reproduction under a free license and requiring that they are still creditted.
- The carrot would be to mention that they would be getting much higher exposure for their images and the image page can contain a link back to a web site which may contain additional non-free images. They might also consider releasing a lower res version of an image under CC-by-SA or GFDL whilst retaining higher-res printable version for financial licensing.
- However it it worth mentioning that there are several people on WP:FPC who are strongly against accepting lower res versions of pictures for Featured Pictures. I've also faced opposition against CC-by-SA licensing, largely from people who don't understand that GFDL images are still copyright.
- It might be worth having a word with User:PaulLomax to see what persuaded him to release some of his images under CC-by-SA. I nominated Image:London millenium wobbly bridge.jpg for FP, but it initially had an irregular license. User:Solitude sent Paul several emails and eventually got him to change the license to CC-by-SA as well as upload a higher quality version of the picture. Paul has a much larger web gallery, but has since added a number of photos to Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 00:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] FPC
 |
|
Hi Brian,
Just to let you know that the Image:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png which you nominated for WP:FPC is up for Pic of the Day on the 19th March. You can check and amend the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 19, 2005 - actually the caption is a bit long at the moment and could use some editing. -- Solipsist 08:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Z machine.jpg (the old one)
Hi Brian, I was about to delete the old version of this image and wanted to double check with you (since you just updated the licence information). I see no reason to keep it, let me know if think otherwise. Duk 16:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] more FPC
 |
|
 |
|
[edit] Carl G. Fisher revisited
This article is languishing as a FAC with no objections, but very little support. I think it is a good story which covers a lot of topics of interest to Wikipedia readers. Would you take a look at it and let me know anything you can advise to improve it? It is located at Featured_article_candidates#Carl_G._Fisher. My thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 22:19, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article licensing for Battle of Collierville
Hi,
I was concerned about the Battle of Collierville article, since I notice that the text is the same as on this web site , which seems to have a copyright notice. Are you the original author of this text, or did you receive permission to post this?
Thanks, -- Creidieki 22:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- All right, thanks. Sorry about that; the other site claimed copyright. -- Creidieki 23:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Toxicology definition stubs
Do you think the various articles you are creating such as Adequately wet etc. will ever amount to more than dictionary defition stubs. I would just hope you could consider the issue before you move onto the Bs. --Henrygb 01:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do you think I shouldn't include such topics, or should I try including them in relevant articles instead? (unless there is a decent amount to write about the topic). --brian0918™ 01:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Happy to discuss here, because I only have one small screen. I don't think some of them will ever expand, but I would have no objection to "adequately wet" being mentioned on the asbestos page for example. So I would suggest either inserting them into other articles or grouping them together by topic. --Henrygb 01:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Three Revert Rule
I don't think I did. If I did, please document it and I'll apologize. However, a user was not editing according to consensus on that article. Please warn that user (probably the one who launched the bogus/needless/abusive complaint) not to engage in edit wars and please warn that user further, not to ignore discussion on the talk page. If you carefully review my user history, you'll see that I edit by consensus, that I encourage it, and that I do not engage in edit wars. In other words, you'll see I'm not the problem here. Thanks. Wyss 11:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Plasmic Squonka!
I'm fairly sure I know who this user is in real life and I shall be having an interesting conversation at dinner. Dmn / Դմն 16:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] LRT
What was the point of adding a See Also to Battle of Little Round Top? You're duplicating a link from the first sentence of the article. BTW, did your Admin status get approved? Hal Jespersen 20:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] battles
Congrats on the promotion. I was merely asking about the stylistic use of 'See Also'. As an old-time UNIX guy, it was traditional to have lots of SEE ALSO refs in man pages, but I see them very rarely in WikiPedia.
The Battle of Gettysburg has a number of famous sub-battles that could eventually spawn separate pages, but the Army doesn't list them as official battles: LRT, Herbst's Woods, Oak Hill, Peach Orchard, Wheat Field, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, two cavalry battles (east and south), and Pickett's Charge. Two of those, at least, already have pages of their own. A huge battle. Other examples of a single battle that has multiple sub-battles: Antietam, Petersburg, Chattanooga [III]. Hal Jespersen 21:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would not recommend doing the sub-battle structure you propose. I think we can reach a point where WikiPedia has so many complications like this--boxes and templates and categories--that we'll deter regular guys from wanting to edit anything. Hal Jespersen 21:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bison picture
Hi Brian. I'm curious about Image:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png. Specifically, why did you convert Bisonpile_lg.jpg to PNG format? I guess the answer has something to do with the way you brightened and sharpened it?
I'm tempted to upload the original JPG image to the Commons, and then upload your sharpened version (in JPG format) over top. Would you object to that?
dbenbenn | talk 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AH
Regarding your changing back "a genocidal Holocaust" to "the genocidal Holocaust"... If there was only one Holocaust, why is there then the need for a disambiguation page? —ExplorerCDT 21:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Pic
 |
|
[edit] Revert issue?
Hey! I noticed you'd done a revert to Battle of Gettysburg after user:24.44.228.130 had decided to kindly... err... change the name of the battle. I also checked and that is the only edit that he/she has made thus far. Is there any action being taken/needs to be taken with regards to this, or am I just being jumpy given all that I've read going on so far? LOL
Thanks! --Martin Osterman 03:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pic of the day
Hi Brian,
Just to let you know that the Image:Zuni-girl-with-jar2.png that you nominated for Featured Pictures is coming up for Pic Of the Day on the 27th March. You can check and improve the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 27, 2005. -- Solipsist 08:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 |
|
[edit] All these images!
I took so much effort to find all those remarkable images, and more still to bring them to featured image status, that you deserve some recognition. That being said, I hereby award you The Photographer's Barnstar! Wear it with pride! – ClockworkSoul 03:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] my talkpage
Thanks for the revert! — Gwalla | Talk 01:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image:autofellatio.jpg
Greetings, Brian. I was counting up the votes on Image:autofellatio.jpg to see where we currently stand on the vote. I'm having trouble interpreting your vote. You said: "Keep unless copyright status is questionable." The trouble is, that's a highly contested question. Some claim that the image is absolutely a copyvio; others claim it's not. Images of the same actor performing the same act have been found on pay-sites. But that exact image has not been found. How should I count your vote? As keep or delete or neither? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Punk
Thank you for the list. I blocked the latest one indefinitely. Is that the right thing to do? SlimVirgin 02:33, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
