User talk:Jcrocker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Map reading

You said: "Furthermore I am a bit unsettled that my alma mater now accepts engineering students who don't know how to read maps. I pray and pray that you are better at nuclear engineering than map reading, for if you are ever allowed near any large nuclear device it may signal the end of life on planet Earth."

I'm still not clear. Why do you think I can't read maps? The chicago tribune's website lists the Buena Park neighborhood in Lake View and since I used that as a source, that means I don't know how to read a map? What map are you talking about? Map reading is probably one of the simplest things to do. Also, map reading really has applications to only one engineering discipline, and that is Civil engineering. Nuclear engineering is derived from mechanical engineering so what I would need to be reading is blue prints or autocad drawings.

I assure you, I'm doing just fine in my studies so rest assured your alma mater is just as or probably more challenging than when you went there.

Also, blanking your talk page is considered poor etiquette because it signals to users that you have something to hide. A user's talk page is one record of their interactions with other users and it is a common way for other wikipedians to evaluate a fellow user's history. Just thought I would point that out. Good day. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 19:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rwandan genocide

I think just about any sentence that begins "It is interesting to note that...." is going to be POV. Even if what follows is a truthful statement of fact, why is it interesting? It's being singled out as interesting because some editor wants to hit people over the head with it, so as to advance a POV.

Beyond that, there's the question of why a particular fact is relevant to this article at all, let alone "interesting". On the failure of the U.S. to act in Rwanda, how about, "It is interesting to note that no other Western country took any effective action to prevent the genocide, either"? This is also a fact, but it too has a POV. Mentioning Iraq says the U.S. is hypocritical; mentioning other countries' inaction says the U.S. isn't so bad after all by comparison. Both points are made for editorializing purposes (although the latter one is actually about the Rwandan situation and could be converted into NPOV language).

If you want to include something in the Rwanda article about an action the U.S. took ten years later on another continent, you're going to have to show that it has some objective relevance. That doesn't mean "The statement is true, and I think it supports an argument against U.S. policy." It means that someone whose opinion is notable has made that argument. Even then it wouldn't belong in the article about the radio station unless it related specifically to jamming radio signals. If it were about the general subject of refraining from military action because of respect for another nation's sovereignty, it would belong in the more general Rwandan genocide article. My guess is that there would be better ways to report criticism of the U.S. than to draw a comparison to Iraq. JamesMLane 04:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation from WikiProject Chicago

Hi, I have noticed that you have been fairly active in editing the Chicago article and other articles related to the city. I have recently started WikiProject Chicago, a WikiProject designed to coordinate improvment of Chicago related topics and to turn the Chicago main page into a featured article, and would very much like you to join us. In order to achieve our fairly ambitious goals, we need devoted members who know the city inside and out and are willing to contribute their time and talent. Please visit the Project Page if you are interested in joining. Thanks, --Gpyoung 9 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

[edit] Coldplay and ads

You missed this crucial line in that paragraph: The band allows their music to be used in film, television, and promotional spots such as the movie trailer to Peter Pan.

Those ABC commercials were promotional spots. They weren't for selling a specific product like a Razorlight in those Pontiac G6 commercials. --Madchester 18:06, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

What are you talking about? siafu 13:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I ask again, what the hell are you talking about? siafu 19:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chitown jc01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chitown jc01.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote ("Free to copy and distribute, please give credit to photographer"), I set the licensing to cc-by-2.0, which I believe is closest to what you meant, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. howcheng {chat} 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:A neighborhood map-uptown chicago.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:A neighborhood map-uptown chicago.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Tawker 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Midwest regional rail initiative jc01.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Midwest regional rail initiative jc01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aon bldg jc01.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Meigs Field & Chicago architecture

I'm not sure I understand your concerns about the Meigs Field article. Since I edit some aviation-related articles, among other things, I wanted to expand the Meigs FIeld article, especially considering it is now consigned to history. Because of your comments, I wanted to get your input. What items in the current article strike you as POV? Are there phrases that should be rewritten, or is it a case of a lack of balance of information, especially from both sides of the closing issue? I'd really like to get a local's perspective. Also, I'm going to Chicago this weekend. Any tips for things to see & do, especially with regard to architecture & history, stuff that wouldn't be on the standard tourist to-do list? If so, I'd appreciate an email or better yet, a text message to point me in the right direction. --Ssbohio 16:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the link to the dispute resolution page. Lets see what happens. Ajz123 20:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pederasty in ancient Greece

I am sorry you disagree with the material on Spartan pederasty, but I am afraid that just slapping a tag on the section and walking away is not workable. If you wish to discuss aspects that you disagree with I'd be happy to examine the matter. Haiduc 02:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri River

Holy cow! Thanks for adding the Missouri River to the list of tributaries to the Upper Mississippi River. Talk about a slight oversight; I might as well have neglected to mention that there's water in the river. -- Muffuletta 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to the pederasty article

Thank you for trying to improve the coverage of pederasty. It seems however that you think the material you have been editing was created by Wikipedia editors, In fact, it is a paraphrase of material from a scholarly paper. I am copying the source text below so that you can see it in its entirety. I am sure you will agree that modifying it so as to change its meaning, and removing the reference to the source are not appropriate actions, neither from a scholarly point of view nor from the point of view of Wikipedia rules.

"Current discussion of Greek homosexuality and pederasty start from Dover and Foucault. By pederasty we mean what the Greeks meant: a consensual, homoerotic relationship between adolescent and adult males, which we would categorize (somewhat anachronistically) as homosexual. Ped-erasty refers to the eros of the erastes for a pais, the adult love of an adolescent. In the pederastic verses attributed to Theognis, the cognate term, pedophilia, is used. Needless to say, pederasty (both ancient and modern) should not be confused with our meaning of pedophilia to designate the sexual exploitation - whether heterosexual or homosexual - of a child's immaturity. The distinction between the two is observed socially by recognizing an appropriate age for erotic interest on the part of the adult and for sexual consent on the part of the adolescent."

If you feel that I paraphrased the text misleadingly, please feel free to correct the entry. Otherwise, please be so kind as to reverse your edits, which distort the meaning of the concept being presented. Regards, Haiduc 04:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline photo

Actually, I made a slight modification of its contrast in order to make the image more vivid, and in my opinion, a little more appealling. It was my mistake, however, that I saved it as PNG. Because of that, the file size became larger. I will try to size it down, however. Sorry if this caused a problem for you. mcshadypl 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chicago picasso.jpg

Hi! I have added this image to WP:IFD. I have struggled with this one for a while regarding a few of my own photos. There have been a number of debates about this on the wikimedia commons and the conclusion seems to be that US copyright law does not treat sculptures in public places any differently to those in a museum or gallery--meaning that for those that are still in copyright we need permission from the copyright holder to publish photographs of them. Please comment on this at IFD, as I am interested to see if Wikipedia editors come to the same conclusion as commons editors. Thanks, JeremyA 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again! I'm sorry for dragging this picture through IFD. However, I think that the result was really interesting--citation of a court case that appears (although I get a little lost in the legalese) to rule that the city has by default released the Picasso sculpture into the public domain. Between them Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons have a lot of images of the various sculptures that are around Chicago, and I have wondered for a long time whether these are all strightly legal--however, I think that the much of the ruling in case sited on the talk page of your Picasso image might extend to other sculptures in Chicago (e.g. the Bean), which is good news. I agree with you that Picasso would likely be perfectly happy for your photo of his sculpture to appear here, so thanks for your patience whilst the IFD proceeded. --JeremyA 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a check

Kinda. For the last 3 weeks my computer was down. I had to completely reinstall windows for the second time. All that is fixed now.

My opinion of wikipedia has certainly changed for the worse however. The level of bias on anything regarding people, history, or controversial subjects is out of hand. So much so that I don't think Wikipedia is worth its existence. That probably is too harsh, but I find it very frustrating. Ajz123 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Columbus Circle

I saw your request for a new photo and so took one when I was down in the city for the long weekend :-) Hope it helps. I haven't seen any of the remodeling plans, but it looks like they've cut out some massive new windows? Would love to know what you think. H0n0r 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Trump tower chi 05-jun-2006.jpg

I have uploaded this image at the Commons (Commons:Image:Trump tower chi 05-jun-2006.jpg). I hope that that is OK with you. —JeremyA 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)