User talk:Wsiegmund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by

MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive 12 or later. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
- Welcome to my talk page -

So that it is easier to follow a discussion, I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page,
I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.


Because of length, some discussions on this page have been archived. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo.

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Dysgenics

Just saw you reverted your own edits to Zero g's version. Is that what you intended to do?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corvus (genus)

I don't think there is sufficient justification, other than the time elapsed, to declare this discussion over. I think Nobody of Consequence acted without consensus, and ignored the previous discussion. I'd have said something before you archived it but I've been out of town. Is it possible to re-open this discussion? Plcoffey 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done It might be a good idea to WP:REFACTOR the discussion. It is hard to follow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image: Pele HVO

Your help in this matter would be appreciated in this matter. Again this is NOT a copyright violations since the other user has found the author's webpage attesting to his creation of the painting.

Without completing the full reading one would see that this was the work of a commission that was created by the Hawaii Volcano National Park and is currently on PERMANENT DISPLAY at VNP. As I posted on the user's page and the author's page states: "I take it we are going to argue this back & forth. As you see from the painter's website it WAS A COMMISSIONED WORK BY THE VOLCANO NATIONAL PARK: "In 2003 the Volcanoes National Park, with the sponsorship of the Mountain Institute and a judging panel of highly respected kupuna (Hawaiian elders, teachers and leaders), held a competition to see which artist in Hawai’i could paint the best new version of the Goddess Pele. So now my painting of the ancestral deity hangs permanently at the visitors’ center in the park!" http://www.arthurjohnsen.com/about

Plus it is a permanent which now brings it under the ownership of VNP. I bet if you try to take it you'd get charged with the federal crime if theft of government property."

The sponsorship (funding) may have came from another source but the fact of the matter is that it was a government commission and at this point can only be viewed in the sense that it is government property, in it's permanent display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 02:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Added to --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) page: First I correct my last: I meant that the Government cannot claim copyright since it is pubic property thereby public domain. Second, copyright may even still exist but in most cases unlikely because the commissioned art work was in come cases a work for the Government or may have even be donated to the Government. Whatever the case the law is clear if the work was done by an employee: "§ 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Source Title 17, of the United States Code. Copyright Law

No copyright claim is present at the site nor is it a lended picture on display. It is presently property of the US Government, which makes it public property or public domain.

In addition fair use can be claimed since the inclusion of the photo is for a teaching purpose; hence the facts that Wikipedia is an virtual educational encyclopedia and is non-commercial because it is free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2008 May 30

My reply: The image hangs in the Volcano National Park Visitor's Center and is public property. Copyright is eligible since it is government property.

Your Post: It appears you uploaded a photograph you took, Image:Pele_HVO.JPG, to illustrate the Pele (deity) article. It is a beautiful picture and makes the article look very nice. However, I am concerned about a possible copyright infringement. We need permission from the copyright holder of the painting you photographed. The page MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork says "The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative".--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lovely illustration, I agree. WP:COPYREQ may be helpful, as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the compliment

I've got a pair of house finches nesting outside my front door, and watching them has inspired me to edit the house finch article. Smptq (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I envy you your finches! Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please avoid removing red links

As you did on Richard Lynn. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit of April 27 was consistent with my reading of WP:RED.[1] Since it was not reverted until you did so today, it would not appear to be particularly controversial. The book is out of print and is not available to potential editors in major research libraries (WP:V). That is prima facie evidence that it is not notable (WP:NN), also. Since its creation would violate two policies/guidelines, it is unlikely to survive a WP:AfD review, in my judgement. May I suggest that you review WP:AGF, in view of your edit summary, please?[2] My edit was intended to improve the article and complied with my reading of the relevant guideline. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)