User talk:Justinc

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 14:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Empty category

You should list Category:Varietals on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion if you haven't already done so. Rmhermen 22:09, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sherry

Hi. I hadn't noticed that. I agree with you and can't see any reason to merge them all to one, though can see his reasoning. The fact that fino and oloroso are made using different methods is sufficiently important, I'd have said, but I'll leave it to someone else to decide. Smb1001 16:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Portuguese wines

Thanks, Justin. I've added my favourite wines for now. I'll add more later. If you are a native English speaker please correct the article to become a more natural and native English. -Pedro 00:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goldfinger and Fleming

Hi Justin,

I noticed that you extended one of the opening sentences on Ernö Goldfinger to read;

His name was also the inspiration for the name of James Bond's opponent in the 1959 book Goldfinger (and the 1964 film of the same name), allegedly because Ian Fleming was opposed to the demolition of Victorian houses to build 2 Willow Road.

but then reverted it.

The story I heard was the Fleming and Goldfinger were neighbours in Hampstead and they had a dispute over a building Goldfinger wanted to put at the bottom of his garden, leading to Fleming writing Goldfinger in as an arch villain in his next book. I'm sure there is truth to these stories, but it would be good to get a solid reference (also it probably shouldn't be in the lead section of the Goldfinger article. -- Solipsist 19:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but this piqued my interest, so I did some searching. There's evidence for and against

for:

Fleming based Goldfinger on the architect Channel4 Heritage Ministry
Goldfinger considered it a clear allusion to him, and didn't like it. Sunday Times
Fleming didn't like Goldfinger's architecture Independent
Goldfinger built something near Fleming's home, which he didn't like BBC myhamstead

against (well, against the idea that Fleming meant ill by it):

Fleming played golf with Goldfinger's wife's cousin, and used the name affectionately Camden New Journal

Personally, I'd be inclined to write it up the way the last article does (saying that it's alleged, but not necessarily so). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think alleged is better. I would move it out of the lead section too. I am sure I once saw more reliable sources. Pevsner mentions that there was significant controversy, but doesnt really say much (in particular it is ambiguous whether Victorian houses were demolished - the view in the revised Pevsner is that the house fits better with Georgian Hampstead which has the strong implication that it was Victorian before which is what I remember. These stories are hard to verify though - have come across several similar cases. Justinc 21:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caps

Actually, Champagne, France is a place name, and is therefore capitalized, but the drink champagne is not a place name, even if it is named after a place, and is therefore not automatically capitalized, any more than roman candles gets capitalized. (That is, unless you really mean "A candle from Rome.") Or is this just a difference between American and British English? --Bletch 22:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French pronunciation

Hi Thanks for the article on Hulot - that's my favorite movie (Mr. H's Holiday). I sort of vaguely got your point on the "difficulty" of pronunciation causing the change of title, but I removed the remark mainly as excess verbiage (in my opinion). Hope you do not mind. I had not noticed that the one "H" is silent but the other is not, but I do not think that's the reason for the different title; it is just to make it look more familiar to U.S. folks, who live farther from France and are less likely to recognise "Monsieur." Think about what Americans do to "chaise longue," which becomes "shays lounge" and "lingerie," originally to be pronounced sort of like "lann zherr ee" with the "nn" nasalised, but, in the U.S. spoken as "lawn zherr ay" (perhaps also mangled in England)

Peter

A few English improvements:For- I think you misinterpreted my remark about pronounciation. Its not that French is hard to pronounce, it is that "Mounsieur Hulot" is French, and so has a silent H, but holiday is English so it has a spoken H, which makes it hard. I think thats why the US release didnt have that..... Read- I think you misinterpreted my remark about pronunciation. It's not that French is hard to pronounce, it is that "Monsieur Hulot" is French, and so has a silent H, but holiday is English so it has a spoken H, which makes it hard. I think that's why the US release didn't have that.......

Welcome to our beer project

Welcome to the WikiProject on Beer! We're just starting out, so there's alot to be done. – Clockwork Soul 12:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been working on Wine and many of the same issues come up, particularly classification etc, so I thought I migth as well join in.... Justinc 12:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ita

I see you had already taken Ita out of Category:Brands of beer. I had a question on one of the categories pages about how to make it appear under the proper name in that category. Was waiting on an answer. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Per your comment on my page --- understand what you are doing with Brands of beer; I would say that St. Ides is fairly important in the USA; it is a "cultural" icon of sorts, and mentioned in several pop songs. Still trying to figure out how to keep the information on a single page. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying to solve the naming problem, I moved the Ita page to Saint Ides, and added it once again to the Brands of beer category. The beer is usually written St. Ides, but Saint Ides only expands the contraction, and makes the article fit better into both the saints and the beer category. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wine stubs

Hey, great to see someone else making use of the wine-stub!! Keep up the good work. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cristal

Hi Justin, thanks for helping out with the Cristal stub and other articles that I am working on. May I ask why you removed Category:Brands of beer though? King Dedede 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is basically a wine article now - the otehrs are just redirects, so it shouldnt be in cat.Justinc 10:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mildly Redirecting

Salve, Justinc!
I see the mild page you refer to was set up as a redirect by my friend User:Deb, who is in Wales. Not being a beer drinker, I can't vouch for any of the information in the article but I did check the SOED and it lists under mild the meaning "mild beer" and under the combination forms "mild beer" is defined as "not strongly flavored with hops (opp. bitter)." I think you are safe in redirecting mild to mild beer but if someone should come up with other senses of mild (e.g., also in the SOED definition is mentioned a metallurgy term, "mild steel") the redirect is easily undone.
Please let me know if this answers your question. PedanticallySpeaking 15:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Badger

Hi Justin, thanks for looking at the Badger Brewery article, you're right about Hall & Woodhouse of course, and I should have double-checked that they didn't have an article already. As I understand it though, Badger make the beers and H&W operate the managed / tenanted operation as well as acting as a kind of holding company for both sides of the operation.

The question I think is should we list individual breweries if they are part of a larger operation? For example, both Bank's and Marstons are owned by Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries. All three are notable in themselves so my vote would be for yes, which would mean H&W and Badger remaining separate.

Having said all of that I'm still learning how things work round here so feel free to ignore all/any of the above! PubLife 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fine to have entries for Bank's and Marstons as they (a) have a history under the original names, and (b) are still brewed under those names. The thing about Hall and Woodhouse is that it is not a brewery in this sense, just a holding company, and holding companies are not in general that interesting (at least as far as beer is concerned - Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries is listed on the LSE so I think thats why it was created, as this is a notability criterion for some people). So its a bit marginal. I would be inclined to make Hall and Woodhouse a redirect to Badger, which is what people are more likely to look for and recognise as thats what the beer is called. Either that or make it a really small corp-stub pointing at Badger and King and Barnes and mentioning the pub holdings. I dont really mind which. Justinc 11:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, but would you mind doing it? - not that confident as yet! PubLife 11:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok I will do it after lunch... Justinc 11:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

For your Yoghurt vote to count you need to move it to Talk:Yoghurt and remove it from WP:RM (as is true with all WP:RM votes. But before you move it please consider that in this case the Primary Author http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=484796 used Yogurt in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma

Justin, this comes from AmBev site:

1999 — Companhia Antarctica Paulista and Companhia Cervejaria Brahma announce the creation of Companhia de Bebidas das Américas, resulting from the merging of both companies — an outstanding landmark in the Brazilian market.

2000 — After 9 months of analyses from Brazilian Government regulation agencies, the creation of the new company is approved. In March 2000 came the long-awaited news: "AmBev is created as the 5th largest beverage company in the world."

If they labeled themselves a "new company" "resulting from the merging of both companies" (Antarctica and Brahma), it makes clear that the old companies no longer exist. Also, when you buy their beers in Brazil, you can read in the label:

"Produced and bottled by CBB", or:

"Produced and bottled by Cia (Companhia) Brasileira de Bebidas", which is a domestic name used by AmBev.

The reason why they don't use AmBev insted of CBB is unknow for me. Nowdays, howhever, no Brahma bottle or can claims to be "Produced by CCB (Companhia Cervejaria Brahma)", like in the days pre-merging.

For the CCB Wikipedia article, I sugest some explaning about the mergings (Brahma + Antarctica = AmBev); (Interbrew + AmBev = InBev), but keeping the article about the Brahma brand.

Holly Lodge Estate

Hi. The reference is me (as it happens) as I've been researching the estate for nearly the 19 years since I moved here ... and Pevsner is wrong (see article talk page). --Vamp:Willow 10:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish beer

thanks. i was also curious about things like this, which are "Irish" beers but arent from ireland--and obviously arent stout porters, either. any thoughts? Nateji77 05:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Nateji77 05:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello,

Re: the lambic page, it's not a big deal, but I checked the Wikipedia style guide and it looks like they do advocate putting last name first when listing an author in bibliographic/book references. Did you find something that says differently? Let me know. Badagnani 02:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, can you give me a page reference, I hadnt seen that. I really hated those pedantic CMS-style citations when I used to write academic papers. The advantage I suppose is that you can alphabetise them easily. Disadvantage is if you want to wikify one of he author names its messier... Justinc 09:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Sweeney Images

Thanks for notifying me. The images are all released under the GFDL. (I fixed the image description pages to say so.) See this page for further copyright information. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Image:South Kentish Town former tube station 2005.jpg - cash converters and a brothel! Secret london 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How come ...?

that you are the only one to detect Image not used within guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justinc

Please stop that and wait some hours - till Mr. Whales will kick you out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Have_you_seen_this_.3F

MutterErde 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive these uses are not fair use. Many of the uses are fair use, but the ones I marked are not.

I was expecting flames though. Justinc 12:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bye bye , Justinc MutterErde 12:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, you are not the only one who got messages like the above because of what Jimbo is trying to do. Believe me, you should see my talk page. But I believe you are doing a good job at what you are doing. Zach (Sound Off) 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Let me just point out that I think you're absolutely right in disputing the "fair use" claims on these images. You've taken on a highly controversial task that will earn you tons of flames, because most contributors here still seem to think that "fair use" allowed them to get away with anything. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use? Lupo 12:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Colby Fair use

Just to understand, why is a Time Magazine cover photo with Anita Colby not fair use? It seems to fall under the fair use rules (low resolution image of magazine cover with the magazine's name clearly on it. I see covers similar for Playboy magazine, for example. 18:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Will respond on Talk:Anita Colby as it is more useful. Justinc 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought magazine covers came under fair use. The earlier guideline for magazine covers went something like "It is believed that magazine covers fall under fair use." There was nothing abt resolution. When did the policy change.Gaurav1146 12:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all uses of magazine covers come under fair use. SOme examples are given on Wikipedia:Fair use, in general you can use them to talk about the specific issue of the magazine in question (for critical commentary), and copyright law suggests that a lower quality version might be more acceptable. There is no blanket diclaimer for any form of fair use, and magazine covers do not fall out of copyright law. Justinc 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WBYeats1908.jpg

See also the discussion at WP:CP and at the bottom of the image. Before 1978, the U.S. had a fixed term of copyright that did not depend on the author's date of death. This means that everything published in 1922 or before is now public domain in the U.S. Since this image was published in 1913, it's public domain. This image is likely not public domain in any other jurisdiction in the world, so it's inappropriate for Commons:, but it should be okay here. JYolkowski // talk 14:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JYolkowski // talk 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

London images

I reprocessed the Finsbury pic from your high-res version and put a copy here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Finsbury_Town_hall1.jpg Poetic licence - I added sky from another image. Getting sick of 'white sky' on mine (it's a time of year/day thing), so may retro-fit. But I think lightening it up will make the thumb a lot better (haven't tried it yet, up to you...)

It does look better, but the turret and top still have that washed out look, which perhaps looks even odder (its on Finsbury now). Bloody weather. That was about 3.30 too. I also tool Image:Finsbury Town Hall Rosebery Avenue with some flash git driving past in his new car.jpg, which perhaps gives a better impression of the area... Justinc 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could likely sharpen up the turrets later. Have to leave it for now, though, like you say, bloody weather. I like your second pic - hilarious. If anything that's the one that looks photoshopped - so why stop there, how about a Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle or an Aston Martin DB5 :) Tarquin Binary 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PA Photo

These can all die. Very unfree and not very good. We'll probably have to do the same with photos from pixelquelle.de as I think we trusted de.wikipedia when they said they were PD - and I think they were actually non-commercial.. Secret london 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, yes. They deleted them all "Alle Bilder von pixelquelle.de wurden gelöscht.". I might make some orphans before bedtime. They are nicer than the PA ones but still. Justinc 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish says that the pixelquelle ones cant be used in "graphic data banks, picture catalogues" or for others to download.. ifd on most of the ones that hadnt been deleted - 10 or so to do in the morning. Justinc 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate (*shudder*) says "The Downloader is justified not to use the pictures of PixelQuelle.de for commercial and commercial duplications in the InterNet." (Der Downloader ist berechtigt, die Bilder von PixelQuelle.de für kommerzielle und nicht kommerzielle Vervielfältigungen im Internet zu nutzen.) Non commercial? Secret london 14:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished off Wikipedia:Pictures from pixelquelle.de - removed the ones that have been deleted from the list, deleted the broken images, orphaned the rest and stuck on ifd. I'm about to look at Wikipedia:Imported pictures. Secret london 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imported pictures probably need their tagging looking at.. But - decided to search the wiki for pixelquelle and have found more.. *urgh*. Secret london 17:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the rest. I can delete the tabbed firefox window I left open when I went to bed. Alas a few reached commons from en and that chip went all over China, huge numbers of articles. My legal German is not good, but it gave me bad feelings. Look forward to them going. Justinc 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"don't talk to me"? "I don't care"? "You will be banned"?

I'm a little surprised to see you violating so many of Wikipedia's basic principles. Wikipedia is based on communication; if you don't want to communicate then you shouldn't be here. My deletion of the ifd tag was accidental, and I have commented on the appropriate page. You should assume good faith rather than indulge in name calling (vandal at the handle) to describe someone with whom you disagree, and you shouldn't threaten people with banning at the drop of a hat. - Keeper of Records 23:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

apolgies on your page, but I then noticed the "i dont care" "dont talk to me" - all i meant was that I dont have an opinion on the ifd in question, I accidentally had one nect to it and dont have an opinion, it was a purely procedural edit, reinstating a deleted ifd tag. The ruder comments I apologise for as per your talk page, misinterpreting an accident Justinc 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. I humbly accept, and I agree with you that image problems are very very complicated! Even in daylight! - Keeper of Records 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me initially confused by the vagina (story of my life) but now up-to-date. <g>. It's ok, you don't need to get involved, and I think we're headed towards resolution in any case. I think the nominator just doesn't like penis pictures, and if he's up-front with that, I'm fine too. But I do think the principles are important enough to at least be stated correctly. - Keeper of Records 00:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mac, good<g>. - Keeper of Records 00:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the focus thing. Mac at home, Linux at work, number of buttons on mouse confusing. I remember poking at the middle and right buttons in about 1990 on X Windows and thinking odd, but its the only thing I dont like about MacOS the way you copy from another window but it doesnt work. Oh and I am sure I wrote another comment somewhere but I have lost it. Justinc 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like an old fogey, but when they went from OS9 to OS X they screwed up the whole ease-of-copying/folder analogy thing... alas. You'll get used to it: I did.... And of course....you can opt for a two-button mouse if it makes it more consistent for you. I wouldn't do without my two-button/scroll-wheel special, and there's the relatively new Mighty Mouse as well... - Keeper of Records 03:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

surprised

I have to say I was quite surprised to see your comment earlier on the talk page "yeah but now I am drawn into a long argument defending you". You make it sound like it's some kind of game and that I'm evil and must be destroyed. I had two concerns when I listed the image. Firstly that it had no source/copyright information. If you claim that it's sorted by adding a {{fairuse}} then that is fine by me. I'm ain't gonna be the one getting in trouble if someone decides to sue wikipedia. My secondary concern was whether that kind of image was allowed or not. It was my understanding -- which of course may have been wrong and if so I appreciate being corrected -- that nudity was only allowed if it was for educational purposes. Now there's always going to be some prudish people (and I can assure you I'm not) that are going to object to any flesh whatsoever, but IMHO the image was more pornographic than educational. That's just my opinion. I am well aware that wikipedia works by building consensus, and if the consensus is that it's not pornographic then that's absolutely fine by me. chowells 02:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third evening in a row I have been distracted from writing in detail on why I think fair use images should not be in en wikipedia (except for 3 or 4). But I dont think this image is pornographic (as an illustration of a porn star I think it is quite tasteful). Being the original uploader is not required to defend it (especially for AB). I got involved only because Keeper of Records removed the ifd so I assumed bad faith, but looking at it (after this was determined to be a mistake) I was not impressed by your removal of his attempted justification, which was an ok fair use justifcation. Not great. But looking at some of his others, he seems better at justifying fair use than many other people. You keep referring to pornography in your responses, but you need to be consistent. You could have just put it under speedy delete for having no source ({{nosource}} is now a 7 day speedy in theory, although there is a 20000 picture backlog), but you didnt, and I disagreed with your reasons. Justinc 02:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]