I've removed this user's edit to [{Engraving]]. I agree with you its clearly WP:POV and not sourced from reliable sources. That edit was made nearly two months ago. I will keep an eye on the user and any further infractions will be met with a block. In general its perfectly permissable to remove an edit like that one, and invite the user to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Good luck, Gwernol20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note about your edit at Great Trail, have noticed a word left out that I will replace. I'll also take up a little further discussion at Great Trail under "discussion", Talk:Great Trail so it is available at the article. See you there... 83d40m16:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth, virgin queen, goddess, etc., etc., etc.
Goddess Elizabeth, invincible virgin, always (forever) queen, also (even more) Caesar(ess) of England and France, and powerful Empress of Spain, strongest fighter in defense of the Christian faith, wisest patron of all scholarship*, most fortunate* victor* of the immense (wide) oceans, founder of the College of Jesus (Christ College?) at Oxon.
* Literarum should be Litterarum; Faelicissima s/b Felicissima; triumphatrix is not classical Latin (oh well)
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
==Notes and references==
<references/>
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
<ref> </ref>
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:
<ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref>
An online newspaper source would be:
<ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref>
Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics).
The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
<ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref>
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
<ref name=smith/>
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.
You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:
Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN0-12-345678-9.
If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
Thanks for your efforts cleaning up ancient Egypt. I removed an image you put on the article because it is really low quality and does not really reflect wiki's best work. I would like to include images in the article that exemplify more than a single idea at once. For the art section, I was thinking of having an image of Hatshepsut, which would show the distorted 2-D perspective and the use of art for a political purpose all at once. I am hoping we can find a really good quality image on the commons for this purpose. This same logic should hold true for other images on the article, but we don't want to end up with too many, or it will seem crowded.
Hello there. It's been quite a while since I've looked at Wikipedia, let alone edited it, so you'll have to refresh my memory. Exactly which image/article are you refering to? Looking at the revision history of the Alice Prin articles, I've never made an edit to it. Please elaborate and I will see what I can do.
(Despite your request, I'm responding here as it seems unlikely that you will still have my talk page watched more than a month after your comment there). --TheParanoidOne01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Howardduck-b.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I need help with these two images -- I have read the instructions and thought I was following the directions for fair use since the article into which I was placing them is about the film. I interpreted the instructions to be that this was a fair use. I made a statement in the summary to that effect. Will pursue the help pages. 83d40m (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see whether the fair use statement for the two images is adequate. I have inserted a statement for each image, the image description page and the image description page, and removed the tag that had been placed on -b alone.
Thank you for your contributions to Dinosaur. Your input into the content of this article is appreciated. However, I did again revert your changes to this article. It reads like an ad: "The director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Larry O'Reilly, stated that the clever and appealing dinosaurs created by sculptor Jim Gary, put on exhibition by the museum for four months during 1990, attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." and is supported by this reference, which does not say anything about four months, or (more importantly) the statement that "the exhibit attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." That part is not cited, and since it's probably the only part that could be used in a section discussing the popularity of dinosaurs, I have removed it.
Thanks for the explanation. I felt that it was extremely germane to the article because of the indication of popularity and was rather dumbfounded by the reason for removal. I must have used the wrong reference for this aspect because one of the sources I had found quoted the director about the draw. Perhaps it was in the Smithsonian magazine article published in 1990. I'll track that down and come back to the article when I can provide a reference for that evaluation of the exhibit. Will copy this to your page also. 83d40m (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome -- I think we are here to help one another create the best articles we can for our readers -- nice to have someone take the time to explain a terse comment that could be misunderstood, positive reinforcement and all that...! -- 83d40m (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nat geographic world premier edition cover.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for the notice. I have inserted the rationale at the image and hope that I have fulfilled the required information correctly. 83d40m (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your compliment. I would like to avoid the "Janis" implication and stress that it is the Boa Island figure... in order to let this unusual statue have its own recognition as a Celtic figure and I will pursue it as time allows when I have more details gathered about it and the similar stone carvings of its period. There are other two faced statues in other cultures and it is a shame to relate this to the Roman one just because a poet was familiar with that one... I'll let you know when I tackle it and am copying this discussion to the page itself for future reference. 83d40m (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tantalizing images of what may be tens of thousands of years of worship of deities who seem to have been unchallenged and essentially unchanged, therefore easily suggesting that perhaps, humans believed in a single deity initially"
On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Two Ladies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
reply posted on Carabinieri user page: Thanks for the heads-up about Two Ladies being chosen for an entry in DYK. I looked at the column for today, but did not see the entry, will it be posted later, or did I miss it? That is a nice reward for the work putting the article together. 83d40m (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have worked heavily lately on editing De mulieribus claris. Also added many new biographies of the list that were previously red links (they are all blue now). Found the main picture in the right corner of the article and added it. Also put in all the pictures on the right next to the names of the biographies. Also did a lot of work on De Casibus Virorum Illustrium.
Lately one of my articles also was featured on DYK of Westinghouse Time Capsules. --Dougtalk16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LionChaseZebra-cropped.jpg listed for deletion
Replied on Kla’quot talk page and at the discussion about it and two other images tagged for deletion at Lion. Agreed with the proposal to delete them. 83d40m (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) which reads:[reply]
Replied at the discussion about the image you listed for deletion and two other images tagged for deletion at Lion. As you can see in my discussion at each, I agree with your proposal to delete them. Thanks for the notice and am glad someone took action about these images. The one you notified me about was one that, in order to prevent an edit war, I cropped to remove the copyright notice when another editor insisted upon inserting the image. Think there are plenty of appropriate images freely available for the article. Thanks again, 83d40m (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) moved to show complete discussion ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zginder (talk) (Contrib)22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Karl Benz and Bertha Benz gravestone - vdetail2.JPG
I've done a lot of work on virtually every article for each of New Jersey's 566 municipalities. Most articles are straightforward in terms of title and content. But there are a few oddballs, and it's not just their existence but their solution that is problematic. Should "Township" be included in titles of municipalities that rarely use the term in common use, as I just saw suggested for Springfield Township, Union County, New Jersey, which does not commonly use "Township", whereas Springfield Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. There are many borough/township pairs (plus a few non-boroughs), and the question of how to distinguish between the two individual municipalities is often a challenge. For a mythical place called "Foo", we often have pairs of "Foo, New Jersey" and "Foo Township, New Jersey", sometimes supplemented by "The Foos, New Jersey". There are multiple pairs of "Foo Borough, New Jersey" / "Foo Township, New Jersey". The question being what does "Foo, New Jersey" refer to, the borough or the collective. For example, there is Borough of Princeton, New Jersey / Princeton Township, New Jersey for the two municipalities, with Princeton, New Jersey covering the collective. Often, sources are unclear as whether a person or place is from/in the borough or the township, which makes the "Princeton, New Jersey" article useful. In the case of Chatham, clearly the Township stays unchanged (as it almost always should). I agree on moving Chatham, New Jersey to The Chathams or The Chathams, New Jersey (joining The Amboys, The Brunswicks, The Caldwells, The Oranges, The Plainfields, The Ridgefields and The Wildwoods). The fit isn't perfect, but "The Chathams" is a term in use, as in the title of the school district. So what to do with the borough? I have been baffled and I think other people become confused by the absence of the "borough" as to whether the usually small municipality at the center of the pair is being referenced or the combined borough/township pair. Even the borough's web site refers to itself alternatively as "Borough of Chatham" (in several places in the title), "Chatham Borough" (in the opening words of the first paragraph) and as "Chatham" (perhaps referring to the pair). As the site states, "Chatham Borough and Chatham Township share a common heritage and both are often referred to by their shared name, Chatham." I understand your efforts, and I hope that we can reach out to other members and participants of WP:NJ to reach a conclusion. Thanks for reaching out. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit to Chandos portrait where you removed the link to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's page on “What did Shakespeare look like?” with the edit comment “rmv link identified as an attack site - until proven otherwise -”. I have no idea what an “attack site” is, but I'd judge it has negative connotations; and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust — the foundation charged with maintaining the various Shakespeare related buildings in Stratford — could hardly be more unassuming.
This web site at www.shakespeare.org.uk has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.
Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.
I find it most curious because when I tried the link from another computer in another location, I did not receive the warning. Perhaps it is my virus control software... who knows. I have never received that message during many years of protection by the same service with a perfect track record for me... one computer is on a dial-up connection, the other is high-speed, broadband connection.
I removed the link and put in the notation to alert others to the risk reported to me.
If you have any insight into the notice I received, please continue discussion of it here --- I will not suppress the link again, although I continue to receive it from this machine. -- 83d40m (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just went back to the link and looked further into the options for the blocking and received this,
Advisory provided by
Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page
for www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/
What is the current listing status for www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 14 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 5 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 07/17/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 07/13/2008.
Malicious software includes 5 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new processes on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including 61.155.8.0.
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/ did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
How did this happen?
In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.
Next steps:
Return to the previous page.
If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center.
So I am going to stay away from the site the link takes one to, and I think a warning to others is reasonable... its your choice as to the action to take. --- 83d40m (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Good catch! I've commented out the relevant link for now and sent an email to the SBT to let them know about the problem. In the future, putting a note on the relevant Talk page, rather then relying on the (limited) edit summary, is probably a good idea in order to avoid confusion. Also, you were absolutely right to remove the link and I reverted it only because I didn't understand your edit summary (which puts it under the heading unexplained deletion). Do, please, continue to be bold (and see also WP:BRD)! --Xover (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'll use the talk page (as well) if I do this again and will read the pages to which you referred me. Please note to SBT that the warning appeared only on one system, I don't understand the dynamics of the difference, but the broadband connection I used that did not display the warning when I double-checked it after your reversion, has a highly secure connection that just might disable such problems...
I noticed you making some good contributions to these articles. It would be helpful if you could add references to the sources you are using for the information. ike9898 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool. I'm interested in many of these same subjects. I'm waiting for some books I ordered to use as reference material. Do you have any interest in George Lorimer/Saturday Evening Post? These subjects are also intertwined with Curtis and Bok. ike9898 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Thanks for helping to fix up and expand the Nell Newman article. I would ask you to please cite the sources you're using for information so that problem can also be fixed. I'm going to be replacing the {{orphan}} tag since the usual cutoff for the orphanage is three or more incoming links. Thanks again for your help! —Ashanda (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut in the reference for the two quotes, apparently, while you were typing to me... it will take time to assemble some of the others. Should the template remain until others are provided or is that enough to justify removing the tag? — 83d40m (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provided another link in as well, so perhaps that can be removed as well. Thanks for the notes and if you do not get to it soon I will remove the reference tag. Don't really understand how you are using the talkback links, but am following my old format of double entries. ---- 83d40m (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I don't mind writing here, so if you prefer answering me here, I'll just have to check my messages in this wiki. Don't worry, I was going to write in English anyway, you should only be patient with my grammar mistakes :). Uploading on Commons makes the file available on all the wikis, so you see it's very useful; I intended to do it myself, but since I am not so expert on the subject of licences, I just wanted to know if there was any particular reasons (licensing restrictions, or things like that) not to upload it there. Since the image is public domain, if you want to upload it yourself click here and then click on the appropriate link; instead, tell me and I'll upload it. Thank you very much. --Austroungarika scold or call 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Please note that the goddess Bat needs to be identified correctly to lead readers to her article. Some links at the image file are not properly linked. Please let me know if I can assist you in the translation. -- 83d40m (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. I see here, that another one made the job, probably it was you. The translation is complete now (see), though I am still doubtful of my translation of Praise in the iscription. Could you explain me what does it mean that she is the praise? Thanks for your past and future help. :) --Austroungarika scold or call 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- sometimes my connection is lost and my log-on does not register when it reconnects. "Praise" is in the quote from R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford 1969, p. 181, as Utterance 506... I am Praise, I am Majesty, I am B3t (Bat) with Her Two Faces; I am the One Who Is Saved, and I have saved myself from all things evil. I do not know what the meaning is and unfortunately do not have any source for you to check. A search on the internet might locate information for you. I tried a Google search of R. O. Faulkner - Utterance 506 and there are many discussions about that part of the poetry, such as http://thepyramidtexts.blogspot.com/2007/09/famous-pyramid-texts-herein-translated.html -- seems likely that it is a special religious term for the deity, as "Hosanna in the highest" is in Hebrew and Christian texts. Often such things are translated literally, without any understanding of what the contemporary meaning was in the religious rituals. Usually, religious names are cryptic, intended to conceal the true name of the deity from those who do not belong to the cult or, taboo so therefore forbidden to be used and always represented by other names and titles. One site has a quote, 288: The Praise-Serpent is on its Da(m)-scepter, the Tefnut of Unas, she who supports Shu, she makes his seat wide in Busiris (Ddw), in Mendes (Dd.t), in the necropolis of Heliopolis. She erects his two supports (jA.tj) in front of the Great One. at http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/translation.html. Others are, Utterance 282, 423: To say the words:"O this country (xAs.t) Mouth-of-the-River,this is the place of my overthrow.This country, Mouth-of-the-River belongs to me, the Gold of the Praise,It is xaj-tA.w of the praise, this your ox,the renowned one, against whom this has been done."
and 454: so that you shine forth thereby among the [deities], inthis your name of That-which-sparkles (THn.t),that you may be pleased with it in its name of Oil-of-Praise.The rnnwt.t-goddess shall love you.
My best guess is that Praise would be a shinning golden aspect of the goddess -- which the speaker (the king) wants to "be" now that he is dead and crossing over to become a deity or replacing the previous king as the son of the goddess and therefore a deity. The king often was considered the calf of the great cow goddess, and when male, grown into a bull (of course early on, most probably the king was sacrificed in a sacred ritual that eventually ceased to include the sacrifice -- but vestiges remained in the religious ceremonies). That is my best guess. The topic is intriguing and might be worth lots of research to see if anyone ever attempts to clarify the meaning. Perhaps these results from the Google search can lead to an explanation. I will copy this for your other location. ----83d40m (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed answer: it means you spend time to compose it, and this was very, very kind of you; please forgive my delay in replying but I was very busy in it.wikipedia and in general, and simply forgot half the answers I had to give, and the things I had to do. I suppose that the translation of Praise as a noun (in Italian, lode) is the best way to keep the original meaning. It will look cryptic, but no one expects Egyptian inscriptions to be easy to understand, right? By the way, I was considering adding a pair of lines about it if possible, but I do not think if I'm competent enough, I don't want to make a mistake. So, I wish you a nice day, and thanks for everything. If you need any help, I'm always available to return the great favour you did me, if I can. --Austroungarika scold or call 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20230702 adding preferred image from commons to be able to demonstrate figurine
nagada woman c.3500bc
and to be notified as well if removal is initiated. Placed at the top of this topic rather than the current end in order to facilitate economy of space. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20230702 also adding image from Egyption heiroglyphics article (left) that shows a similar figure on pottery that discussion includes of possible origins of the heiroglyphics, this may have evolved into the ankh. This image appears to be the earliest image of a deity among the cultures of the pre-dynastic period of Egyptian prehistory.
The same image appears in the lower left hand portion of the prehistoric Egyptian mural painted on a Nekhen tomb wall c. 3,500 B.C. with aspects in the Gerzeh culture style that also is discussed below in another topic.
Image:Nagada figure.GIF is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Nagada figure.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Nagada figure.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nagada figure of a woman c. 3500
The image now is lost.
It was deleted from the commons and is not available to anyone.
Another image is available that I had not seen before.
I am posting here in order to be able to locate it.
At least I would be notified that it is slated for removal, if that happens again.
It is a good image of this sculpture from an early time of Ancient Egypt and worthy of an article of its own in order show research into its import.
Keeping images local in WP does not prevent them from being entered into the commons, but it assures that the uploader is kept informed if there is a move to delete it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted in retrospect on December 11: The notice above had been relocated by me to the location linked in the header created by the editor issuing the notice. A notation at the beginning of this page was inserted to indicate that as well.
As well as my discussion at each edit summary, the following was provided to the editor to indicate the reasoning involved: The editor above seems to have put the shoe on the wrong foot and, unfortunately, I decline the invitation to enter into an edit war over the edit I made to St. Kilda, Scotland -- the name Saint Kilda has been used since the 1500s apparently and the Dutch may have been wrong in publishing the name as it exists in the 1600s, but many names have just such errors in their origins. Extensive discussion of the issue already exist in the article and as the discussions above indicate, there is consensus regarding the name of Saint Kilda, which commonly, is abbreviated to St. Kilda. 83d40m (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later my attempts to discuss the issue were deleted by the editor who issued the warning stamped, 19:12, 6 December 2008 and the warning was reinserted in its original location in the chronology of this page, making the record here appear as if the warning had been ignored.
In an effort to have the record just and clear, I am inserting the deleted information into this discussion so it is available to any interested in the chronology. Fortunately, the editor below initiated a discussion that exists on his and this page that explored the issue and achieved some mutual understanding about my entries at St Kilda, Scotland.
Although it is acceptable as a cartographic notation, I still believe that the creation of a new English word, St, in Wikipedia is an error that could be corrected or at least explained to our readers, however, I am reluctant to reenter the fray at this time. ---- 83d40m (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St Kilda, Scotland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch><>°°21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the title the editor used originally, Edit warring at St Kilda. It was found to have extensive discussion that appeared appropriate for that editor to learn more about the topic. The issue raised had been hashed out quite thoroughly on that page. That is why the discussion was moved to the page cited by that editor.
When editors with a long history, who are listed on the “safe’ editor lists take the time to point another editor toward some information that should help them become better editors, why are you approaching it as you have?
The misguided objective of the editor even was discussed thoroughly, and explained as inaccurate, in the original article under the heading of origin of names. Why are you supporting an attempt to reverse edits that agree with all of the references cited in the article?
After I had made an extensive and time consuming edit of the entire article, that editor reversed my entire edit because of an already resolved single issue -- over the denial that St. means Saint -- when that name also is used in all hard cover encyclopedias, such as Britannica. The entire portion of the article discusses the accuracy of what I edited, yet my entire edit was reversed because an editor disagrees, without any basis in fact nor any reference to cite.
When someone's earnest efforts to make long and productive edits are tossed aside to support inaccurate and single-minded editors by other editors such as you, I begin to have concern about our administrators. Why is there reactionary concern about policies quoted by inaccurate editors -- without concerned about the issues and the accuracy of the edits being reversed by them? I am the one who should have posted a warning! I have no interest in these wars… I have too many things I want to make better to waste my time in edit wars for dominance of personal opinions that have nothing to do with accuracy.
Why aren’t you examining issues with the objective of promoting the benefit of the encyclopedia? A little more attention to the issue and the discussions involved at the very page to which the response was transferred might have guided you to react differently and to the benefit of Wikipedia. That was the only reason I responded instead of moving on to another topic where I could make a positive contribution, leaving the error to embarrass the publication.
I will place this on you talk page as well, because I will remove it after seeing whether you respond -- in my mind the issue was directed back to the editor who raised a false alarm. It is obvious to me now that the editor is not interested in correct entries, the error remains. 83d40m (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply at my talk page. What error are you talking about? The official name for the islands is "St Kilda" (see for example the official British ordnance survey map here). Your change to "Saint Kilda" does not seem to be based on any official sources. Please see WP:V. No one is saying the "St" is not pronounced "saint", and the article itself makes this clear (pointing out there is no saint named Kilda). You also made changes contrary to the Manual of Style (such as spelling out miles). The article has been through peer review and passed WP:FAC, and as such has been identified as some of Wikipedia's best work. Three different editors reverted your changes and you did not bother to discuss or explain them on the regular article talk page (where you were making the changes), and you reverted to the point of risking a WP:3RR block. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response. My reply will be briefer. First and most importantly, it is always a good idea to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle when not dealing with vandals - the time to discuss things on the article's talk page is after the first reversion. Second, when making major changes to a Featured Article, I would always discuss it first. The article is the result of consensus from many editors via the peer review and the WP:FAC processes, and had recently had additional scrutiny from being on the Main Page. Third, when I came to the dispute, you had already been reverted twice by two different editors I know and respect, at least one of whom is also an admin. As I noted before, I saw two previous reverts without an obvious response by you, and I noted on a quick read that several of the changes you made (not just one) were either errors or did not improve the article. For example, the reliable sources used in the article point to the name "St Kilda" (as the article's name reflects). There was at least one WP:MOS problem introduced (spelling out miles). It also seemed to me on a quick read that you replaced more nuanced language with more direct statements (like saying in the lead that the name comes from the Dutch, when the article makes it clearer that no one knows for sure where the name comes from. In such cases, it is easier to revert than dig through all the changes and keep some. I hope this makes my reasoning clearer and apologize for any misunderstandings, Ruhrfisch><>°°14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say since it was just on the Main Page, it had also had more than the usual share of vandalism, so I was probably a bit faster to revert than usual. Take care Ruhrfisch><>°°04:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the error, have made the corrections following your instructions -- hope that is adequate. Will copy to your talk page as well. ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belated thanks for "light edit" of the article. A definite improvement. Pity the culture of historic Africa below Egypt is not better known. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recognition. I intend to work on some of these topics and have a similar hope that these cultures become better known. ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the complements -- takes some time, but I try to make images fit well into the articles and hate captions that are meaningless, one should learn something from them as well or be led to the details in the text. I often find images without details and can't even find any in the text. Will carry this to your page as well. 83d40m (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) correction with missing verb ----83d40m (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) added images ----83d40m (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated the article of Tethys, if you could take a look at it and see if you might like it. Did you know Tethys is an aspect of Native American calendar, she also was venerated in Phoenician maritime culture. Have added new information about Tethys such as; Mistress of rain, rivers & sea navigation; Tethys makes the waters calm, or makes it surge; She makes the navigable unnavigable, when ever she so decides. Phalanxpursos (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not think the changes make the article better -- suggest you consider reverting to the previous as well as initiating a discussion of this with Wetman (talk) who complimented the previous edit and format... please keep me in the loop. 83d40m (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People I work for the genuine Intergalactic Federation and have been assigned to represent Tethys, so you are now appointed as the personal bodyguards of the Tethys page the way I have updated it. Or face dire consequences, because Tethys is also mistress of Warfare and the Thunderbolt. Please don't worship me, worship a system when it is good for the people. The way I represented Tethys, is indeed the Goddess of chief Rivers.
So thank the Space Aliens for showing me how to reincorporate ancient cultures into modern society in way which is morally-correct.
Thank you, I also write constitutions for the sake of Law & Order.
Please don't oppose me because I also believe in the Draconian Serpent with 7 heads.
Protect this info;
"Did you know Tethys is an aspect of Native American calendar, she also was venerated in Phoenician maritime culture. Have added new information about Tethys such as; Mistress of rain, rivers & sea navigation; Tethys makes the waters calm, or makes it surge; She makes the navigable unnavigable, when ever she so decides."
Please don't delete anymore of my work, because I am your boss so don't confront me with disobedience.
The image is great, and I had a look at your edits - really good. I'll come back to the references you inserted and re-work them to fit into the format of the other references within the article, but wanted to say thank you. Do you have a special interest in American fashion history? Mabalu (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, I have an interest in topics related to New Jersey (among many others), think that images almost always enhance an article, and try to be thorough in researching topics I choose to edit. Often, I have personal experience that enables me to find sources readily or contacts for photographs and relevant materials. (Placed this discussion on your page and the article as well.) Maybe you can begin something on the editor, Martha Stout, who worked with Clare Potter. My initial research led me to a clinical psychologist article that needed work! ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I would be much use with Martha Stout! I'm British, (makes it all the more ironic that most of my fashion-based editing work here has been on American designers!) but if I have a chance I'll have a poke around, see what I can turn up. Mabalu (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little while ago you did a light edit of this article. I've just reverted this to an earlier pre-OR version, adding back as much of the good referenced stuff as I could (the OR editor is now indefinitely blocked for OR). I wonder if you'd like to look at it again? Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the inquiry -- I will, a quick look indicates some areas I would rework or restore. Hope to get to it soon. ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing for lion(ess) as inspiration for old depictions
Sometimes the image of the males is used, even when the female is intended, because the distinctive mane differentiates the species from other large feline species.
83d40m, if you can find scholarly references for this material I'd be most appreciative. I never came across any when I was working this article up for Featured status, and WP:OR is something that takes a while to take on board. Ditto the Singapore note. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
In a recent edit to the page Roundabout, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Jenuk1985 | Talk05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck this warning, as it appears you were not the only editor switching to American English, and it would be unfair to single you out individually. Apologies! Jenuk1985 | Talk06:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have posted a new reply here for further discussion -- not sure whether you saw that and I will look there for your reply. Would prefer to keep discussion at v-j talk but saw directions on your page the could be interpreted to make note here. Just making sure... ----83d40m (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:Kafi Benz - 83d40m - ccc newsletter 2004.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Howardduck-a.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Howardduck-b.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as you had expressed a concern previously about the quality of the script-generate map being used at Sarasota, Florida I would like to keep you up to date on the status of the upcoming replacement batch. There is a visual comparison of the old version vs. the new version at User:Shereth/2009_Mapping_Project#Image_comparisons. Please note that the "new" version is a raw image and has not been edited to remove some minor imperfections (such as the stray lines in the water) and is not a final product. Shereth17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m. You've recently moved Bastet to Bast (mythology) simply by copying and pasting its contents. I don't know if you're new to this sort of thing, but performing a copy/paste move is not done around here as it messes up the edit history. Further advice can be read at Help:Moving a page. Also, you may not be aware that the page had recently been moved from Bastet (mythology) to Bastet, following a request and a discussion at its talk page. I've reverted your edits, but if you're under the impression that Bast is the commonly preferred name in reliable sources, you're free to propose a move at the same talk page. Thank you, Cavila (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m, regarding this edit [1], I would appreciate very much if you did re-engage; if there are errors in the page I would very much like to know. Any partial revert of your earlier edits,[2][3], I suppose was carelessness and not intentional. I was impressed at the time, and likely going back over the page I reinstated earlier statements which might have had weak founding. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Nat geographic world premier edition cover.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Nat geographic world premier edition cover.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that was deleted was the Wikipedia page for this image. It's hosted on Commons, so it's not supposed to have a page here; accordingly, I've deleted it under speedy deletion criterion F2. Go to the image; you'll see that it still displays as if nothing had ever been done to it. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two notes about your recent edit summaries for these articles.
Firstly the coding for hidden comments is still there, but it is in the "wikimarkup" menu below the edit summary box. It looks like this:<!-- -->
Secondly, as for the content, to categorically say that "mayor"s in council-manager systems are never elected is incorrect. Montclair, NJ for example has a mayor who is elected to that office specifically. (In practice, he serves as an at-large council member and presiding officer.) That's almost as common as a rotating mayorality. As no two states have the exact same laws regarding local government, to state absolute categories is problematic. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I found the old format for hidden comments by going back to old edits... perhaps a heads up to the designers of the new format would provoke them to list this among the tools. It is so very useful at times.
I have rewritten the paragraph in council-manager government to include exceptions and used the community you pointed out as a link to demonstrate that, thanks, distinct exceptions are good and I did not have any to identify. ----83d40m (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Thank you -- the file is a duplicate file and should be deleted. An error was made in the title of the image before uploading and was not acceptable (a spelling error), correction was made by uploading a new image with a corrected file name, which remains published at the article with all of the complete copyright information. When I realized the error, I could not find a method available to delete the image, but made note of the need to delete the file with the error in my summary. Perhaps a method of deletion should be available to editors who upload files in case of error -- after all, it is their upload. If there is a method for that please advise. Will copy all of this to your talk page for your convenience also, thanks again.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Found three orphan issues on my user upload gallery. This is the only one for which I could not find a resolution -- to remove the orphan status. All of the images are in use on articles. This one had its extension changed by another editor and had entered some ether hovering above Wikipedia land. At least it is here to prevent impulses to delete it. ----83d40m (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83, I saw you restored the criticism section. It isn't policy compliant as it stands, so it really ought to be removed until you can find good secondary sources for it. I left a note for you on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
synopsis of response - Thanks for your reply. I am an established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out. The article has been turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states. 83d40m (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
photograph of the Jim Gary sculpture, Triceratops silverina, which traveled for decades around the world as part of a traveling exhibition, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs; she was among the sculptures that were exhibited in his historic 1990 solo show at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. that also was featured in a Smithsonian magazine article that corresponded with the opening of the exhibit; the director of the museum stated that the exhibition drew more people to the museum than any other exhibit ever had and was popular with all age groups and interests ranging from art to science
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Owen Burns
scan of the November 2, 2009 proclamation declaring the week of October 25 through October 31, 2010, marking the anniversary of his birth on October 31, as Owen Burns Week in honor of his contributions to the community of Sarasota, Florida and his importance to her citizens. (note: the Herald Square building is spelled incorrectly in the document)
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Owen Burns
edit of a historic photograph of Owen Burns in front of his home in Sarasota, Florida, he once was the largest landholder in Sarasota, purchasing seventy-five percent of the town from Hamilton Gillespie including all of Lido Beach, he became a prime developer and builder as well as founding a bank and a real estate company; he dredged the bay and created new and enlarged keys among the natural barrier islands; among other structures, he built causeways and bridges, seawalls, Cà d'Zan, the El Vernona Hotel, the Times Building, the Herald Square Building, Burns Court, many residences, and got Main Street paved in order to advance the community -- this photograph is from the Lillian Burns Collection among the county archives at the Sarasota County History Center, Lillian G. Burns was his daughter and eventually became the most respected historian of the community when she returned to Sarasota upon her retirement
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
photograph of participants at the public workshop during the New College of Florida campus master plan in 2005 at Sarasota, Florida; architect, Stefanos Polyzoides is seen standing at the table, center left, visible counter-clockwise from him, seated at the front table are: Frank Folsom Smith, an unidentified person with his back to the camera, Guy Peterson, Jono Miller, Kafi Benz, the woman serving as the landscape architect, and another person who is unidentified
Source
public domain, photographed and published in a public document by a state university - photograph by Nathaniel Burbank, staff photographer
photograph of participants at the public workshop during the New College of Florida campus master plan in 2005 at Sarasota, Florida; architect, Stefanos Polyzoides is seen standing at the table, center left, visible counter-clockwise from him, seated at the front table are: Frank Folsom Smith, an unidentified person with his back to the camera, Guy Peterson, Jono Miller, Kafi Benz, the woman serving as the landscape architect consultant whose name may be found in official documents, and another person who is unidentified
Source
public domain, photographed at a public meeting and published in a public document by a state university - public domain photograph was taken by Nathaniel Burbank, staff photographer for the college
Date
May 25, 2010
Author
copy of photograph from a public document by 83d40m
scan of the initial map of the Seagate campus of University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee from a publicly-available copyright-free document published by this state university; the campus was created on the eastern portion of Seagate, a property platted under that name in the early 1920s on property that had been homesteaded in the 1800s by Elizabeth and Lavanius Dunham, M.D., developed in 1929 by Gwendolyn and Powel Crosley as a fishing camp and elegant winter retreat built on the bay front, purchased and resided in by Mable and Freeman Horton in 1948, a large portion of which was acquired by the state in 1991 and divided into two portions, the eastern portion of which became a new satellite campus for USF in Tampa when it separated from the New College campus; the entire property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982, but contrary to design, the uplands pine forest was cleared for parking lots rather than building the planned parking garage
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
montage composed of several postcards featuring the Sarasota Municipal Auditorium from private collection; examples ranging from 1942 to a contemporary souvenir postcard made of a photograph of the interior of the auditorium during an interior decorating show
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of the interior of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics - here the hall is being used for a 1950s dance held by a community organization - note truss work that supports the roof and the Art Decoproscenium for the historically significant stage
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of the entrance to the Recreation Club of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics; meeting rooms and recreation facilities are available to community organizations and clubs and are used regularly by many members of the community as well as visitors; dressing rooms and facilities associated with outdoor sports also are accessed through this western entrance to the hall, the second floor of this portion of the recreation center was donated by Ida and John Chidsey, who also donated the funds for the nearby library that bears their name
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of the interior of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics - the hall is shown being used for an art show that is open to the public and some of the historical interior architectural features are visible in this shot from a second level vantage point
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a Richard Capes drawing of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium and the Hazzard Fountain in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics, the fountain is considered one of a kind among public fountains - Sarasota municipal historic preservation archives
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of the interior of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics - here the hall is set up for a formal gala hosted by a community organization - note the Art Decoproscenium for the historically significant stage
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of architect, Thomas Reed Martin, second from the right among a group of Sarasota residents; image related to the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club
copy of a photograph of the historic Sarasota Municipal Auditorium in the governmental archive available to the public at the Sarasota County History Center - this building is listed on the Florida Master Site File of historic buildings and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, being cited for its public use as an auditorium and for community recreational purposes as well as for its architectural appointments and characteristics
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Indian Head Nickel
edited photograph of Iron Tail, an OglalaSioux chief who was one of the models for the Indian Head Nickel, a United States coin valued at five cents that was minted from 1913 through 1938 using a design by James Earle Fraser - from the historical resources collection of the Sarasota History Center, the division of the Sarasota County government in Florida; original photographer noted as unknown; a full version of the photograph was published by Sarasota History Alive! in its This Week Newsletter - May 6, 2009[4]
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Lake Underwood
edited scan of photograph from personal collection of the Porsche 904 owned by Briggs Cunningham and Lake Underwood that was entered into the 1964 Sebring 12 Hours race as a prototype - the pilot is Lake Underwood, who drove the majority of the race; Briggs, a part owner of the vehicle, drove a short period to be included in the records
summary data parked in case needed for restoration:
File information
Description
Category:Clare Potter
scan of a cropped photograph showing Clare Potter, a fashion designer who specialized in sportswear and casual designs for women and was one of the founders of FGI, in 1939 at an award ceremony during a Neiman Marcus fashion show
Source
self-made from a photograph in a personal collection
Just getting back today after having to patch what I could (perhaps out of proper order) and log off until today. I have seen your further discussion at possibly un-free page and believe that the image remains a public document nonetheless. Will reply there. Thanks, and my apologies for charging ahead yesterday -- I had received no advice on the tags and I was running out of time yesterday while fearing that the images would be deleted without my having received guidance. All I envisioned was having to upload all of those images again! I followed what I thought might be appropriate. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the WP readers and viewers very much appreciate your excellent work, and I do too. But I and they now very much need your further expertise about the following quote, from the article Pharaoh:
"The royal lineage was traced through its women and a pharaoh had to be from that lineage or married to one of them if coming from without the lineage. This was the reason for all of the intermarriages in the royal families of Egypt."
This contribution of yours (16Sep07) may be too long ago for you to recall, but I and other readers do need whatever help you can give us toward a source reference for the quoted first sentence. I don't think we need to worry about the second sentence. Here at Talk:Matrilineality's section called Source references about Ancient Egypt, you can see how I got involved in this – and see other good things that can be done on WP, if a source reference for the first sentence is found and inserted in Pharaoh.
Your WP users hope that you (or your Ancient Egypt co-workers) can find and insert a source that meets WP's needs, and we all are prepared to wait quite a while for that helpful information.
Regarding that discussion, it'd be best if you left the entire issue to us at OTRS and the WMF office, and not contact User:24.187.152.112 or edit the Jim Gary article for a while. Doing so would make it much easier for us to solve the problem. We don't want to involve you unnecessarily in this! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- already decided that leaving it to admins now was the best course of action and have been hanging around waiting for the cavalry to show up! - - - - 83d40m (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you've been editing a few of the horse jumping articles recently. If this is an area of interest for you, I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Equine. We've lost our specialist in the H/J stuff (I have some background, but I also have 1500+ WPEQ articles watchlisted, thus I've painted myself into a generalist corner) so if this is your thing, please join! Montanabw(talk)23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Michaelvanbeurenretrospective poster 83d40m franzmayermuseum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ArmbrustTalkContribs01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair use poster of a museum exhibition and it is attached to an article. Think this is a mistake noted in the middle of the upload and the completion of the edit of the article. Please let me know how it could be different from similar uploads that have not received such a notice. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, seems we had similar changes as well... I figured I would wait for your completion and look it over before resuming. Thanks for the note, I'm onto something else, but will return to it today. Love the gallery... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stub to which more detail and references will be posted. It is about a recognized historical figure and family from the early history of Manhattan (from Dutch colonial times. before the revolution, and afterward) through today. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Michaelvanbeurenretrospective poster 83d40m franzmayermuseum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ArmbrustTalkContribs21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Normal procedure here would be to use just the name, unless and until an article was written for another person with the same name. If you see some good reason against that, "Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., (physician)" would be the usual form - we don't put postnominal letters in bbiographical article titles, but use profession as a disambiguator if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all fixed, the history-merged article is at Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician) and the others redirect to it. When you make any more, you will have to do some disambiguating. I suggest you put a note on the talk page to say why you want "physician" in the title, to discourage anyone from trying to take it out again in line with normal practice.
For future reference: cut and paste moves are a no-no because they lose the history. The license terms under which people contribute are that anything can be done with their contributions provided only that attribution is maintained. You can change an article's title with the "Move" tab, as long as the target doesn't already exist: if it does, it needs an admin because the move involves deleting the target. In that case you can apply at WP:Requested moves, or put {{adminhelp}} on the talk page with a request. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance for the rambling of this message. I seem to be even less able to write succinct and coherent messages in the age of Twitter. I am not trying to cast aspersions or insults, so please forgive if it appears that way. The real problem with the internet for me is that I'm more accustomed to arguing face to face.
The verb "titled" means exactly the same thing as the verb "entitled" within the relevant use of the article "Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc". I don't like edit wars, and will not get into one, but I feel your insistence upon the use of "entitle" in preference to the verb "title" is unnecessary.
You believe this is an improvement; I feel it is just a change, and that there is no cited reference that shows "entitled" is preferable. In fact, the latter has come about within the last generation due to its misuse. Dictionaries do not prescribe usage. They merely describe what is used, and the change has indeed come about within a generation. The use of "entitled" was not only considered incorrect by English teachers, but was specifically mentioned as incorrect in my student days (1970s), on the same list as misuses of "comprise", most of which have become acceptable. Such is the evolution of our language, but just because one is now acceptable because misuse has become use, it does not mean that the previous correct use has become incorrect.
If you wish to use "entitled" here, go ahead, but understand that I feel that your claim that it is an "improvement" is not correct. It is merely a change, and we do not make things more correct by insisting upon a own personal taste in phraseology. I feel your reasons given for the change smack of excuses instead for doing so. Either word is correct by today's reduced standard, and there was no reason other than personal taste to make the change, and no reason to insist that such a change is in any way necessary.
I think that your rewriting of the sentence that now starts "Because the copyright has expired" is more than a bit redundant, as most works of literature that are in the public domain are there for just the reason of copyright expiration. It would have been more relevant to state the reason for it being part of the public domain had there been a different reason. It is like saying, "because he had the most votes, he was elected."
No need to apologize for length of your note to me, I often find it essential for clarity. Sorry for the delay in reply, I’ve been engrossed in several other matters. I too, avoid edit wars, similar to you, however, I will assert my argument (and engage in back and forth) with another reasonable person when I believe I am correct – so long as the discussion remains a rational exploration of our differences. If you had simply reverted my action without an inquiry, I would not have followed suit. Thanks for opening a dialogue.
I do not believe it is to the benefit of our readers (many of whom are not native speakers of English or who are reading translations of our works, but all of whom are seeking learning) to write our articles using "today’s reduced standard" (your term). That is the basis of my comment, "correct use of the language improves the encyclopedia and benefits our readers" and I will attempt to explain my reasoning.
The verbentitle dates from the fourteenth century as a verb meaning to give a title to, it is derived (ultimately) from a Latin verb that has the exact same meaning. Merriam Webster indicates - Origin of ENTITLE - Middle English, from Anglo-French entitler, from Late Latin intitulare, from Latin in- + titulus (title) and its first known use was in the fourteenth century so it is not of recent origin as you imply.
One should chose the best English word in writing. Used in our example, is entitled, is a form of that verb, meaning that its object is the title the author gave to a work (Twain gave the title to the work).
For clarity, one should use words that have as their first (primary) meaning that which is intended. That is the case with the verb entitled – it means to give a title to something (not a person) and usually by the person creating the work.
People who prefer to drop the first syllable derived from Latin. en or in, fall into the category that includes those who use flammable instead of inflammable because they fail to understand Latin and the root of the correct word, which means able to burst into flames – perhaps that came about through a failure in education and people whose limited understanding of in as meaning not.
Title, on the other hand, has three definitions, 1) noun 2) verb 3) adjective.
The noun title means, 1 a obsolete : inscription b : written material introduced into a motion picture or television program to give credits, explain an action, or represent dialogue —usually used in plural 2 a : all the elements constituting legal ownership b : a legally just cause of exclusive possession c : the instrument (as a deed) that is evidence of a right 3 a : something that justifies or substantiates a claim b : an alleged or recognized right 4 a : a descriptive or general heading (as of a chapter in a book) b : the heading which names an act or statute c : the heading of a legal action or proceeding 5 a : the distinguishing name of a written, printed, or filmed production b : a similar distinguishing name of a musical composition or a work of art 6 : a descriptive name : appellation 7 : a division of an instrument, book, or bill; especially : one larger than a section or article 8 a : an appellation of dignity, honor, distinction, or preeminence attached to a person or family by virtue of rank, office, precedent, privilege, attainment, or lands b : a person holding a title especially of nobility 9 : a usually published work as distinguished from a particular copy <published 25 new titles> 10 : championship.
The origin of title as a noun is Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin titulus meaning an inscription or title
Its first known use was in the fourteenth century as well. It no longer has that singular meaning.
As a secondary meaning title is a verb that is derived from the noun, title. There is no verb root in another language as a precedent for this use, yet it is a common act to give a title to works. This is an important clue. This use as a verb resembles the contemporary creation of transitioning from the media-chop-speak eliminating a few words with a neologism instead of saying making a transition. Other contemporary examples of this process are phone (sound) rather telephone (transmits sound) or photo (light) rather than photograph (making an image through exposure to light) – the abbreviations of which leave off essential understanding of the meaning of the words.
I believe that the richness of our language is lost as we abandon our linguistic roots and believe that much of it occurring recently is the replacement of intelligible words with slang – because of the influence of mass media and advertising uses that arise from those lacking a proper education. Such declines in linguistic skills have led to widespread repetition that may be occurring frequently in "popular" use, but that does not mean that standards are abandoned among the better educated. I will remind you of your concession that correctness of earlier forms is not invalidated by contemporary changes in use. Furthermore, "popular" use does not necessarily persist. I believe that an encyclopedia is an appropriate place for standards to be maintained. Aren't we attempting to educate? Dictionaries establish meaning and often, do discuss use. Style manuals usually have a logic that is based upon data derived from just such sources.
This is why my change of is titled to is entitled is not merely a personal preference, as you suspect. I grant that the title of the work is—, is correct. I assert, however, that the work is entitled—, is a more correct verb form to chose than the one that existed in the article and, thereby, is a better use of the language. Not of great import, but one of those sticking points writers encounter when they are fond of language and its cultural origins. Although I won't "war" over it in writing that does not bear my name as author, I will continue to make it as a correction while editing here for public education and argue for its use, if necessary. Perhaps this gives you a better understanding of my edit summary. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
. . . .
While generations of 20th century English teachers all turn in their graves . . .
I understand your argument, but still respectfully disagree. "Title" was accepted American use for at least most of the 20th century (Mencken used "title" as a verb in preference to "entitle").
"I believe that the richness of our language is lost as we abandon our linguistic roots"'
Our linguistic roots include British spellings that we abandoned a century ago, e.g neighbour. gaol, & whilst. You did not argue that these should be reverted as well. Perhaps you do, and I missed it.
You have presented your argument why "entitled" is superior, but it is still your argument, and (in my opinion) still your personal preference. We both have our reasons, but I do not believe that either is superior. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Let's agree to disagree on this. You increased the size of my user talk page by nearly a quarter with a single post, so please let's not do it again. :-)
If you'd be OK with that image being deleted, feel free to mark it with {{db-g7}}. I'm not sure what technical problems you were having before, but the image should be properly showing and non-orphaned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the inquiry, but no thank you -- I do not upload my images to the wikimedia commons and prefer that they not be taken out of where I upload them, as many of my images have been without my agreement. If I wanted them there, I would have chosen that option. I consider the deletion of images from my gallery and the location chosen by me as a loss of the recognition users -- supposedly -- are guaranteed by Wikipedia and never have understood why that oversight occurs. I would prefer that you return to my gallery all of the images so transferred out of it and into the commons.
As long as we are on this topic, one of my images of Tethys (different from the subject you inquired about) was renamed, apparently, by another user and has disappeared without appearing in the commons as my upload. It now bears recognition for the user who took it from my gallery. I would like a rectification of that as well.
That oversight is because of WP:CSD#F8. If you don't want your images to be deleted after they're moved to commons, you can mark them with {{KeepLocal}}. In the meantime, let me clarify: you want all your images that are on commons to be undeleted locally as well? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- I'll look at the commons and my gallery and, yes, I would like all of the images I have uploaded to remain visible in the gallery of my uploads so I presume that means "undeleted locally". I'll begin using that tag, where does it go in the template when uploading images to work properly? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at my gallery, I can tell that some others in the commons have not returned to my gallery. As soon as I have time, I'll note their titles and give you a list. Once they are returned I will follow your directions to alter my uploaded files in order to insert the tag needed to keep them local. Perhaps within the next week I can make the comparison. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks at "my contributions" and selects "uploads" a gallery of all images uploaded by that editor is presented in chronological order. I did the comparison last night and my images in the commons that also need to be returned to "local" from deletion are,
File:Thutmose I Family-83d40m-highContrast.jpg
File:GorgonSheild3p from Mourning of Akhilleus Louvre E643.jpg
File:10 luxor museum - Mut - dated 19 dynasty c 1279 to 1213 BC.JPG
File:Patentmotorwagen mit Karl und Bertha Benz.jpg
File:SobekhotepIII-DualRelief BrooklynMuseum.png
File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple c.jpg
although I am not sure why, the rest my images in the commons remain in my gallery.
Once you return these six for me, I will place the "keep local" tag on all of my images (experimented last night with one and it seems to be a simple tag above "Summary" in the file). I will use it routinely for new uploads. I never knew of this and, as you are aware, resented the deletions I never authorized. Now I have a new tool to prevent that because you were polite enough to ask about the deletion instead of just doing it (as I have experienced previously), thanks again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing a lot of users do to store a list of their files all in one place is to make a subpage. For example, you could make User:83d40m/gallery, and it would include all of your English Wikipedia uploads, and you could include your commons as well. Additionally, you could avoid the hassle of not allowing them to be moved to commons, and they would still show up on your subpage (as long as the deleting administrator does his job correctly; most admins are pretty good about that; and even in the unlikely case he didn't, then you could just fix the link and it would be good again). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83d40m 2008 uploadJMCC1 2011 derivative
regarding the trees -- the file itself states,
"Author:
Trees_to_transplant_from_Punt_to_Egypt_-_Hatshepsut_Mortuary_Temple.JPG: 83d40m (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
Original uploader was 83d40m at en.wikipedia" and I am displaying them with their respective dates. JMCC1 states clearly that his upload is a derivative of mine in which a color adjustment was the only edit. I must note that Egyptians were not depicted in their art with such dark skin tones as the derivative displays -- they reserved depiction of that dark of a skin tone for cultural groups (farther to the south) -- and the adjustment makes their hair seem green.
Satis worshiped by Sobekhotep III - 83d40m - Brooklyn Museum.JPG was uploaded by me in 2008 -- that is the correct name of the deleted file that should be reversed -- sorry, I do not know why the other file name appears in my gallery as well as mine (except that the subject is the same).
Will you be able to move the files that were not uploaded to the commons back, as you did with the first one? I will proceed with tagging to keep local. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the left is the file Thutmose I-83d40m-highContrast, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as an edited version of another image there. It shows Pharaoh Thutmose I of the eighteenth dynasty of Ancient Egypt, with his royal chief wife Queen Ahmose and daughter Neferubity. They were the father, mother, and sister of Hatshepsut. She became one of Egypt's most successful pharaohs.
To the right is the file GorgonShield3p from Mourning of Akhilleus Louvre e643, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. The Gorgon was one of the earliest Greek deities whose importance always remained in the changing pantheon.
MutKarl & Bertha Benz
In the second row, the image on the left is 10 luxor museum - Mut - dated 19 dynasty c 1279 to 1213 bc, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.
On the right is Patentmotorwagen mit Karl und Bertha Benz, which is an edited close-up from a historical photograph taken of the couple at a celebration for the inventor of the automobile, Karl Benz, and his daring wife, Bertha Benz who made the invention better through suggestions, making adaptations, and by becoming the first person to drive an automobile on a road trip (deliberately intending to market the invention and demonstrate its safety). I may have uploaded this image inadvertently to Wikimedia Commons while editing an article in the German Wikipedia, but that also may have been my only logical option if I introduced it there before into the English Wikipedia.
Because of the original upload location these files must remain there. Magog the Ogre suggested in the Tethys image discussion just above, that only by creating a special gallery page could the 83d40m images in the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons be merged for a complete directory. This documentation at my talk page seems sufficient at the moment. As long as the originals are kept where I uploaded them (and seek them as references) and attribution is correct, creating duplicates in Wikimedia Commons retaining that attribution should facilitate use in other Wikipedias, if needed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarasota Florida - 83d40m - from mainland across bay front to Gulf of Mexico - new bridge.JPG
Hi - Your aerial photo is simply spectacular. I was wondering if by any chance a high-definition version would be available to print for personal use. As a member of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron living up North, I am looking for a large, framed reminder of how beautiful this area is. There are several really nice aerial pictures of the bay, but this one is the nicest of all in my opinion. Thanks, Erik Enicefield (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment -- I have released this low-res version to the public domain for non-commercial use as one may see in the files here, but have no intention of releasing the originals of my work. Sorry that this version would not be useful for a blow-up. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with Modernist wandering in, and me now fencesitting, you might consider reintroducing Gary in a slightly different way and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to reconsider and especially for your patience to explore further with an open mind. I was going to drop the objection to the elimination of the sentence... just to avoid conflict. Figured that since the sentence had stood for so long, it would be foolish to try a rewrite. I will if it doesn't sit well... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I presume that I may join in if I feel it is needed. BTW I am posting today about the listing that Gary's fine art garnered for him in Who Was Who in American Art, 1564-1975. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83d40m—you are saying here that my post here is "confusing". I am not sure what is confusing but would you instead prefer that I initiate a new section at the bottom of your Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition of Jim Gary's sculpture. Can you possibly include the location. Is it on permanent display? Or is it privately owned? Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Gary's life-sized figures entirely of stained glass are all in private collections, so I did not include a location. For the same reason, I also didn't want to include a full view. There are Gary sculptures on public display that include stained glass, but the glass is incidental to the larger metal sculpture in those works (such as his centerpiece of the Colts Neck memorial garden). I consider these life-sized figures by Gary as among his finest works. Being free-standing works so well executed that they may be displayed in the round and as beautiful from any view, they are exquisite examples for the use of stained glass (and his well-lauded skills). Some day this one may go to a museum collection, then a full image would be appropriate. Will expand the caption. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. It came out at the same length as the Leonard French caption. Now we need a couple more. Do you want to do a bit of a search on Wiki Commons to see if you can come up with something that isn't ghastly? It's 3.25 AM in the land of Oz, and my bloody Blue Cattle Dog keeps woofing at fruit bats. My neighbour will to chuck his steel-caps at him if he doesn't shut up! Good night! Amandajm (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mission impossible... nothing listed under "stained-glass sculpture" and no good examples found in related categories. Lots of "ghastly" works as you noted. Did find the work of Joseph Ferguson on the web, but not copyright free. Will keep it in mind, however, and will come back with other examples if found. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi, I backed out your edits to Cincinnatus. Please see the manual of style for dates and for abbreviations. In summary, CE, BC, etc should not have periods while US and U.S. are both acceptable and therefore articles should not be edited to flip-flop between one acceptable style and another.
Thanks for letting me know -- do not understand why you reversed all of the other edits, however, along with the abbreviations. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It takes less than one minute to do a search on "organic canola" and see that it is available (including from major manufacturers). Please stop adding the unsourced false information.Novangelis (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
transcribed from editor Novangelis's page for continuity
canola oil does not equal organic canola oil
It takes less than one minute to do a search on "organic canola" and see that it is available (including from major manufacturers). Please stop adding the unsourced false information.Novangelis (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note indicating that there is organic canola "available" on the market. I readily concede that there is "organic rapeseed" that now is being referred to as "organic canola", however, I was not editing about "organic canola" -- I was editing about "products labeled as organic" and noting that if they contain "canola oil", food products may not be labeled as organic -- which remains a fact. Only if a food product is labeled as containing "organic canola oil" may it be included -- because "canola oil" _is_ a GMO (93% of the crop in the U.S. is GM canola), a genetically modified organism, and the wild plants quickly are becoming contaminated. Every organic item in a food product labeled organic must be listed as "organic ..." and GMOs are excluded by definition. After allowing for some banter with you, I intend to reinstate the edit, but will be more precise. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your direction to the format and templates, that is all that would have been necessary in the initial notice, since the image was created in order to create a graphic design device that would set the quote off to the side of text. I'll create a quote box to replace the image. I'll let you know if I need help. Suggest inclusion of such helpful guidance as a part of the official notice process when a simple solution is available, it would save time for several people at the same time. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you saying that having a comma before a conjunction is incorrect? or that you are making the article consistent? MOS:SERIAL states that the usage of "serial commas" is acceptable, as long as it is used consistently in the article, not across Wikipedia. Just curious.--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider it "acceptable" -- quite the contrary, I believe it is "essential" to use serial commas in order to prevent confusion and misunderstanding. I use serial commas consistently. So I think you may have misunderstood my edit. I inserted serial commas that were missing prior to conjunctions throughout the Wallenda article. Please note that the MOS states, "A serial comma... is a comma used immediately before a conjunction (and or or, sometimes nor) in a list of three or more items: the phrase ham, chips, and eggs includes a serial comma, while the variant ham, chips and eggs omits it..." (not using it is the variant, I use the standard). I hope that resolves your confusion. I did not edit the entire article, did I miss some places where they are needed? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article should only address the direct influence of the Osiris myth itself, and not the worship of the deities related to the myth. The two subjects are closely linked, of course, but in the "Influence" section I thought it best to describe in broad terms the effects of the Osiris myth on the worship of the gods involved. Otherwise, the section would come perilously close to duplicating the articles about those gods. References to specific practices and images, I think, should be limited to things directly tied to the Osris myth. For example, the magical healing texts are specifically based on the episode of the myth in which Isis heals Horus.
Osiride statues, in contrast, make no direct reference to the myth, except perhaps in the mummy wrappings that Osiris wears—which are a standard part of his iconography. Therefore, if the image you keep adding belongs anywhere other than at Deir el-Bahri, it belongs in the article on Osiris. It really isn't that relevant to the myth. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Gerald Massey 1856.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
The media file you uploaded as File:Gerald Massey 1856.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|83d40m}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
Hello, Sfan -- Regarding your note to me: ...Why are you challenging the copyright status of an image that was taken in 1865 and threatening to remove it from WP? Since he died in 1907, any image of him should be copyright free. Please note that this is the lead image on the article on the man. Although I am listed as a user of the image, I do not find the image on my upload file, however, it is noted as a duplicate, "File:Gerald Massey 1856.jpg from Wikimedia Commons". _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted this file since it was an obvious violation of copyright. The content of that website is copyrighted and they have a disclaimer that fair use of logos and banners is excluded with prior permission. You should know by now that we cannot simply take screenshots of other websites and publish them under a free license. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa -- hastily, I looked at the New York Times article and saw that an image of its front page was posted there. I failed to look carefully enough to realize that it was from the early 1900s and therefore, copyright free! I presumed that it was a fair use and proceeded to create the image. I'm usually much more careful. Thanks for your prompt action._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There might also be a chance to restore the image or use another screenshot under a fair use rationale. The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#The Sarasota News Leader and apparently it's not even possible to exclude fair use, no matter what the News Leader writes on their website. Let's wait how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New online publication with no clear notability other than someone sending out a prank issue. Currently a topic of drama and threats from the publisher at ANI (see talk page).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This has nothing to do with the image in the section above. It is a general notice that the entire article is has been proposed for deletion, a notion that I have already supported. The reason can be seen above, there is no indication that this fairly new online newspaper is notable enough to be included here. You may stop the deletion countdown by removing the deletion tags from the article's page, but then there's a big chance that a formal deletion discussion will be started afterwards. The only way to keep the article would be finding a few reliable and independent sources that have covered this website in-depth. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've already voiced my support for the deletion of the article. Notability is not measured by users subscribing to their page but by other sources reporting about them. So while we may now delete the article it could later be recreated when appropriate sources exist that establish the notability of this website. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarasota News Leader until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The BushrangerOne ping only20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up the meaning of your note to me.
I am aware that we disagree, I think that was explored in 2011. I rely upon the immediate international coverage of Gary's death to indicate his status as a sculptor and believe it qualifies him for recognition for our readers. He was memorialized by the NYT, Time, ABC-TV, and most other prominent media. The numbers of people who attended exhibitions of his work while he was alive, could exceed some of the sculptors you list readily. His fine art is privately held internationally and never is cast off and sent to auction.
Without a doubt, he is the best example I have seen for the use of diverse materials in his work, so I have placed him among those being discussed in that vein. I suspect that you focus too closely on his whimsical works for a value judgment that might just be very personal. That is like focusing on Calder's circus and disqualifying him from discussion as a serious sculptor. The subject matter of dinosaurs was followed by Calder when he created a Stegosaurus after he met Gary and saw his. Chamberlain worked with automobile parts. Picasso often chose animal subjects in his sculpture. Gary's works are a thousand times more complex than Picasso's Bull head, yet are easily as effective a use of unchanged existing materials to create another image and they are created with the highest of skills. Our readers deserve to see not merely academic judgments, but works identified as notable in their lifetimes by everyday sources. As a fellow editor here, I will persist in placing entries where I see this as fitting and I would hope that you do not take that personally, as I respect your skills even though we do disagree on this point. I would prefer that the entry not be deleted. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "Lioness" but "Lion" and the name was sourced to the Museum site itself. Please do not change the name again, especially since it was sourced. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις02:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the courteous notice of your reversal of my edit. Please clarify in the caption that "lion" is a part of a title that you can cite with a reference. If you mean to imply a formal title, please use a format, such as italics or initial caps, which makes that clear. I am comfortable with that formality. Many museums catalogues have items that are misidentified in long-standing titles. While recognizing the title, clearly, clarification is within our mission of providing correct information to our readers.
Beyond that, I see no logical reason for any of the other edits that were reversed (seemingly because of the one word in a caption not identified as a formal title). I will repeat the other edits which point out the presence of lionesses where misidentified as lions and the inclusion of that information for the reader, if missing.
The lioness has some distinctive physical characteristics that ancient artists were explicit in portraying no matter the ignorance of modern collectors, who often misidentified the subjects. Perpetuating such an error ignores potential cultural ramifications that may be quite relevant to understanding past cultures. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you cannot repeat the other edits either because they happen to be your personal observations. So you cannot call any animal depictions "lionesses" if they are not described as such by reliable sources. That would be WP:OR. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entry made at discussion including note that a correction of the entry on the upload form had been corrected and was reversed by editor challenging the images _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Now send the e-mail you left on my talk page into the e-mail queue linked to above.
sfab00 img -- Not sure what you are asking for, but this is a stab at what I think you mean...
This is pasted from discussion at the talk page of sfab00 img:
Even though he states on his web site that none is required, I have the written permission of the creator for the use of his copyright-free low resolution images.
"From: Jon Bodsworth <post@egyptarchive.co.uk> Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM Subject: Re: your photographs To: 83d40m coresp
Hi
Yes, that's fine. Use in any way you like.
All the best
Jon
.................
On 16 Nov 2007, at 02:48, 83d40m coresp wrote:
I would like to use your photographs in Wikipedia -- you have indicated that the low resolution images are copyright free and requested an e-mail if used. Please let me know whether you need any other information. Thanks for the availability of your great photographs. -- 83d40m"
Is this a new procedure? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Wonder how many scanners there were in 1954? The answer is, I took the photograph with a camera. A scan is necessary to put a photograph into a digital form and the digital image was uploaded to Wikipedia on October 25, 2008. The author is 83d40m. There is no reason to delete the image. The summary reads == scan of photograph of brj taken on 3.15.1954 on his 75th birthday (anniversary, of course) - from personal collection==, a quick look at the article identifies his birthday as 3.15.1879 and the file name clearly identifies the date and age of the subject. I believe that the summary identifies the source as "self made". (You guys have too much time on your hands to be debating what "is" "is"... but thank you for patrolling for the safety of Wikipedia!) _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your recent contributions. Just to flag that numbers under 11 are written in letters (nine, four, one etc). Above ten are written as digits - 20th, 15, 44th, 1941. It would be appreciated if you could make the minor alterations needed to the articles you have edited where the format was changed. Thanks very much. Span (talk)18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Chatham Borough, New Jersey again. I've waited a while, but it seems to be deteriorating. I have been formulating a poll in advance of a move request that will standardize all of the paired municipalities, the Chanthams, Boontons and such. After reviewing the Encyclopedia of New Jersey and the naming convention it uses for articles, the titles of "Chatham Borough" and "Chatham Township" would be the model for other such municipalities. I don't see any justification for any other scheme, but this can be discussed further. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
83d40m opened up an offer of quoted dialogue in the Chatham Borough article, which I cut and pasted below. It is more convenient to reach resolution through a Talk page rather than internal notes in the article.
"This is the name of the government rather than the place. Even though I believe your change is redundant with "Borough" identified above it as the type of settlement, I am willing to accept this compromise at the moment -- would you be willing to change the title of the article to Chatham (borough), New Jersey to reciprocate the compromise?"
I believe 83d40m and I have now reached consensus on the original issue that would allow a settlement's official name and common name to be included in Chatham Borough Info box as has been done in other Wikipedia articles. Any new issues regarding renaming of the Chatham Borough article, which I do not recommend, has been previously addressed by others. See end of this communication for further details.
I would first like to provide clarification for anyone with a further interest in this official location name issue in the Info box.
It is not simply the name of the Chatham government. There should be no doubt by anyone that it is an undisputed fact that "Borough of Chatham" is also the official name of the location that has been assigned by the town as per their website, town signs, and official documents, all of which is documented research. Town road signs, which indicate "Borough of Chatham", do not welcome visitors to their form of government. They welcome visitors to their location's name. I do not consider it redundant.
Polling of Wikipedia users will not change this fact.
If anyone is going to challenge the official location name, they need to provide documented research.
I worked with 83d40m to provide a compromise, which shows both the common name, Chatham, which 83d40m prefers, and the official location name, Borough of Chatham, which I added. I have gone further to identify documented research to substantiate these changes and provide better understanding by 83d40m.
I also noted that Chatham officials, who best know their town, state that "Borough of Chatham" is their official location name and not just a form of government. While this is not documented research, it should give anyone pause since Chatham officials might be in a better position than outsiders.
If this practice is OK for Wikipedia's New York City article, it should be good for Chatham article. No one is arguing that the frequently edited and viewed New York City article should delete their official name of City of New York from their Info box, which is in addition to the common name, New York City, even though the form of government is shown as "City".
Summit, NJ (City of Summit) and Hackensack, NJ (City of Hackensack) similarly list their official names (shown in parentheses), along with their common name.
While this issue can help provide clarification with paired communities, it is really part of bigger issue that has nothing to do with paired communities. The bigger issue that needs to be addressed:
Is it acceptable to show both the common name plus the official location name in the Info box of a Wikipedia article for a settlement location if it is documented on the town's official website and town signs or in any other documented research? So far, various editors of individual articles have answered in the affirmative.
Just because another article does not use a certain practice, does NOT mean that it is not correct to use this practice in this article if Wikipedia guidelines do not advocate against it and other articles are already implementing a specific practice, which in our case was adding an official location name, along with the common name.
The issues noted above should be addressed completely separate from the naming of the Wikipedia article, which is currently Chatham Borough, New Jersey. Naming of this Wikipedia article has already been vigorously debated in extensive details over an extensive amount of time on the Talk page of Chatham Borough. I would NOT want to open up this Wikipedia naming topic again. If the Wikipedia article naming topic were ever opened again, which I would advise against, it would need to be publicly addressed on Chatham Borough's Talk page. 83d40m and I could not simply reach any agreement between the two of us on this separate Wikipedia article naming issue.
Yes, I have reach consensus with Wondering55 regarding the info box. It involves a compromise by both, but is a reasonable solution for the time being. Thank you, editor Wondering55.
My apologies to editor Alansohn for raising this issue again, however, it has remained unresolved and considered in error by me all along. Because I have a passion for making the article correct, I believe I am justified in pursuing that objective, as tedious as it may be to other editors. I have researched for many aspects of articles of communities in this area and biographies of people born in this area. None of the subjects of biographies who were born in Chatham ever list their birth place as "Chatham borough", drivers licenses, birth and death certificates list the place as "Chatham", historical markers list the place as "Chatham". The basis of my argument is the difference between a place name and the type of government (which may change over time as in this case). There is a reason that maps do not list City of Summit, Borough of Madison, Borough of Florham Park, or Borough of Chatham on maps, they are giving the place names people seek and which reflect common use. When they do, one may take that as common usage.
Maps of this area identify Madison, Chatham, and Summit along the southwestern line of route 24 and farther to the southwest is Chatham Township.
There is a reason that the 'officials' asked about official names identify the government in which they function, create the signs mentioned, and sign the governmental papers. Regarding signs found in the town, note that the railroad is identified as "Chatham" the fire station is identified as "Chatham", the post office address is "Chatham". From the website are the following, "Living in Chatham", "Chatham Emergency Squad", "Chatham Joint Recreation", "Chatham Senior Center", "Explore Chatham", "The Minsi group of Lenni Lenape occupied the northern section of New Jersey, including the area of present-day Chatham.", "The trail became known as the Minisink Trail and followed a route that includes what is now Main Street in Chatham.", "In 1680 Sir George Carteret paid the Minsi the equivalent of $55 for land that included the present area of Chatham.", "Names associated with Chatham appear: Samuel Lum, Nathaniel Bonnell (also spelled “Bonnel”), and David Vanderpoel. These men settled in the area by the time of the Revolutionary War and made substantial contributions to Chatham’s early history.", "On November 23, 1773, the following notice appeared in the New York Journal or Advertiser:
“Whereas the inhabitants of a certain village, situated at Passaic River, on the main road that leads from Elizabeth-Town to Morris-Town, found themselves under a considerable disadvantage from the place’s not having a particular name....the principal freeholders and inhabitants assembled together on Friday, the 19th inst., and unanimously agreed to call it Chatham.”, "Chatham’s citizens proved to be staunch revolutionaries and joined with leaders from other villages to form committees of observation and correspondence. Chatham citizens erected a liberty pole at what is now the corner of Main Street and University Avenue.", "Throughout the war Chatham was the scene of much troop movement. For two long winters Chatham served as a buffer...", "Shepard Kollock, an artillery soldier with a newspaper background, started the New Jersey Journal in Chatham...", "The army quietly left Chatham, heading south for Yorktown, Virginia.", "The trains that brought vacationers to Chatham also transported residents to city jobs. The “Chatham Accommodation” left at 7:15 a.m. and returned at 6:00 p.m.",
"John T. Cunningham, in his preface to Chatham: At the Crossing of the Fishawack, states “I doubt that any other community of Chatham’s size in this country has ever taken such a detailed look at its history.” More information about the history of the Chathams can be found in the following books, available at the Library of the Chathams or the Chatham Historical Society.", and it lists the following books,
1. History of Chatham, New Jersey. Ambrose Ely Vanderpoel. 1959 Detailed, scholarly work, dwelling heavily on the War of Independence.
2. Chatham: At the Crossing of the Fishawack. John T. Cunningham. 1967. The story of Chatham from its beginnings through 1966.
3. Shepard Kollock: Editor for Freedom. John R. Anderson. 1975. The story of the New-Jersey Journal and its publisher in Chatham, 1779-83.
4. A Village at War. Donald Wallace White. 1979. A story of the people of Chatham, New Jersey, at the time of the American Revolution.
5 Memories Entwined with Roses. Ruth Pierson Churchill. 1984.
Pamphlet
“Washington’s Ruse de Guerre.” Ambrose Ely Vanderpoel. Reprint of Chapter XVI of History of Chatham.
For more information: Chatham Historical Society
On the website the address of Borough of Chatham is listed as, 54 Fairmount Avenue, Chatham, NJ 07928
"Explore Chatham is aimed at providing trails and descriptions that residents and non-residents can use to experience Chatham's natural beauty and historical importance."
Note the location stated in the published works of Shepard Kollock. While his press was located there, his books, pamphlets, and newspapers were printed in "Chatham, New Jersey"
Two historical markers displayed in the town identify it as "Chatham", including the "Chatham Historical District". If any group hones in on "the place" being designated, it is during historical designation.
What is the name of the community garden, "Chatham Community Garden"
I will quote from one of the first discussions raised on this topic,
:The point that the name of the government is not the name of the town is well made. In fact, I believe we confuse city governments with cities in Wikipedia, and, actually, all kinds of governments with places. As to how to find out the real name of the town, it's common usage. Normally, they are the same as "official usage", so it's not much of a practical problem. --Serge 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Common usage regarding Chatham since 1773 has been Chatham, New Jersey (except for the activities of its government, which is to be expected).
I have requested the renaming of the article on "The Chathams" (in which a joint school district and a sharing of the Chatham library with the residents of Chatham Township are discussed) to just that "The Chathams, New Jersey" and returning the title of "Chatham, New Jersey" to the article we are discussing that has been identified as Chatham, New Jersey for hundreds of years. "The Chathams" article was created by short time resident who for personal reasons wanted to be identified as a resident of Chatham, New Jersey when he lived in an apartment and attended secondary school in Chatham Township, New Jersey (after the creation of the joint school district and the expansion of library services that responded to the explosion of population in the township following WWII when open lands and large farms were converted to housing developments without any 'town' being developed—this was purely, classical suburban sprawl) and he created a new article on "The Chathams" and switched the title from the original "Chatham, New Jersey" article to his new article—renaming the original article as "Chatham Borough, New Jersey". He usurped all of the history related to the village that existed for hundreds of years and applied it to the article on the adjacent township where he lived. That township was a distinct rural region that was a remnant of the initial governmental organization efforts made after the revolution. It had few residents until the 1960s and only a small grammar school for the children who lived on the farms and in remote houses. By the time he became a resident the population explosion of the township had precipitated an increase that exceeded that of Chatham. The changes to the school and library system were in place by the time he resided there and it is obvious that he had no idea that the histories of the two communities were so different. He did not follow any suggestion I made about his incorrect assumptions. He striped the article on the original settlement down to nominal discussion. This editor was not a native of the country and his family had no history of residence in the community whose article he chose to alter for personal reasons that are complicated, and perhaps unnecessary to explicate. He had no sense of the local history. As I opposed the changes he made things escalated and by the time other editors became involved, it was no longer possible to understand readily the ramifications of his edits, nor was it an issue that other editors were want to plumb. Some of his changes were intended simply to muddy the waters enough that other editors might merely consider it a petty edit war. The changes he made have never been corrected adequately.
Residents of "Chatham, New Jersey" are passionate about their history. The number of houses displaying the date of their construction in the 1700s is remarkable. One author stated that "Chatham,, New Jersey" had studied its own history more than any other community in the country. Having to avoid articles in Wikipedia that often are driven to use the borough title to link to an incorrectly titled WP article is untenable to me as an editor with deep historical appreciation of subjects. The borough and township pairs that exist in New Jersey municipal governments compounded the entire issue. They had become problematic in a scheme chosen by WP that confused governments with the places they govern, introducing the subjects by defining them as the governmental name. Reaching a uniform resolution of that and making all of the corrections needed could entail a lot of work. That may dampen any enthusiasm for resolving the issue with three articles.
The common usage of "Chatham Township" as displayed on the map given above for an example is as a place name as well as a government organization of the place. The map displayed on an Internet Google search for "Chatham Township" clearly identifies the boundaries if it at [6]
Likewise, the map displayed on an Internet Google search for "Chatham, New Jersey" clearly identifies the boundaries of it and shows its relationship to Chatham Township [7]. The argument for common usage is rather clear showing that the two places are commonly recognized by those names.
As requested, continuing documentation of common usage in media of note that supports my argument includes the following,
"Aaron Montgomery Ward was born on February 17, 1844, in Chatham, New Jersey, to a family whose forebears had served as officers in the French and Indian War as well as in the American Revolution." [8]
"Ben Bailey is a young comedian on the rise. In the fall of 1992, Ben left his home in Chatham, New Jersey and flew to Los Angeles with only forty dollars and a backpack full of clothes. Ben Bailey profile
"Reagan to Nominate Former Interior Aide As Labor Secretary, Mrs. McLaughlin was born in 1941 in Chatham, N.J." - The New York Times, November 3, 1987
Kafi Benz..."[b]orn during 1941 in Chatham, New Jersey" and the 1940 United States Federal Census lists the residence of her father and mother as Chatham, New Jersey
"Mr. Shipler was born in Chatham, N.J., graduated from Dartmouth College and joined The Times as a news clerk in 1966..." - The New York Times, April 17, 1987
"Alice Louise Waters, one of four daughters born in Chatham, N.J., is no longer just a restaurateur..." - The New York Times, August 4, 1996
This is how natives of the town identify themselves. That is common usage.
Old Mill at Chatham, New Jersey from a 1911 postcard
The post card displayed in the article, clearly declaring the location as Chatham, N.J. dates from 1911 and confirms common usage.
I list these because they are all from long after the borough form of government was adopted.
The notice at the top of the WP articles for the township and the town clearly direct readers to the WP articles on Chatham Township, The Chathams, and Chatham in New Jersey. Although I consider it an expendable article, if the title of the article on The Chathams were corrected to "The Chathams, New Jersey" and if the title of the article on Chatham, New Jersey were reverted to its original title the existing notices would clarify the differences for our readers and accurately reflect common usage. I am, however, amazed by the reluctance to adopt common usage in WP and the insistence on allowing an ill-advised change to stand for an article that merely covers a joint school system and a library service extension that easily could be covered as a paragraph in the articles on each of the real communities.
I have a long history as an editor in highly technical areas that require an understanding of very detailed nomenclature and precise use of language and, in contrast, this is so fundamental an issue that has such a simple solution, following the common use that has prevailed in language and geography for hundreds of years. Does WP identify an article on Paris or Toykyo to identify the name of its current form of government as the title of the article? They have changed governments dramatically in the last century, yet the place name is the same. Although I consider it less than professional editing and confounding a simple reality of having articles that are entitled with the place names. I could even accept the compromise I suggested of "Chatham (borough), New Jersey" as long as borough is not capitalized. It would be closer to an accurate title for the article.
The curious reality is, that an article entitled, "Borough of Chatham", could be written to discuss the government of that place in great detail. Of course, such an article would be better focused upon a very complex government, but the principle is evident.
I repeat this entry by another editor, who was asked to comment on my assertion of the inaccuracy of the title of the article during the heated debate in 2006.
The point that the name of the government is not the name of the town is well made. In fact, I believe we confuse city governments with cities in Wikipedia, and, actually, all kinds of governments with places. As to how to find out the real name of the town, it's common usage. Normally, they are the same as "official usage", so it's not much of a practical problem. --Serge 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
My motivation is to make WP the best it can be. My primary objective is correcting one article. Secondarily, I would like to corrections to all three articles. Perhaps, we can thrash this out enough to reach a use that does not make WP seem stupid and peculiar. At the moment, Chatham, New Jersey is a borough. Its government form has changed several times without the place name changing in common use. It might be time, however, for WP to wake up to its shortsightedness on this and begin to make inroads in its established standard format that is confused and incorrect—and most misleading for its readers. I would be willing to assist. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Map identifying ChathamTownship and Chatham 83d40m.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Map identifying ChathamTownship and Chatham 83d40m.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Methane may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 24: 645-661 (Volume publication date November 1999, DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.24.1.645</ref> The concentration
The Arctic timebomb that could cost us $60trn'', The Independent, Wednesday, July 24, 2013]]</ref>
Hi, just for the record, since the genus Hadrosaurus contains only a single valid species, there is no information about either genus or species that isn't exactly the same. Therefore the articles should not be split. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Sarasota Chalk Festival, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the deletion on the basis of #8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This is an annual visual arts event and representation of its graphic details is most informative, and failing to provide examples of its contents is like having articles on artists without a gallery of their works. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simile, not an assertion of intent for this article. Please do not twist my words as you avoid discussion of the basis for my objection. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to appeal this to administrators in the area of images. Unfortunately, you are an editor with a short history and your track record is patchy, showing other valid complaints about your decisions as well. Boldness is admirable, I exercise it as I edit, but your attempt to intimidate me with a threat to block me while I was in the process of making edits to eliminate the one image (Rosie) that I believe could be eliminated because of failing to qualify within our guidelines along with clarifying relevance to the text for others and your avoidance of the topic I put to you is of concern to me however. I sensed that you were hovering to exercise your preference, to exercise blind authority, or to justify your actions rather than allowing dialogue to ensue among peer editors arguing their points of difference. That motivates me to appeal rather than to continue the argument with you.
Save the one I did delete because a link to another article would suffice, the images you have deleted are not of the same types, they are from varied sources external to WP and therefore without potential for links, and they are quite helpful in showing our readers what is being described in the article about a complex performing visual arts festival spanning several days that is held by a nonprofit and attended, without fee, by the public.
The images posted to the article over the years are appropriate uses of non-free media materials. We are a publisher also and images make our articles more appealing to our readers. Counting the number of non-free images used in an article is not analyzing how those images available for the topic are effective educational tools offered to our readers. Few images of the works created in the festival are eligible because of copyright limitations so taking advantage of the non-free images available is one of the ways to overcome that in this article.
One of the images you have removed is the cover of a guide to the ten days of the 2012 festival that was donated as a public service by a local publisher. How more specific to a section of the article can an image be? It provided forty pages of details about the history of the festival, the artists invited to it that year, and the educational programs presented at the festival that year. That depth could not be covered in our article, but certainly provides our readers with a handy avenue to much greater educational information about the topic.
Guidance by our editors was given to the poster of another one of the images, after they sought our help regarding proper posting procedures and followed that guidance to post it, now you have decided to delete it.
The posters, which were published by the organization and disseminated freely as promotional materials, are prime candidates for us to use in our articles.
Thanks for uploading File:2013 Sarasota chalk festival 83d40m official poster .png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Stefan, this poster was part of the article,Sarasota Chalk Festival, and was among images deleted from that article by a new image editor. There is an unresolved discussion about the images. Should this image be retained until the differences are settled? If not, if found useful for another article or section of the initial article may it be reintroduced after a deletion? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made time to take the discussion further at the talk page for the festival and placed a copy of the images under discussion there so that they are visible, albeit very small. That also should prevent someone else from issuing another deletion warning. Thank you for your agreement on the need to retain this one image that could wind up without an article, until the discussion is completed.
_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
discovered-under-ice-sheet-8C11034914 'Grand Canyon of Greenland' discovered under ice sheet]]'', NBC News, August 29, 2013</ref> Running from the central region of the island northward into
discovered-under-ice-sheet-8C11034914 'Grand Canyon of Greenland' discovered under ice sheet]]'', NBC News, August 29, 2013</ref>
The edit I was working on wrote over yours, sorry. It was not intentional and last night I corrected the image relocation. Right now I am logged in with the intention to reinstate your other edits. No need for you to do it again. I have the history up and will fix it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I assumed they were unintended, but I wanted to make sure before I redid them. Thanks for doing that. Paul August ☎ 16:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
NCurse— Thank you for the reversal of the link I inadvertently left behind in Medicine. Can you help me with the problem I encountered at this article while attempting to make a link to Félix Martí-Ibáñez (a new article I have started), who is the author noted in the footnote to his book A Prelude to Medical History?
I do not see a way to make a link to the new article in the Martí-Ibáñez footnote that exists in the section, Ancient World of Medicine, however I see that other footnotes in the same format do have links to the articles on the authors. When I examine those footnotes in the edit window, I do not see evidence of a link, yet it is there. The link must be in the original source for the book somewhere in WP.
Here is the citation,
<ref name=mart90>{{Cite book| last=Martí-Ibáñez | first=Félix | year = 1961
| title = A Prelude to Medical History
| publisher = MD Publications, Inc. | place = [[New York]]
|id = Library of Congress ID: 61-11617|page=90}}</ref>
it reads,
... name=mart90>Martí-Ibáñez, Félix (1961). A Prelude to Medical History. New York: MD Publications, Inc. p. 90. Library of Congress ID: 61-11617.
Where does this citation originate? I am hoping that I can access that citation in its original location so I may make a link to Félix Martí-Ibáñez there, that will be presented automatically with each citation of his book.
I created a redirect for Félix Martí-Ibáñez that will route inquiries to Félix Martí Ibáñez, however, the article ought to bear the correct spelling of his name.
When I created the new article, the title came up without the hyphen and I can not find a device to correct the title. Any help will be appreciated. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty— Thanks for adding categories to the article, Félix Martí-Ibáñez. Not being familiar with the guidelines for them nor all of the categories, I was reluctant to try more than a few. I do wonder, however, why you have changed some categories I had added and noted his affiliation only as Spanish for all significant categories for him. He emigrated to the U.S. at the age of thirty and became an American citizen. Although he is notable for Spanish culture, he is even more notable for American culture. His contributions to medical literature and history was international, being read by physicians, other professionals, and a world-wide audience among other groups. All of his books were published in English and through the publishing house he founded in Manhattan, where he lived until he died at the age of sixty. His command of English was remarkable. His most important writings were in English and authored after he had emigrated to his new county of citizenship. The vast majority of his professional work was in his adopted country and his clinical writings were in English. Can we reflect this by adding categories related to the thirty years of his professional work after changing citizenship? Or would it be better to revert to my categories regarding his professional work and merely create categories for his birth citizenship and location and also for his adopted citizenship and location? What are your thoughts on this? (Copied to my talk page also) _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In John Kenneth Galbraith you made some corrections (under the edit summary "A light edit of the article ..."), but along with that changed some styles and spellings that were already acceptable. I have undone some of these: spelling, switching to em dashes, and numerals to spelled-out numbers. "Titled" is acceptable in American English (the variety in which Galbraith wrote); Merriam-Webster defines the transitive verb 'title' as "to designate or call by a title". Please see WP:RETAIN. Spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes are equivalent, but one should not be changed to another in an article where one is used consistently. WP:DATE says "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article". Again, wholesale switching from one style to the other is unwarranted and unhelpful. Notice the phrase "not in quotes or titles"; your edit even changed the style in the title of a book.
I don't intend this to discourage you from making constructive edits to WP articles. There is plenty of work to be done fixing misspellings, miscapitalization, bad grammar, missing punctuation and non-WP styles, but imposing your own personal taste on every aspect of an article should be avoided. If you have any questions about this, please visit my talk page. Christhe spelleryack15:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misinterpreting your comments, but find them both condescending and a rationalization for replacing my consistent and acceptable edits with those of your personal tastes—while ironically, accusing me of having inserted my personal taste.
Except for one spelling correction—where I had inserted an apostrophe into "its" in error—the items you changed from my edit of the entire article contain no errors. Furthermore, I consistently changed the items required to be consistent throughout an article, if they were not, as required.
Reverting typography, as you have, to the limited range available to a typewriter—rather than that available to typesetting used professionally in publishing (and now enabled in composition on computers)—fails to present WP as a professional-looking publication, which always is my objective.
At least you consult the dictionary I consider authoritative, but one ought to compare the differences in use of alternative spellings thoroughly before expressing disdain for another editor's choice between what you consider perfectly acceptable—when you justify what you think is a correction.
The first definition of entitle is as a transitive verb to give a title to something and its origin follows a consistent transition from Latin (Middle English, from Anglo-French entitler, from Late Latin intitulare, from Latin in- + titulus title); to the contrary with your choice, the first definition of title is as a noun describing that which has been given and only its second definition is as a transitive verb without pure linguistic credentials and, there is reason to look upon it simply as a corruption of the noun.
When writing, best practices are to choose a word when its first definition is intended rather than choosing words with other primary meanings. Better to use the full rich vocabulary of a language than to muddy it through reduction, as if to a lowest common denominator.
I shall leave your edits even though I believe they diminish the quality of the article that I tried to advance to a higher caliber than it was before my efforts. Time may be wasted so easily by engaging in futile arguments, so I reserve my challenges for things of greater significance to me.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to De rerum natura may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
created our world or interfere with its operations in some way. He argues against fear of such de[ties by demonstrating through observations and arguments that the operations of the world can be
This is a curious mess, my 2006 original uploaded and displayed correctly in the article, Hatshepsut, the date indicated is 2008. Later it was added to the commons and I am guessing that it skewed in the process and was rotated and renamed, because now it is listed as,
.
At one time a 2011 version, Trees_to_transplant_from_Punt_to_Egypt_-_Hatshepsut_Mortuary_Temple_c.jpg, (which I can see today when accessed from your file as another version—no matter that here it is displayed as a non-existent file) was derived from my original by User:JMCC1 I objected to the use of this because of the distortion of the color. At that file there is a reference to my original file. Perhaps this is when the file was rotated, but I do not recall it skewing in the article then.
Don't know whether it is possible to determine an accurate chronology for all of this.
Now these images are used in five articles, however, with file names that were not created by me and without annotation at the original file or being cross referenced to my gallery.
It should have been tagged "KeepLocal" so I have corrected the file today and although I do not mind the file being in the commons, I still would like a copy of the correctly-oriented image that now is in the article to be kept local so that I may view it in my gallery. I do not see an option to edit the new commons file with a "keep local" tag. What options are available to achieve that? Can you help me with that? ____83d40m (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fungus gnat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
faces, eyes, and noses. Ridding the home of the fungus on which they thrive is recommended. <ref>[http://www.natorp.com/assets/SiteEngineManager/success-tips-bug-insects/fungusgnats.pdf</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allen Toussaint may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
post/98986929744/mr-toussaint-is-the-definition-of-prolific-many Allen Toussaint], October 2, 2014]]</ref>
1961 cover of "Fortune Teller" through The Artwoods' 1995 cover of "Work, Work, Work", and beyond (see Alison Krauss' and Robert Plant's 2007 cover of "Fortune Teller" on their collaboration album [[
mr-toussaint-is-the-definition-of-prolific-many Ben Jaffe: Allen Toussaint, October 2, 2014]]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allen Toussaint may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
post/98986929744/mr-toussaint-is-the-definition-of-prolific-many Allen Toussaint], October 2, 2014]]</ref>
1961 cover of "Fortune Teller" through The Artwoods' 1995 cover of "Work, Work, Work", and beyond (see Alison Krauss' and Robert Plant's 2007 cover of "Fortune Teller" on their collaboration album [[
mr-toussaint-is-the-definition-of-prolific-many Ben Jaffe: Allen Toussaint, October 2, 2014]]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goucher College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
in America), founded 1839, now known as [[Baltimore City College|The Baltimore City College]]). It closed in the late 1880s. The new Methodist-sponsored college for women was founded as the
You refer me to learn how to edit here at the welcome page? I've been editing at WP since 2006 with this ID, and prior to that with another. I do not get the point. The journal referenced by the author is just the type of source you note. None of the CDC references deal with the specific U.S. states now affected, however, the reference you deleted does. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll go to it. I had a conversation with another WP editor 200 years ago about WP editors with JSTOR access, I'll sift through my talk page and those of the likely articles I was working on -- for which I needed access to very early journals. The editor who responded might be able to point me to who is participating in the pilot program between WP and JSTOR. This would be so useful! _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see someone taking the trouble to do some copy editing. I have one query where I think the sense may have been amended slightly - you'll see it in the page history v. soon if you are curious. BenMacDui17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BenMacDui, let me know where you think the meaning has changed and I'll be glad to revisit that. So many articles need editing—it is a real challenge. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jim gary 83d40m 2011.09.17appE13-14.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Scan of a newspaper article used in two biographical articles about people whose actions are discussed in the article. I'm unclear how having a picture of the article better helps understand either topic. (WP:NFCC#8) B(talk) 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thumb|095px - image was uploaded and inserted into subject articles on 2011.09.19
I believe this image contributes significantly to an understanding of both topics. First, it is useful because the subject sculpture is represented, and often, visual references can communicate more effectively than words, especially to show the range in size and subject matter. Second, because the artist is represented with his work, and being dead, that cannot ever occur again. Third, direct quotes exist in the article. Fourth, this publication frequently deletes files of previous articles, leaving no other access to the article other than such a graphic. Fifth, it demonstrates the importance locally of the subject and the artist, to be given a full page spread with many photographs. Sixth, the editor, who prepared the image and added it to the articles, carefully chose images to accompany the articles to make both an appealing article for our readers. Seventh, it is one of few images that can tie the subjects of the two articles to one another. This image has stood the test of time in articles that see regular traffic from readers. Fulfilling the guidelines for images, and not being in violation of any fair use criteria, it should be retained. Deletion should not hinge on the taste of one editor when no other issue exists (for it merely is a difference between two editors, not regulations). I fail to find how that difference could be determined as a valid criteria for deletion and object strongly to the nomination for deletion. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the criteria for fair use, the image was uploaded and inserted into the subject articles on 2011.09.19 and has been a feature of both articles continuously for four years. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Free copyright tags but with a fair use rationale. The free copyright tags seem to be wrong. Is this the entire advertisement? Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the entire advertisement. This image passed muster on July 22, 2014 with a fair use rationale attached. Crosley was a great sport fisherman, are we on an expedition? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jim gary universal woman 83d40m lores sevcrop.JPG listed for deletion
User B, Stefan2, et al — Please let me know when you have run out your exercise with the images I have uploaded. Obviously you are devoting a great deal of time in this effort even though presumption seems to be driving most of your judgments and your personal comments. When you have finished, I will begin to respond to each as time allows. Not having the luxury of free time that you seem to have, it will take time, but I will go through my records for each and reply. Please note the correct classifications for those classified incorrectly so that changes may be made. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant image discussion is the best place to respond. What would be MOST HELPFUL is if you would not say "self-made" or own work for things what were clearly derived from somewhere else. With something like File:1986 stamp 83d40m Athena .png, you say "self-made", but unless you work for the Greek post office, you did not make this stamp. You are not the author. If you are in physical possession of the postage stamp and you scanned it in, then okay, say that. But scanning a 2D work on your scanner does not make you the author. So what would be helpful would be for you to give an honest accounting of where your images came from. File:Aegis of Isis - Sudan 300s bc - British Museum - 83d40m.JPG is obviously taken from the British Museum website - when you say "self-made", it strains my ability to assume good faith on the other images you upload. --B (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring you, am very busy at the moment, will have some time about the middle of next week to begin to engage on these issues. Quickly, however, regarding the photograph of the stamp, the photograph I uploaded was self made and the description states that it is of a postage stamp. It seems a stretch to presume that given the description, I was claiming that I had drawn the stamp. Regarding your other item, although I consider my image of the aegis of Isis much superior to one on the web site of the museum I clearly acknowledged as its location (I think the difference in the two images is apparent), they do allow free upload for educational use and I could do that, but would lose my anonymity because they require extensive disclosure at registration. If there is a WP id that may be used, I would be glad to upload the lesser quality image, if you insist. Sorry for the delay, but will have some time next week. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three points:
When scanning or photocopying the work of another, that is not considered to be an original creative work. If you scan (or photocopy or photograph) a stamp, then whatever country owns the copyright to that stamp still owns the copyright to your copy. If the stamp is public domain (because, by law, the country does not consider its stamps to be copyrighted or because the copyright has expired) then it can be used on Wikipedia and you should tag it with the appropriate public domain tag. If the stamp is NOT public domain, then it can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use and must meet the requirements of our non-free content criteria. Please note that the same is true if you are scanning something from a book, magazine, etc. Even if you are doing extensive retouching to the image, your work is at best a derivative work of the original and so it can only be used on Wikipedia if the copyright has expired on the source. If you found an image somewhere on the internet and retouched it, that is NOT appropriate for use here.
Wikipedia does not accept images under terms that permit reuse only for "educational" or "non-profit" purposes. In order to be considered "free content", modification and commercial reuse must be permitted. So images from a museum that permits only educational reuse are not sufficient without an appropriate license. If you would like to contact the museum and ask for such a license, WP:COPYREQ has instructions for requesting copyright permission and WP:CONSENT has a form that we ask that the copyright holder submit. If you obtain permission from a copyright holder, you can have it sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Emails sent there are completely confidential and your email address, real world identity, etc, will not be posted on Wikipedia. The only thing we will say on Wikipedia is yes the permission is sufficient or no the permission is not sufficient and, if the permission was for multiple images, in general terms what permission was granted (e.g. "all images at site XYZ").
You should only call an image your own work if you created all aspects of it completely yourself. That means you stood a few feed from the actual object depicted, held the camera in your hands, and clicked the button to take the photo. If you are modifying an image that you obtained elsewhere, then you need to say what the source of that image is. It might be, particularly if it is very very old, that the copyright has expired and it's okay to use it, but you should still say what it is. When you don't say what it is and half of our images are clearly derivative works of someone else's photos, that makes it hard to know whether the license claims on the other half are legitimate or whether they are copyright violations as well. (See The Boy Who Cried Wolf.)
An still without the time to reply adequately to this number of images and I expect that it may be impossible to find time to begin much before weeks from now. That being the case, it may be futile to pursue reinstatement of the images, for which I believe there are rational arguments against removal. It therefore, not being a personal issue to me, I may just move on and, in the future, attempt to avoid the types of issues raised regarding them (which I respect even if I consider particulars ill-founded), to provide more complete details in image data submitted, and, even though I consider it acceptable, to edit my own images—at whatever degree of sophistication I consider necessary for the particular application—into ones bearing other titles. Retaining access to the images removed, I believe that only our readers will suffer what I consider a loss of additional insights into the subjects of the articles. Time available to me, undoubtedly, will be used more beneficially in edits without such controversy or especially, without need for protracted defense of so many in one fell swoop, and the absorption of the precious time available to several good editors. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:The Observer 83d40m chalkfestival2012 guide cover.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
As a general rule of thumb, we request that users not give individual notices to people of issues found at CCI to avoid flooding talk pages with notices of issues that contributors now understand. Because of that, you may or may not receive notice of problems found. It's a good idea to watchlist the CCI page itself: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/83d40m.
There was question of text contributions as well, in light of B's finding in this edit that you had closely followed your source. While I did find some copying issues in Municipal Auditorium-Recreation Club, with material taken from the Sarasota County Government website, my spot-check has not disclosed routine issues. Nevertheless, I need to be sure you realize that text content you add to Wikipedia must in almost all cases be written in your own words, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. If a source is demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed, you may copy from it more liberally but are required to follow the processes set out at Wikipedia:Plagiarism by noting that you are not just taking information but creative content from your sources.
In spite of our general approach to CCIs, I did want to let you know that I have flagged two images you've uploaded on review of the CCI as "disputed fair use" as I do not believe they conform to WP:NFC. If it is determined that the files do not qualify under the non-free content policy, they might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. These files are File:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.JPG and File:Thecollagesofjonathantalbot 83d40m cover .png. Both suffer from the same issue in that they are cover art being used in the biography of an individual, which is inappropriate excerpt perhaps when they accompany sourced commentary on the covers themselves. The second cover is not mentioned in the article; the first is, but the commentary on the cover is unsourced. The covers themselves must be notable for us to use them as fair use in this context, and the sourced commentary helps demonstrates that they are. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As noted above, I am without the time necessary to address the particulars, but appreciate the professional quality of your notice. Perhaps at a later date I will be able to address the items you have noted, especially, the copyright-free status of governmental publications, and the difference of approach withing text regarding notable cover images. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Noting url for future reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/83d40m - reply made there for entry in history. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of when 'city' should be capitalised in this instance (although the text does say City of London is used to distinguish from city of London ie the metropolis, which has no formal status and is not legally a city). However part of your revert was 'municipal governing body of London,', this is clearly wrong, very few users ever use 'London' to mean 'the City of'. One of the main purposes of the passage is to clarify the difference between 'the City of' and 'the city commonly known as'. The 'City of' has few/no powers over 'the city called'(ie 'London'). Please name/ping if replying.Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps the distinction between the various uses of 'city' and 'London' is puzzling, even to those of us who have lived there! Unfortunately that's history.Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you admit that you are unsure and yet you reversed my edit really confounds me. Well, I am quite sure of the correct application of capitalization when it comes to the difference between the governing body (the City of London, a bureaucracy incorporated for governing alone) and a place (the city of London). I suspect that you have no idea of the distinction I made in my edits. This is a chronic problem at WP. If you cannot defend your reversal with facts, please refrain from them and I believe that wholesale reversals are outrageous when an editor takes an issue with one or more aspects in several edits by another. The sentence you quote as "clearly wrong" is bizarre because the governing body is called City of London, precisely as my edit indicated. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.
Sorry, went to follow your instructions, and found a note at the top of the article, is that adequate to make the move? I have made redirects for the pages that should have been affected. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Jim Gary - Twentieth Century Dinosaurs - 83d40m poster - tour of Japan.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Decided to restore the image and provide rationale.
(cur | prev) 04:28, 21 September 2015 83d40m (talk | contribs) . . (36,781 bytes) (+249) . . (Undid revision 681503327 by Calliopejen1 (talk) poster is—allowed—and is useful for readers to see the reception in another country - better understanding of its recognition) (undo)
Image should be kept local — but put into the Wiki where it may be shared with other Wikipedias, in process of creating one in the Japanese Wikipedia — but not sure how to transfer the image. Need help with that. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comment by editor that the image was unneeded
note text related to the poster:
"The exhibition was booked for a tour of Japan that began in April 1984. The poster displayed to the right was for the opening exhibition at a national museum in Tokyo that lasted through May, before making a six-month tour to museums in other Japanese cities. Posters were distributed in the cities that were included in the tour and they were displayed in buses, trains, and other public places to announce the exhibition in each museum."
What museums in USA would be analogous to those to which this exhibition went as a solo show? What museums in Britain would be analogous to those in this tour?
Where is the rule being used by this editor? Is this editor qualified to judge the subject of art and its professional standards? Is a national tour to the major museums in Japan of the works of an artist from the USA—unneeded information? Are the posters produced by the Japanese not a significant indicator of the esteem for the artist in Japan?
..................
Taking one image at a time allows discussion—a deviation from the spree initiated against images posted by this user—who now is being disparaged by the editor on the spree in edit summaries. I find this spree and the related behavior quite contrary to Wikipedia standards, as I know them, and suspect a personal agenda. Now a personal judgment by that editor of an image that cannot be taken down "for (presumed) causes" (that remain allegations) being unneeded is used for justification... This deserves examination (? bullying ?)
Please refrain from unfounded accusations of a "personal agenda". I'm working through WP:CCI and am helping clean up your uploads. And the "spree" has consisted of less than a dozen images, with many more where I have improved the image description to prevent future deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jim Gary - Twentieth Century Dinosaurs - 83d40m poster - tour of Japan.JPG listed for deletion
The first file records indicates quite clearly that the photograph was inherited. Why would you ask me to divulge information that would expose my identity?
The status of the second is a similar situation, with the photograph being an autographed promotional photograph (distributed and published widely) given to the person who gave it to me.
Clearly, they were my possession to do with as I chose and I created edits of them that I released to creative commons attribution.
_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of the copyright of the second photo shows a misunderstanding of copyright law. Not all promotional photographs are in the public domain, so the fact that someone gave you the image does not mean that the image is free of copyright if you so declare on Wikipedia. Similarly with respect to the first photo -- just because you inherited the photo from someone who possessed it does not mean that you can release the copyright. (And the photo clearly is not "self-made" as you have indicated on the file page.) Could you say something like "My father took this photo of DeGroot in 1949. I am the residuary heir of his estate and thus own the copyright." or something along those lines? What you have indicated so far (that you inherited the photo itself) is not sufficient to establish its copyright status. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of this logo? Benz & Cie appears to have existed until 1926. If the logo was published before 1923 (which seems likely) the image would be free. But we need a source confirming the date the logo was used. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the logo is the company itself. This version dates to before 1909.
A photograph taken at a museum was uploaded from my camera into Picasa and edited for upload to WP, which was given to creative commons attribution in 2008.
You seem to be in contact with Jim Gary's studio director. Would it be possible to discuss with him the possibility of having a few images released under a free license, following the process at commons:Commons:Email templates? It would probably be ideal to have a photo of Gary himself, a photo or two of his dinosaur sculptures, and maybe a photo or two of his other artworks. This would eliminate all issues with the use of nonfree images in Gary's article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Jim gary 83d40m stegosaurus illuminated 2p.jpg
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free rationale for File:Jim Gary abstract 83d40m painted metal lores.jpg
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dudley S DeGroot 83d40m circa 1949.JPG listed for deletion
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:New College 2005 campus master plan 83d40m day 1 - Stefanos Polyzoides et al.2ndupload.jpg
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Steel1943, Thank you for your efforts examining WP images. Please consult the WP guidelines for public documents. There is no copyright on this image, therefore, there should not be a need to seek permission from a copyright holder.
This image needs to be removed from the list of potential images for deletion.
File:Map Seagate campus 83d40m University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.jpg[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: combined into discussion below: #Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Map Seagate campus 83d40m University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
Since when has USF been in the business of publishing "copyright free" documents? Never, to my knowledge. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to the documentation provided at the next item, Possible derivative uploads by User 83d40m, which follows immediately on this page and discusses the freedom of information laws for Florida.
A state university falls under the same laws because it is an institution that is an arm of the state. Since it is in Florida, it must conform to the freedom of information laws of the state. All of the documents and images it releases, publishes, or broadcasts are openly accessible by the public following the state laws and, by her own laws, the state has no legal right to proscribe how they are used.
If you have seen a document, photograph, or record published by USF that bears her copyright, please advise me, it needs to be reported to the Attorney General of the state. The campus design process of Florida state colleges and universities is an open process, held with open and public meetings, and all of the documents developed in that process are public documents that fall under the laws noted in the following topic. ----83d40m (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I find this to be a bit of a stretch. You can find such a copyright simply by going to http://www.usf.edu/index.asp.
While I appreciate your earnestness, I think you have to realize the implications of what you're saying. Does every professor who does work for USF have to release that work into the public domain? How about students who work for said professors? I really don't think that argument would hold up in court. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you have failed to follow the discussion regarding the other governmental agencies that followed below. This map is part of the new campus design project that was a public process and is a public document. It is distributed freely after being printed with state funds. The documentation that resolves the other images clearly states that even if stated erroneously, there is no copyright on public documents produced by a state university. Please read the details on the template that should be used with this image.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a State of Florida "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf," and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner. In brief, the "Florida public records law ... overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption."
The legislature has never granted an exemption for this map. ----83d40m (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It's quite hard to determine the author, actually, seeing as you listed the authorship as "self-made". Can you please update this? If it was done publically (i.e., not by the state of Florida), then we can likely tag it with the same exemption as below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It should be tagged with the same exemption as those below. I do not know what you are asking me to do. I have asked for guidance about how to use the pd-flagov already and no one has responded -- now my files are being deleted... which you told me would not happen until resolution occurred... not very reassuring. ----83d40m (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Receiving no response, I have changed the data at this file page in an attempt to circumvent its deletion. You will have to review this. I find that I can not access the planning charrette image from the New College of Florida article that already has been deleted, so I am unable to attempt any change to its data that might follow your direction. Further direction for that one is needed. ----83d40m (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m[edit]
The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted - see the subpage discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Today, I have updated the image file to clarify the source,
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a State of Florida "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf," and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner. In brief, the "Florida public records law ... overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption."
and that the legislature has never granted an exemption for the image.
Florida has the broadest public information laws in the country and in the WP article on Public domain it is noted at "Government works" that [works of]governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.[27] In the United States, when copyrighted material is enacted into the law, it enters the public domain. Thus, e.g., the building codes, when enacted, are in the public domain.[28] They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well. "It is axiomatic that material in the public domain is not protected by copyright, even when incorporated into a copyrighted work."[29]
I do not think one needs to seek permission for images in the public domain. They are not copyright. There should not be a debate about "free-use" or "permission" regarding an image that bears no copyright. The image should not be listed for deletion and the "permission notice" should be removed from the file. As previously required, the image should be relisted as a viable image in WP. Please make the correction and notify me if it is not corrected.
The image already bears the tag that has been in place since the previous debate.
This work was created by a government unit (including state, county, and municipal government agencies) of the U.S. state of Florida. It is a "public record" that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright and is therefore in the public domain in the United States.
Definition of "public record"
Public records are works "made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, [which includes the work of] the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to [Florida] law or [its] Constitution" (Florida Constitution, §24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work found in §119.011(12), Florida Statutes).
Agencies permitted to claim copyright
Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit any agency to claim copyright for "public records" unless authorized to do so by law. The following agencies are permitted to claim copyright (as well as trademarks) and any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted without clear evidence to the contrary:
Works by defunct state agencies may be copyrighted if these rights were transferred to a new or different agency (note that legislation transferring such right may not have been codified into Florida Statutes). For example, copyright in works by the Florida Space Authority may have been transferred to Space Florida. State and municipal government agencies may claim copyright for software created by the agency (§ 119.084, Florida Statutes 2014).
In case law, Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner—889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)—held that the Collier County Property Appraiser could not require commercial users to enter into a licensing agreement, holding that "[the agency] has no authority to assert copyright protection in the GIS maps, which are public records."
Works created by other parties and used by government agencies
Works which are considered "public records" but were not created by a state or municipal government agency may be copyrighted by their author; the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents state law from overriding the author's right to copyright protection that is granted by federal law. For example, a state agency may post images online of the final appearance of a building under construction; while the images may be "public records", their creator (eg. architecture/construction firm) retains copyright rights to the image unless the contract with the agency says otherwise. See: Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual: To what extent does federal law preempt state law regarding public inspection of records?.
Disclaimer: The information provided, especially the list of agencies permitted to claim copyright, may not be complete. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation make no guarantee of the adequacy or validity of the information in this template (see disclaimer).
User:Steel1943, I added a new image to take the place of the one discussed above. The new one is,
. I am hoping that this will solve the OTRS tag issue noted above. It looks as if attention is needed to make sure the image file is adequate, please advise. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julia Drusilla may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
that were Caligula, it would have been [[Agrippina the Younger]], Drusilla, and [[Julia Livilla]]) taking turns sitting in the place of honor. Apparently, Caligula broke with this tradition in that
with Drusilla one last time. The last scene was deleted from all the released versions of the film).
I am having difficulty remembering that action on May 22, 2012 — can you be a little more explicit regarding the action and what remedy you are requesting? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by that, nor what it has to do with your original note to me. If you are limited by the equipment you are using, I would suggest waiting until proper equipment is available to you for the edit you seek to complete. Others cannot possibly know what you intend. Please read my reply again and respond to my question about the action and remedy you are seeking from me. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If text with one or more short citations is copied from one or more parent articles into a child article, but the corresponding full reference in the parent's references section are not copied across, without appropriate attribution as specified below, it can be difficult to identify the full reference needed to support the short citations (see here for an example).
I still have no idea of the exact nature of your issue with the content of the article. Please edit the article to correct the issue that concerns you. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the problem retrospectively.
In future, if you copy text from one article to another then link the name of the source article into the comment you add to the history of the target article, eg "copied text from [[article name]]" -- as described the guideline copying within Wikipedia. If you do not do this then you are creating a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 83d40m. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Uploaded this file, but it has been quite some time since the last one, the form seemed different and am not sure whether it was completed correctly -- please advise if there is a problem -- and I will do whatever is necessary to correct any errors. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m - -I'm confused, in your edit you seem to have reverted my many changes for the past editing session -- was this deliberate? Or did we just have some sort of peculiar edit conflict? Espresso Addict ([[User talk:Espresso Add
ict|talk]]) 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Espresso Addict -- I had no intention to alter your work, it was an edit conflict that worked oddly, so I wanted to let you know that I apologize for any alteration of your posts. Not entirely sure how that happened. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m -- no worries, I think I've got most of our edits now. When a page is being actively edited by others it's always best to just make repeated quick edits to specific sections, which minimises the risk of overwriting other people's edits when you save. The software handles conflicts very poorly. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Tethys 83d40m AntakyaMuseum Turkey-fix2.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your overall "light editing" of the article. However, please note this sentence from Note 2 at the very beginning of the article, on his bold-face full name:
Throughout the mid-1680s he experimented with the spelling of his surname, and after 1685 settled on the most recognized spelling, Van Leeuwenhoek.
Please restore the capital "V" throughout. (Also, even if it were properly lowercase in the name, English spelling rules dictate that it should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. The Wikipedia policies for article names, e.g. "iPhone", are irrelevant here.)
By the way, there is something very strange about the indentation here. Somewhere in the section just above this one, the indentation for everything moves rather far to the right and never returns, affecting even this section. I looked at the wikicode but was unable to see what might be happening. --Thnidu (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding changes to the indentation here -- it appears that you created the problem when you posted discussion of this topic above at the end of a thread last dated January 2016 (regarding the file for the Seagate map) and just before a new thread entitled March 2016, instead of here at the bottom of the page. See your entry there. Please find a way to correct this or else the page will remain skewed and, I would appreciate your letting me know when it has been repaired.
Regarding the lower case of the name at the beginning of the sentences but not for all other occurrences -- I checked The Chicago Manual of Style. Its Online search shows the retention of lower case at the beginning of a sentence for iPhone, eBay, and such as well because they are proper nouns, just as names are. So the convention should extend to languages such as Dutch. CMS is a significant manual of style for publications in English. I will followup when able to access the full manual. Please note that he experimented with the spelling of "Leeuwenhoek", not "van" (that always remained in lower case in Dutch). His name should be alphabetized under "L" on lists. I presume that discussion will ensue regarding this, Thnidu (talk), let's see before an alteration of my post. ____ 83d40m (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indentation: I did not cause the indentation problem; please see the page as it was immediately before my misplaced insertion. I was editing on my smartphone and encountered very long delays between clicking "Edit" and getting the editor, and I suspect that my misplacement there had something to do with the great length of this page (now over 2,500 lines), combined with the relatively slow download time to my phone. Please consider moving part of it— say, everything before 2015— to an archive page; that would bring the length down to about 500 lines.
I can't see any cause in the wikicode, but I suspected that it had something to do with the Florida public domain tag in your comment there of 16:35, 10 January 2016
::::{{PD-FLGov}}
and so I have tested it, as follows. Note: All my comments on this subtopic have two colons for indentation. The line of "BLAH"s in the test begins with no colon and is followed by lines with one, two, three, and again zero colons, to show where the left margin is at that point:
First by using Template:Tl to refer to the template without invoking it:
Then by inserting the tag unchanged, without "tl", as it is in your comment:
THIS IS A TEST
This work was created by a government unit (including state, county, and municipal government agencies) of the U.S. state of Florida. It is a "public record" that was not created by an agency which state law has allowed to claim copyright and is therefore in the public domain in the United States.
Definition of "public record"
Public records are works "made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, [which includes the work of] the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to [Florida] law or [its] Constitution" (Florida Constitution, §24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work found in §119.011(12), Florida Statutes).
Agencies permitted to claim copyright
Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit any agency to claim copyright for "public records" unless authorized to do so by law. The following agencies are permitted to claim copyright (as well as trademarks) and any works of these agencies should be assumed to be copyrighted without clear evidence to the contrary:
Works by defunct state agencies may be copyrighted if these rights were transferred to a new or different agency (note that legislation transferring such right may not have been codified into Florida Statutes). For example, copyright in works by the Florida Space Authority may have been transferred to Space Florida. State and municipal government agencies may claim copyright for software created by the agency (§ 119.084, Florida Statutes 2014).
In case law, Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner—889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)—held that the Collier County Property Appraiser could not require commercial users to enter into a licensing agreement, holding that "[the agency] has no authority to assert copyright protection in the GIS maps, which are public records."
Works created by other parties and used by government agencies
Works which are considered "public records" but were not created by a state or municipal government agency may be copyrighted by their author; the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents state law from overriding the author's right to copyright protection that is granted by federal law. For example, a state agency may post images online of the final appearance of a building under construction; while the images may be "public records", their creator (eg. architecture/construction firm) retains copyright rights to the image unless the contract with the agency says otherwise. See: Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual: To what extent does federal law preempt state law regarding public inspection of records?.
Disclaimer: The information provided, especially the list of agencies permitted to claim copyright, may not be complete. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation make no guarantee of the adequacy or validity of the information in this template (see disclaimer).
PDPublic domainfalsefalse
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
WHEN IN THE
COURSE OF HUMAN
EVENTS IT
BECOMES NECESSARY
As you see, the tag introduces an irreversible change in the left margin. Template:Outdent doesn't help, either, here with a parameter of 20:
(THIS LINE HAS NO COLONS.)
Like that. Pretty clearly, there's a problem in the code of the tag itself.
I'm reporting the problem on Phabricator; the fix, when done, should undo the ill effects of your original insertion and my test just above. I notice that the {{PD-FLGov}} page itself "was last modified on 4 October 2016, at 23:17", after you inserted the tag. There may have been a change then that caused this problem, so that you wouldn't have seen it at the time.
Capitalization: Whew! Now that that's (hopefully) covered...
The "v" is written in lower case, except when the surname is used as standalone (when the first name or initials are omitted), in which case it is capitalised, as in "de schilder Van Gogh" ("the painter Van Gogh").
I erred in asking you to "Please restore the capital 'V' throughout." It should stay lowercase in the full name, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. I ask only that you restore it at the beginning of a sentence, in which case the surname is used as standalone and the policy just quoted accords with English sentence casing. See Wikipedia:Text formatting § Words as words, and the next section, Wikipedia:Text formatting § Foreign terms, third paragraph:
A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to.
Oh my. I only just noticed another editor's edit shortly after your two:
03:42, 23 April 2017 EncycloPetey (talk | contribs) . . (37,228 bytes) (-59) . . (undo - there are too many errors to pick in the last two edits to pick them out individually. In English, sentences must start with a Capital Letter.)
Thank you, Thnidu! Looks as if you have discovered the indentation source and let's hope we see a reversal because of your efforts.
I will repost my second edit in order to overcome the recent reversal -- and will direct editors to our discussion and the Wikipedia page I noted to you. I'll let you know when a correction is implemented. Thanks again. ____ 83d40m (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the gelatin article and I noticed that you reunited the split auxiliaries in the article in this edit. I'm curious as to why you felt the need, split auxiliaries are often considered more (or just as) natural sounding in English, and well, if it ain't broke...
Yes, it has been a while... please let me know exactly which change(s)you are discussing and I'll respond about it or them. 83d40m (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are editorial choices and WP is open to all editors. Edits that are not errors are supposed to be welcome. Constructive criticism is welcome, petulance and bulling should be avoided at WP. You justify your reversals and rebuke on your personal preference for a spoken and colloquial convention that differs from constructions used in formal writing; "split" constructions are defined as splitting a structure with something that breaks the structure. When correction of that break is achieved by minimal rewriting to restore the broken structure, such edits are restoring the structure. Often that is achieved simply, by relocating an adverb by one space, to the other side of the verb it modifies, equally as acceptable in English. Sometimes, a better solution involves other positions in a sentence, sometimes a rewrite produces the best result. I edit to take WP articles to their highest level, avoiding colloquial and slang constructions facilitates understanding for all of our readers (who may not understand such) and to facilitate translation by those with limited understanding of colloquial and slang constructions, as well as, across platforms in WP. You may change my well-intended edits following the philosophy of WP, but I find your insistence that I conform to your personally-preferred editorial style as rather despotic and indefensible. Equally offensive is wholesale reversal of an entire edit in order to dominate the process that is open to all -- often reversing clear corrections of spelling, punctuation, and other errors, or, obliterating enhancements to the article (occasionally noted in the edit description of the reversing editor, as astounding as that may seem). This is a lazy and despotic exercise that seems to be wielded by certain editors who assume a proprietary relationship over what is supposed to be collaborative work. Now, if this obsession were pursued consistently -- editors concerned with this issue have enough material in WP to keep them entertained for their lifetimes -- rebuking me for that ignored in the work of others and, stalking my work, rings another bell if it only is pursued in articles for which a proprietary relationship seems to exist. Certain editors will reverse an edit of an entire article for such petty issues and seeing their ID becomes a clue to consistent behavior. This may not apply to you personally, but you have brought up an issue regularly encountered, my apologies if the shoe does not fit, I have found the majority of WP editors willing to be collaborative and value their work. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature artwork until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
83d40m—can you tell me why you are inserting your vote in between other editor's votes at the deletion discussion pertaining to the article Signature artwork? I think you should be posting your vote beneath the last vote at the time that you are voting. Wouldn't that represent a more correct chronological order? I am referring to this post. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for copyediting pavement light, you caught a lot of stupid errors I'd made. Especial thanks for correcting my excessively interchangable use of "that" and "which". I'm learning, but it does not come automatically to me. Could I ask why you are worried about adverb-verb ordering ("also were" vs. "were also", "often taken" vs. "taken often" and so on)? I think I may be missing something here. HLHJ (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 83d40m. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:2011bk1cover 83d40m SarasotaChalkFestival.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, many thanks for the corrections in the article above. You give the following article as further reference: Zivie, Alain, Pharaoh's Man, Abdiel, the vizier with a Semitic name, Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 2018, page 23,ff Is that correct? From the title of the article I would assume it is about: the tomb of Aperel. In the title there is nothing to assume that is about the tomb of Thutmose. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no, these are two different people. There is the vizier Aperel under Amenhotep III and there is the sculptor Thutmosis, dating about 30 years later. The tombs are nearby, but these are clearly different people. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article and the references used from the archaeologist working on the tomb are about the same Thutmose, not Aper-El, "...particularly Bubasteion I.19 of the artist Thutmes (or Thutmose), who painted and engraved his own tomb and who was found to be the creator of the famous bust of Queen Nefertiti, presently kept in Berlin,* and of Maïa (Bubasteion I.20), the foster mother of Tutankhamun, who was found to be the princess Merytaten, the elder daughter of Akhenaten and sister of the king, who sat briefly on the throne and functioned as a kind of regent before her brother was crowned." are quotes. You should read the article. 83d40m (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the article, just the title of the article made me think that it is only about Aperel and not about Thutmose. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you saw, at first I thought they were the same person, but after your note, read again and found that the article is about both. So I have learned from your note! Luckily, my edits do not need correction. Thanks for the heads-up. 83d40m (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 83d40m. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, 83d40m. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Temple of Artemis, Corfu. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr.K.00:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Casting aside the fact that you are edit-warring against WP:RS terminology at Temple of Artemis, Corfu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you are at this gig changing description to lioness since 2012. Check your own talkpage here, and the recent change at Tomb of Menecrates. It seems you are stuck at this gear no matter what terminology the RS use. If someone has to take a break, the best candidate is you who is edit-warring relentlessly against RS for the past 7 years. One more change like that, and WP:ANI is our next stop. Dr.K.01:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You added material to the Donald Trump article about the whistleblower situation. You added it in good faith, but I have reverted because the subject is under discussion at the talk page and consensus is not to put it in that article at this time. However, there is a whole article under development at 2019 Trump-Ukraine controversy that you may wish to contribute to. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MelanieN, I did transfer one of the links to the controversy page, not being aware of it except from your note. Think the article referenced is an especially interesting perspective that our readers should be able to follow. And thanks for the spelling correction for me! _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bearian I would like help restoring my page so that it no longer indents automatically. The problem has endured since 2016, when another editor somehow reset the margin of this page to a deep indent. A good deal of space is wasted in the process. Can this be brought to the attention of editors who might be able to fix it? I do not know where to inquire about such an issue. It is not of great consequence, but annoying. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for cordially communicating your rationale and inviting discussion. Your logic is understandable, however, as I have suggested at the talk page for the article, it might be advisable to insert a brief reference to a realignment of the street in order to motivate some readers to follow-up at the sub-page for details. Cross references make for a richer use of WP for curious readers and I also believe that long articles may have distinct advantages for providing data that might be lost on unrecognized sub-pages. Let's see what other editors think. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you need to cite a source for the date of 400? I do not have easy access to the existing cited source (book by Mann), but apparently it gives a date of 800. It is strange to give a data of 400, and cite a source that says 800.
Isaac Rabinovitch I presume that your "that" was intended as "thank" and am grateful that you took the time to acknowledge appreciation, if that is what was intended. Such small things as a comma can make all the difference in clear communication. I strive to make sure they are used to facilitate that. I am not sure what prompted you to contact me, nor what you mean about the approach. Please let me know. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I meant "thank you." The comma is helpful, of course, but what I appreciate is your calling it a "serial comma." Most people call it "the Oxford Comma," a term I very much dislike. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I dislike that name as well, but still appreciate the comma no matter what the name! Later saw the notation about which article was involved. Thanks again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image was removed from the trump campaign 2020 page by User:UpdateNerd.
Sent inquiry,
"Please explain your justification for removing this image from the article. The standing of the image has not been challenged and should be eligible for use. I would like to restore it to the article."
_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the wording, neutrality, or reliability of the sources you used for this edit, but I ask you to consider whether it's too soon to start discussing that, especially with just a short sentence like that. I'm not going to revert you, and if you choose not to self-revert I won't take it any further, but I believe it may be better to wait until the election passes and actually have a multiple sentence paragraph discussing this rather than just have a vague "non-information" sentence like this. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Berchanhimez I understand your point, but feel differently. I think that it is worthy of note, as it is days before the election and the perception by these members of the media is that Trump will lose. It can serve as an assessment by some media as part of the relationship with them. I think a section in WP on assessment of his legacy will be separate, lengthy, and not available until after January 21 -- I think it is good for our readers to be able to examine the opinions of these sources -- they are not typical among the click-bait stories of the day. This reflects the relationship with the media rather than a post mortem assessment that will follow the change of administrations, if that happens. So I'll leave it, thanks. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Marquardtika - Thank you! It always is nice to receive a compliment and to have appreciation noted for one's efforts to improve WP. I return the favor by noting my appreciation of your taking the time to do this. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noted an edit you made following one of mine and appreciated your work. Rarely am I moved to look up an editor, but seeing some similarities in our user names and editing styles, I came to have a look at your page. I saw the long list of Wikipedia Library options you have exercised. Previously unaware of the availability of this, there is great promise in the partnerships. I am most interested in your experience with it. I know that I would like access to things such as JSTOR, scientific sites, literary journals, newspaper archives, and such that I do not have. Would you have time to and be willing to "chat" about this? I have some questions I would like to explore before applying. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m. On occasion, I've found it useful to have additional resources to do a deep dive on an article. I recommend checking out the Wikipedia Library. WP:LIBRARY. There's a wealth of useful resources, many more than I use. If you find something you like, just ask for any necessary permission or subscribe. You already know you can check out the ones on my page, just be aware that a few, like Highbeam and Questia are gone. I keep them in memoriam. Hope this helps. Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X4n6 - Thanks, does it entail having to disclose personal details other than the name chosen as editor here and an e-mail address? I looked at some of the information and could not determine whether that was the case for all of the partnerships, or just for some of them. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for all of them, but I don't recall any asking for anything more personal than an actual name and email address. In any event, no private info should ever be disclosed by the platform. But if you need verification, you'll likely be able to send an inquiry through any help section provided. X4n6 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
X4n6 - Thanks. I have an email for my editor identity so that would not be a concern, but having an association of my personal name with the editor identity would be a concern for me. Perhaps a nom de plume would suffice? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Clearfrienda were:
Most of the sources you have are primary, nonindependent, aside from possibly the one by the Museum of Vancouver. Some parts of the article read with puffery. For example, this sentence: "decided to make profound changes in their life objectives "
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Condor and The Eagle (2019 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, 83d40m!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Clearfrienda💬02:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirection help from John B123 to correct error in article name - Mary V. Ahern
Stumbling through a mistaken attempt that resulted in the creation of the article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer), was a second error while attempting to correct a mistake in an article entitled Virginia V. Ahern because the name was incorrect. This article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer), was created in the second mistake and used for a cut and paste attempt to make the correction of name.
The final correction resulted in an article entitled Mary V. Ahern (producer), which should be the only correctly created article for this biography.
My apologies for the two errors of title. I never had learned how to move in order to correct an error in title! Will note all of this at the multiple articles. Lesson learned!
A notation at the directions about "moving to correct title" indicated that a bot would clean up this dreadful mess I made. Here's hoping that is correct, because the article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer) was created incorrectly, is redundant, and should be deleted. As Annie Oakley declared, "I'll never do it again!" You placed a tag on this incorrect article that should be deleted. so I will remove the tag and make note of the complicated history. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I was concerned because of having used cut and paste for the one you tagged and having seen warnings that using that process messed up the history carried with an article — again, my apologies. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbling through a mistaken attempt that resulted in the creation of the article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer), was a second error while attempting to correct a mistake in an article entitled Virginia V. Ahern because the name was incorrect. This article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer), was created in the second mistake and used for a cut and paste attempt to make the correction of name.
The final correction resulted in an article entitled Mary V. Ahern (producer), which should be the only correctly created article for this biography.
My apologies for the two errors of title. I never had learned how to move in order to correct an error in title! Will note all of this at the multiple articles. Lesson learned!
A notation at the directions about "moving to correct title" indicated that a bot would clean up this dreadful mess I made. Here's hoping that is correct, because the article, Mary V. Ahern (broadcast producer) was created incorrectly, is redundant, and should be deleted. As Annie Oakley declared, "I'll never do it again!" You placed a tag on this incorrect article that should be deleted. so I will remove the tag and make note of the complicated history. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I was concerned because of having used cut and paste for the one you tagged and having seen warnings that using that process messed up the history carried with an article — again, my apologies. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@83d40m:If you want the redundant pages deleted rather than being redirects then blank the page and add {{Db-g7}}. As there are no other Mary V. Ahern's on Wikipedia, the disambiguation of "(producer)" isn't needed and the page should be at Mary V. Ahern. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John B123, perhaps there are residual errors.
Mary V. Ahern (producer) has "DEFAULTSORT:Ahern, Virginia V." above her categories. Should that be changed to "Ahern, Mary V."?
Also, should there be a way for a search for "Mary V. Ahern" to offer an option for "Mary V. Ahern (producer)"? I do not see that offered and am concerned that readers must know to call for the "producer" in order to be given a selection in the search box. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@83d40m: The DEFAULT needs to be changed. The search problems you outline are another reason to keep article titles simple and without disambiguation unless necessary. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! 83d40m in response to your corrections on the subject, i have tried to fix the things. Kindly check if they are ok now. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Well, thanks, looks like an epidemic! It's origins are in the used car business "pre-owned", devised in an attempt to avoid "used" and it just shows how influential all that television advertising is. Easily two generations now think that makes sense (sigh). It and the internet have corrupted our language rapidly. Not a task I want to obsess over, however, it should be resisted when encountered. Perhaps I'll rephrase it! Thanks for the clue._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Memo of record of note left on the description page for the file at Wikimedia Commons:
Please note: The image presented in this file is a detail taken from
Cappella brancacci, Resurrezione del figlio di Teofilo e San Pietro in cattedra (restaurato), Masaccio.jpg
or
Masacc15.jpg
-- Resurrection of the Son of Theophilus of Antioch -- at the Brancacci Chapel not from the painting noted in the current summary as its source, Virgin and Child — even though the correct source is identified in the Notes of this summary. The detail is the head of the third figure from the right in the images I have provided here, of the correct painting. I do not see an author listed for this summary, so am unable to alert that editor about the error. The image is used used in many files, so should be retained, please do not delete the file. If necessary, contact me and, with agreement of other editors, I will make the corrections. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
history entry:
15:54, 25 September 2021 83d40m talk contribs 2,452 bytes +1,069 →Summary: noting the error in the summary of this file -- the image is a detail taken from Resurrection of the Son of Theophilus of Antioch in the Brancacci Chapel -- not the Virgin and Child as indicated i--- the data needs to be corrected; no author is identified for the summary, if necessary, with agreement of other editors, I will edit the summary - the file is used on many pages, please do not delete it.
_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, 83d40m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Condor and The Eagle (2019 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
We don't link to self-published blogs like the Taibbi bit you recently added at Julian Assange. Please review our PAGs relating to such links at WP:EL and WP:Further reading. Please self-revert that further reading link. Note that further reading links should provide access to the document being linked. It is not a bibliography. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I have nominated Norte Chico civilization for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe04:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe, if your intent is to remove the article from the status of a featured article, I wonder whether that is an acceptable procedure in this case.
It appears that it has been a featured article, perhaps ten years ago. If that is correct, a status change would be a misleading deviation from a historical record. Perhaps, I am misunderstanding the process you are initiating.
Nonetheless, problems exist with the article that need to be resolved.
The title is inaccurate no matter which side of the naming issue one espouses. I object to the reintroduction in November and December 2021 of the incongruous name "Norte Chico civilization" and it seems you are one of the editors who reversed that from "Caral-Supe civilization" and "Caral civilization". The name 'norte chico', "a little north of here", is a contemporary, Spanish-language direction relative to another location in Peru. Using the term as the title of the article seems as incongruous to me as entitling an article about New York City as "The City" because taxi drivers in Long Island refer to it as such. Your defending that reintroduction because the article is written in English, a language different from the current one being spoken in the country of its location—makes even less sense to me. That relative location is unrelated to the ancient culture being discussed, much less what they called themselves.
I believe that the article should be renamed and the use of the identification used by the federal government of the country in which the site is located be used until the anthropological identification of the culture reflects a more professional description of the culture than using contemporary slang ("a little north of here"). At least the official government name describes the geographical area in the country and needs no explanation for our readers to understand the location and its use to identify the ancient culture. Once that is resolved, the historical nature of the evolution of the professional name for the site would be resolved and become a minor fact that may be stated briefly in the article—without a need for a separate article to discuss the supposed debate.
The article currently fails to meet standards for a feature article. So I will vote to keep it from being published again as a featured article, but am unsure whether that is your intent. Are you calling for a vote on whether the article be published again as a feature article? I would vote no about that because it is entitled incorrectly due to an unresolved polarity among our editors about the confused reporting about the site. I do not support obscuring the historical fact that the article has been a featured article, however. WP should attempt to maintain accurate records of its development.
So a vote about reinstatement of the more relevant title and identification of the culture ought to be asked instead—and I would support dropping the "norte chico, a little north of here" after a brief explanation in favor of using Caral or Caral-Supe for the culture to reflect the contemporary geographical locations of the sites found.
If you proceed with the proposed vote, please let me know the link to the vote, so I may participate. Once that is no longer in play, we should resolve the issue regarding a more accurate title and I would be glad to participate in that process instead of making another edit of the article that would protract the unresolved issue. Then the status issue should not arise again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m, thanks for your detailed reply. The purpose of Featured Article Review is ideally to bring it back to meeting the Featured Article criteria so that it can be closed as "keep". However, the article title is not part of the featured article criteria and being misnamed is not a reason to delist an article. If it's not possible to improve the article while the FAR is open, then it is closed as "delist". This does not erase the featured article listing and the article's status is recorded as "former featured article", the talk page will list the dates when it was featured and then delisted. (t · c) buidhe02:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe, thank you. Again, when you have set it, please provide me with the link to the vote so I may participate. In the meantime, I may see whether I can resolve any of the issues that are driving consideration. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it say either here[10] or here[11] the words secret service? Yet you have it referencing a paragraph reading 'that warranted investigation by the U.S. Secret Service and other federal agencies.' Garbage referencing like this in BLPs is a major problem around WP and I have been saying this[12] for a long time. Oh and how about that section on good referencing you have on this page that says- A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:WilliamJE — Thanks for better explanation of your deletion. Direct quotes were not in my edit creating the section. Another editor inserted those and I did not concur with the changes, but tend to default toward collaboration generally and thought other editors might chime in as well on the topic. Please review my initial post for the new section and determine whether it would eliminate the issues you are raising. I would be glad to expand the references, as you see, there are many sources elaborating upon this and it certainly merits presence in this article.
Gun control regulation controversy
Fine is a gun rights supporter. In the wake of horrific mass murder episodes in May 2022, immediately after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, Fine made comments publicly that became controversial. The comments were directed toward the president of the United States and warned of the consequences he would face if national gun control regulations were proposed in response to the episodes. Media coverage focused upon criticism of Fine originating from many sources who identified his remarks as insensitive, inappropriate, and possibly a threat against the president that should be investigated by federal authorities and the secret service.
If that does not resolve the issues you have with it, please suggest edits that would. Would be glad to improve the post. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the paragraph above is fine but anything that can be controversial/or states an opinion has to be referenced properly. If that requires a citation on every sentence, fine. BTW, I don't feel Patch.com is a RS. Miami Herald, Newsweek, and the other source that was there are fine if they support the paragraph like I said....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration to produce better articles ought to be the objective of WP editors. That was being sought. The restored post was conceded by WilliamJE as "fine" and the references restored also were conceded as "fine", yet in less than two minutes after my restoring these two elements in a new section of the article, a scolding summary by Drmies seems to imply that another wholesale deletion was made without critical analysis. I will leave the deletion because I have no interest in pursuing some editorial confrontation, but I must note that the purpose of WP is to educate readers of an encyclopedia and to provide the information our readers may rely upon as relevant to the subject. The deleted information garnered attention from national media, but this trigger-happy deletion removes it completely from the WP article. Quick exercise of personal authority that is ubiquitous at WP rather than joining in collaboration to build better articles is a disservice to WP and a failure to fulfill what ought to be the objectives of each WP editor. WP and its readers would benefit more if "editors" would "edit" and not be dedicated "delete-rs" simply seeking deconstruction alone. Writing to correct or enhance is so much more constructive, I recommend learning how to collaborate. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the lecture. WilliamJE, learn how to collaborate! For me, it's probably too late--83d40m, I'm trigger happy ("The trigger-happy, scolding, judgment of Drmies, implies no critical analysis.") because I'm telling you to seek consensus on the talk page? Which is common Wikipedia practice? You may think that "educating readers" overrides the BLP, but you are not correct. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you are mixing subjects. Collaboration already was in progress with WilliamJE. That was fully visible in the discussion above (that you referenced) before you overrode the collaboration process. The logical next step I took was display for review by WilliamJE and yet you deleted the entire section. During my experience at WP, referring one to a discussion on the talk page of an article has never been synonymous with wholesale deletion of what supposedly is being referred for collaboration, much less—when a collaboration already is in progress. Your mixing the subjects seems a stretch to turn the table on an editor responding to the "lecture" given one, by you, in the first place. Regarding BLP, WilliamJE's concern about it arose out of the edits that followed the original post being restored. That would be eliminated by restoration to my original post and WilliamJE then addressed his concern about the sources. The restoration of the post was accompanied with additional resources provided in response during the chain of edits, noted by WilliamJE as "fine". Review was expected in case further concerns would be raised by WilliamJE and your wholesale deletion at that time seems incongruous. Regarding your further comment here suggesting my failure to take BLP into consideration while composing posts, I would like to note that on one hand, you cite BLP concerns and on the other, you cite wording expressly designed to avoid infringement of that principle as problematic. This is another incongruity. It also is another opportunity where you might have made a constructive edit to resolve your concern. These are reasons why I suggested learning to be more collaborative to you alone. WilliamJE already was engaged in collaboration. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mansplaining that. I appreciate the bold, and the combination of bold and italics--without that I'd probably not understand any of it. Thanks also for the comments in your edit summaries; let's hope they insult me into doing proper critical analysis. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:North8000,
Thank you, positive feedback is a rarity here unfortunately, which makes it greatly appreciated. A quick pass through images you have posted on your page reveals your awareness of the frequent tenor. I just posted another new page, Florida Right To Clean Water. I do not know how to see all of the categories that may be attached to articles, and have posted some that might be relevant. Is there a list that I could explore for appropriate ones? I'd like to facilitate cross reference to the article. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even after 65k edits and wandering all over Wikipedia I still have a whole lot of areas I'm weak at. Unfortunately regarding your question, categories is one of them. But either way I'll go take a peek at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a peek. One think sort of jumped out. The subject of the article is the organization, but you really don't have much coverage or sources on the organization because 95% of the article is about the initiative / ballot measure. IMO you should either beef up coverage and sourcing on the organization or rename the article to the initiative / ballot measure. BTW happy to take another look in the future if you ping me. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000:
User:North8000,
Thanks, will wait for other editors to sort out the categories then. I really appreciate the assessment of the article. I understand the basis of your suggestion, but will leave the title and wait for the rudimentary organization to mature into operations in all 67 counties before going into more detail about it. Both the organization and the campaign were just launched and its development will change drastically in the two years of operation before the amendment gets onto the ballot. Lots of changes are inevitable. Then a switch will be made to campaigning for a vote in the election. The organization will change again upon passage of the amendment. That is when I expect it will reach its maturity and its long range nature will be evident. I will follow all this and adapt the article as the growth occurs. Likewise, happy editing to you as well. Thanks again, _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have made what you call "a light edit of the entire article" on Victor Henri. Light, maybe, but pointless in many cases, and at least once creating an error. Some people like a comma before "and"; others don't. Either is OK, and there is no justification for adding a comma because that's what you prefer. "over" → "more than" OK; your version may be better. Delete "but" from "but if born in France would be a French citizen" introduces an error, as now you have two sentences with only a comma separating them. If you must eliminate "decided to travel" you need "travelled", as the article is not written in American English. Clearly you don't like "mothers" in the plural, but why? Henri had a biological mother and an adoptive mother, so what's wrong with "mothers"? (It was that change that alerted me to the need to check the whole History, as I was sure it didn't say "the two women" previously.) "Henri was graduated": ugh! that's American, but the article isn't written in American. Why have you reversed the order of Michaelis and Menten? They used that order in their paper. "as they collaborated" confuses more than it clarifies: who did they collaborate with? If you really think it matters you can put "Henri's work was taken up by German biochemist Leonor Michaelis and his collaborator the Canadian physician Maud Menten." What's wrong with "et al."? Can anyone tell by looking if . is italicized or not? Can you? Athel cb (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks, trolling, and baiting are out of place here. As a relatively new editor at WP, Athel cb, you might benefit from contemplating our principles of assuming good faith and working in collaboration to create the best articles we can for our readers. Our editors do not own articles, nor are they expected to spend their time criticizing edits without errors in the fashion you have taken. If you can not abide these principles, WP might not be the place for you—your talents and intensity might be more useful in other venues—I suggest that you refrain from personal posts such as this and stick to collaborative work on articles. I have replied to your post only to encourage you to become a better WP editor. I have no intention to participate in a petty editor's war, and will not engage beyond this. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Thanks for the notice that this was not the correct place to submit a redirect. Am not sure what that means for the redirect. Will it continue as a redirect? If not, what must be done to enable it to continue as a redirect and advance beyond the draft stage? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dawn Burrell fxt 83d40m 2000 Olympics Sydney.jpg listed for discussion
Thanks for the notification -- replied on the discussion page, If there is the duplication as indicated, can see the rationale for removing the one not being used or merging the use to this extension, .jpg -- but see no reason to prohibit the uploading editor from being able to request "keeping local" and see no harm to WP for allowing the exercise of that choice by an uploading editor. Vote to keep this file. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dawn Burrell fxt 83d40m before the competition.JPEG listed for discussion
Thanks for the notification -- replied on the discussion page, If there is the duplication as indicated, can see the rationale for removing the one not being used or merging the use to the extension, .jpg -- but see no reason to prohibit the uploading editor from being able to request "keeping local" and see no harm to WP for allowing the exercise of that choice by an uploading editor. Vote to delete this .jpeg file. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ai-Khanoum into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks for creating the page - I will be adding to it shortly. I would recommend taking out those references which aren't directly relevant, as they might just confuse the reader.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AirshipJungleman29 — The additional references were provided at Ai-Khanoum plaque in anticipation of expansion of the stub article I was creating about the disk by other editors, such as you, who are interested in the subject and are likely to use many of them as they contribute. Having them at this stage could save a great deal of time and foster better edits as the article develops. Determining which of those I have provided are useless is better deferred until development seems essentially complete. Even then, most would be useful as further reading for our readers. My initial summary as I started the article indicates "previous WP discussion of the artifact" and that discussion is readily available from a logical link in the article. I previously cautioned you regarding what seems "ownership" issues and noted that I am interested in editing articles rather than "protracted talk page drama". I hope to nip that in the bud by reminding you. Please respect the differences in this article about the artifact as I did regarding your edits in the article that touched on this topic and motivated me to create a separate article regarding the "remarkable" disk. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that interests in editing articles are not an excuse for violating Wikipedia's licensing. This is perhaps the one time that your repeated ownership claims are justfied; sadly, I reserve the right to attribution of my work under WP:ATTREQ (methods are at the bottom of that section). If you have problems with that, I would recommend contacting higher authorities. I would also request that you try to maintain even the barest modicum of good faith, as I have done. Best of luck with the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You must surely have a citation for the change you made? Would you add it please? (If you haven't got time to format it nicely, feel free to do a rough version here and I will happily format it for you.) --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, since the presumption is discussed on the page for the work, did not think a reference would be necessary here, but am glad to provide it for you. Inserted it, please let me know if it does not satisfy your request—I can provide a video reference as well. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Thanks — had no idea I was authorized to create articles without posting a request. Is there a way to alert qualified editors about that in the new creation process that would eliminate having to jump through so many loops? It is not a process used frequently, the process seems to change each time I have needed to use it. What is the correct page for me to use now for the creation of a new article? That could save both of us a little time! 83d40m (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AirshipJungleman29 — per the article Talk_page_stalker — please take me off of your watchlist as your behavior is seeming more as wikihounding than your implication (with your foreshadowing lead to your post) that you are engaging in "talk page stalking". I previously brought up related issues regarding your attitude and would prefer that you refrain from such unwelcome behavior toward me so I do not feel compelled to resort to any of the solutions suggested in the article. Others have commented to you about your behavior. I'd like to nip this in the bud and avoid having to take time away from my editing to address such issues. 83d40m (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to say that you are not, in fact, on my watchlist; I simply clicked on your talk page. I must also note that I fail to see how an answer to your question is "unwelcome behavior". Nevertheless, I am aware of your avowed aim to avoid "protracted talk page" discussion, so I will accept the spirit of your reauest more than the unkind words within. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 462.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. 92.1.169.32 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
looks to be a bogus message — only post on record by the user
83d40m, archiving some of the content of your talk page has been mentioned in passing here. Right now, it's 463,909 bytes or about 0.464 MB. It might not seem like a lot, but it's roughly half a megabyte of text. To put that into some physical equivalent, a 1 MB is about 500 pages of text. [13] This talk page is the physical equivalent of roughly 235 pages of text. The important part is that the parser has a lot of text to process. I know it's 2023 and shouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately, it still is. If I try to open the entire talk page, it can cause some slowdown on Chrome for me (I have 16 GB RAM and the issue is really the processing of text). Editors are providing suggestions because this is your talk page, it is really your choice. More information about the archiving process can be read on WP:ARCHIVE. For example, I have my my talk page archiving content on a loose schedule and you have full control of the archiving process. My discussions since 2004 are available and easy to find. – The Grid (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. When I saw only one post by the user, I could not take it seriously. I do not experience the difficulty you have described and have no difficulty opening the page. Thanks for the recommendation, but I prefer leaving the page as it is. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 83d40m! Thank you for your edits to Filippino Lippi. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Sandro Botticelli into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My note was inserted into summaries as requested regarding an edit of Filippino Lippi, that, although rephrased and integrated into existing text and new, was based upon text at the article, Sandro Botticelli, q.v. copy was moved in order to be able to use portions before being deleted — thanks DanCherek for the note, I failed to keep the reference as intended — now inserted. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ye title (unrelated to the topic of the note) suggests a personal isssssuuuue, eh? Although I find most of your edits to be good and that they contribute to the benefit of our readers, I think I have mentioned this insight to you before. That clue prompts me to respond in order to reveal to you factors that lead to that interpretation of your behavior, using this as an example.
I presume that Heraion at Foce del Sele is the article that provoked your note to me. My edit summary reads, a light edit of the entire article; moved images to match chronology.
It appears to me that the only British vernacular introduced into the subject article — would be your revision of my original use of "artifact" (sientific use in archaeology) that had not been used in the article prior to my edit — so I believe the shoe may be on the other foot. Do you think I should use your "logic" to reverse your edits that now have introduced British vernacular? The further vs. farther edit reversal relates again to something not in the original article.
I would suggest that when an article is started in the British vernacular, it ought to be labeled as such so other editors may be alerted to that rigidity of intent at the start. If that is not apparent and without that original dictate, criticism of an editor on these grounds seems only to be an "ownership" issue inserted after the fact. I doubt that retroactivity is a tenet of WP:ENGVAR.
examining the summary history:
23:12, 5 January 2014 Furius talk contribs 7,484 bytes +7,484 Translated from Italian
— two years later —
16:41, 27 February 2016 Johnbod talk contribs m 7,717 bytes 0 Johnbod moved page Heraion at the mouth of the Sele to Foce del Sele: usual in English
20:30, 17 March 2015 Cydebot talk contribs m 7,717 bytes +15 Robot - Speedily moving category Ancient Greek sites in Italy to Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Italy per CFDS.
I note that your own first edit (in 2016) to the existing article states, usual in English. It does not state British English.
None of the British spellings that you introduced as edits of my recent edit — exist in the article prior to your first edit, which was two years after the article had been published. The edits I made did not change original language in the article, which remained essentially similar throughout its history.
I believe that your edits fail to improve the article, fail to meet your justification of the changes you made, and that they merit reversal. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phooey! Furius's first version used "colour" etc. That establishes a style for WP:ENGVAR (plus an WP:ERA style was set). It is nice if people add a BrEng tag, but there is no obligation to do so. It is the responsibility of drive-by editors to check, which is normally easily done. As usual your "light copyedit" was a mixture of about 25% useful, 30% personal whim or no difference, 30% slightly worse, and 15% typos or changing the meaning based on misunderstanding (the peplos and burying the votives). You are lucky I didn't just revert the lot, as I often find it necessary to do -"I think I have mentioned this insight to you before" indeed. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod
I never changed "colour" and see no others to be included in your "etc." It is a stretch to imply that one or two words establish a dictate. Your vitriolic tenor, theats, and bullying serve as further examples. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you changed it - in fact you left mixed styles, also against ENGVAR. It is not a stretch, it is what the policy says, and careful editors follow. Examples of what - oh, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A collegial approach instead might generate some learning about recognizing what you consider British English use that drives the designation. Perhaps you should consider it. Without that, it is likely to be a reoccurring problem.
Your typical comments to me set a tone that is not conducive to a collegial exchange. Just seing that you have left a comment elicits an expectation of a particular tenor and I have to admit that I have failed to attempt entering a collegial dialogue with you. My primary contribution to WP is editing articles. I avoid the chatter among editors. However, I certainly would prefer that interaction between you and me resembled what I have with most other longtime editors of WP who care about the product produced for our readers in a co-operative editing environment and interact as such. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but "A collegial approach instead might generate some learning about recognizing what you consider British English use that drives the designation." is an excellent example of why your rewordings are often not improvements - what does that even mean? Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "...Your typical comments to me set a tone that is not conducive to a collegial exchange..." — and I am sorry that my offer to seek rectifing a recurring situation that you complain about does not seem to interest you. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Draft:Saint Helena (Christianity) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. dxneo (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pppery was:
This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Article wizard/Redirects. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Saint Helena (Christianity) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, 83d40m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Saint Helena (Christianity), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St Kilda, Scotland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
![[5]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ASatis+worshiped+by+Sobekhotep+III+-+83d40m+-+Brooklyn+Museum.JPG){kind=link}
_by_Ron.jpg?lang=en)
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Map identifying ChathamTownship and Chatham 83d40m.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Sarasota Chalk Festival, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Mary V. Ahern at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg?lang=en)
Hi 83d40m! Thank you for your edits to Filippino Lippi. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Sandro Botticelli into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
