User talk:Decumanus: Difference between revisions

Archive 1-March 20, 2004 | Archive 2-May 31, 2004 | Archive 3-February 27, 2005 | Archive 4-September 4, 2005

66.167.253.162 17:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC):Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted.[reply]

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on all of the articles you've created, especially those on rivers, mountain ranges, parks and the other geographic articles. btm 07:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle3. Interested? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking for others with an interest in bridges to help with the recently revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges. I would appreciate your help. Thanks, Cacophony 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Decumanus - I notice you're a member of WikiProject New York City. Have a look at the Transportation in New York City sub article. It tells a fascinating story and it's been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week after lots of work over the last few weeks. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I see you've started 2 articles w/ "Owyhee" in their names... I don't really know what your interest is, but in case it runs really deep, I collected a bunch of things named "Owyhee" and put them all together on the {{disambig}} at Owyhee (formerly a redirect to Owyhee, Nevada). If you're interested or up for a challenge, have at it. :-) Tomer^talk 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCN9633 colofeedandgrain e.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

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

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCN4848 upchuckstroutcreekmi e.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your User:Decumanus/notes and I am not sure if you are a freemason. But this might be of interest for you:

• http://www.robertlomas.com/Freemason/STATUE.jpg -> This is a carving of the rosslyn chapel!
• http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/women.html:
  • In 1693 we have the York Manuscript No. 4, belonging to the Grand Lodge of York, which relates how when an Apprentice is admitted the elders taking the Booke, he or shee [sic] that is to be made Mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given.
• What do YOU think: Wine is strong, a king is stronger, women are stronger still, but truth conquers all?

liberal freemason / 84.61.3.28 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Decumanus - Since you're a member of the WikiProject NYC, you've been selected to participate in the peer review of the New York City article. It has changed substantially since its last feature article nomination, with additional information on environmental issues, demographics, public schools, transportation, and more. With some editing for concision (making the "skyline" section a daughter article on NYC architecture instead of including it in the main article, for instance), this article should be ready for feature status renomination. Your input would be much appreciated. Wv235 16:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was random page hopping and landed on Six Run Creek. Could you take a look at the first sentence and clarify its meaning? "Six Run Creek is a tributary of the Black River, approximately 50 miles (80 km), in south-eastern North Carolina in the United States." I think there's a word missing after "50 miles (80 km)". Is 50 miles its length? Or is that where it meets with the Black River? Or... something else entirely? Thanks :) Chris (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I Load ist up on Common and use it in German Wiki de:Long Island thx --62.116.83.69 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) de:Benutzer:Fg68at[reply]

This media may be deleted.

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. --Hetar 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply linking back to your user page does not establish the source for the image. --Hetar 19:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the image, and in the issue of copyright. The image belongs to me, as I created from public domain sources. Hence the copyright in my name, which links to my user page. I have uploaded and contributed many of my own created images, as well as to the Commons, many based on public domain sources. The image in question is not located anywhere else on the Internet. I have had no problem with any other up until this point which this practice. If there has been a shift in copyright verification policy, then please elaborate exactly what the new policy is, and how it differs from the old one that I have practiced. Of course, you're welcome to take the issue to the appropriate place in Wikipedia for arbitration. I don't participate actively much in Wikipedia anymore, only occassionally, so I probably am not going to wage a big campaign to defend the image, if it comes to that. Best wishes. -- Decumanus 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]