User talk:BillTunell/Archive 2

Template:User ucla

The Wikipedia Fair-use guidelines permit only very restricted use of logos on Wikipedia (or see exemptions) and specifically caution against using such non-free images in non-article namespace. To wit, in this edit {diff), you added this copyrighted and trademarked logo of the UCLA Bruin Athletic Department to the Userbox titled Template:User ucla. This addition conflicts with Wikipedia policy. Would you be kind enough to repair this please?  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Newport: There's a current removal nomination that will effect the issue, so I'll wait until that's done. Substantively, this does not look copyrightable to me under Threshold of originality and therefore the {{Non-free logo}} tag is inappropriate. The {{PD-textlogo}} seems appropriate, and was in place at the time I incoprorated it into the userbox. If the image status gets adjudicated somehow as fair-use/copyrightable instead of free-use, then I'll delete, otherwise not. If you want to change on your own, I'll take no offense. BillTunell (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson/archive4

It's live. I just bowed down and did everything requested in the last FAC. If you want to be a co-nom, that'd be A'OK with me. I didn't add the Satchel Paige image back. We'd need direct commentary on the photo itself to easily justify it. If you want, we could look for non-free images after the FAC as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

University user boxes

Despite the nature of the image consisting of text, none of the images you have added to any of the templates are considered public domain. Refrain from changing templates like this in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have found that you have done this to way too many templates. There is no way that this can be fixed easily, so if you ever do this again, you may be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to this determination. It's against all published wikipedia policy on userboxes. Free-use images are includable in userboxes, regardless fo the trademark status. Fair-use/copyright status is a different issue, but I have not used any copyrighted/copyrightable images in my edits (at least none that I haven't already removed).

I'm willing to consider changes on a case-by-case basis if you want. I see you've made a lot of unilateral changes, I'd appreciate you listing them for me so I don't miss anuything. Several of the changes you made that I can see offhand (ex; the ND-interlocking logo) are clearly public domain, even adjudicated as such. I'm going to revert at least of few of these and will update. I'm willing to discuss but please inform me of proposed changes in the future. BillTunell (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the Pennsylvania, Notre Dame, Villanova and Texas A&M boxes and will stop there for now. I do not have time to revert everything you've taken it upon yourself to delete. I am extremely disappointed that you would revert a sinificant amount of work without any advance notice or discussion -- and then unilaterally threaten to block my account.

Substatnively, I would as you to review wikipedia's userbox policies. The userbox page specifically states that fair-use (i.e. copyrighted) images are inapprpriate for userboxes. This does not inlcude non-copyrightable free images, even if they are trademarked. Many userboxes on wikipedia for years have followed this policy, and any number of other userboxes (e.g. Princeton, Michigan State, Stanford, Arkansas, Rutgers, Texas Tech) that I did not create follow the same guidelines. I noticed you did not delete those.

If you have any policy determinations by wikipedia adminstrators to the contrary that you are relying on, then please inform. If not, I will attempt to undo your reversions after a week or so.

I would also call to your attention a couple of facts: (i) any number of userbox images that you deleted that did not originate from me -- I merely changed the color scheme or other aspects of the userbox (e.g., Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Santa Clara, Tulane, Arizona), and (ii) when you deleted my work you not only deleted images, but also reverted color schemes in the userboxes. A lot of work researching the web-specific color coding went into this, and I do not appreciate that aspect of my work being thrown out along with the image issue.

As a courtesy, I would appreciate you eliminating your recent changes by next week. BillTunell (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will like to note that there is a discussion about this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BillTunell and userboxes and there is a discussion about some of Ryulong reverts at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong. Powergate92Talk 01:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an investigation as to whether or not some of the images claimed to be free are actually free to use. Some are not simple text as they were improperly tagged and have enough originality between the text and geometric shapes used to be considered not applicable for {{PD-textlogo}}. This image definitely does not fit being in the public domain because it is not a simple text logo or simple geometric shapes. There are some that would definitely be not original enough. The Aggie logo has an (R) in it. It's not free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the issue. Please retain it on the readable page without reversion/deletion. BillTunell (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has a (R) doe's not make it not free as (R) is for registered trademark not copyright, (C) is for copyright. Powergate92Talk 02:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unimportant. The image is more than likely not free due to the originality in the use of letters and how they are depicted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that some images can be free to use although trademarked, however several that were tagged as free are probably not free to use. I saw that the Notre Dame and Penn logos are free to use. However, not all of them are like the Miami, Arizona, and Villanova logos. I would appreciate that neither of us do anything else until the copyright information on these images are finalized.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I am also looking into the issue. Some of the images are indeed in the public domain due too PD-text. File:Oregon state logo.jpg is a perfect example of a PD text. However, I personally do not feel that some of the images, such as the Texas A and M logo, are in the public domain. Until the status of the images are sorted out, I suggest to not add any university logo to more user boxes. I will help you to figure out if the images are OK or not. As for trademarks, I am not sure how they will come to play in userboxes at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Zscout. I certainly do not mind debating images on a case-by-case basis, and I will refrain from adding back any more userboxes at this point. If you want to discuss any particular images, that's fine. I understand that wikipedia policy may choose to be more stringent than copyright law. As an example, however, the Texas A&M logo has been moved to the wikimedia commons (by others) on the basis that it is a public-domain image. As I understand it, that is an administrator decision, not merely a user decision. So somebody higher-up within wikipedia thinks it's free. BillTunell (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the mistake before about the logos; I was asked to overturn my deletion of the Texas Tech logo because it was PD, yet it was more complex than the Texas A and M logo. I talked to the other users who think like you, Bill, and seeing what common ground is possible. Wikipedia policy is stronger than US Copyright Law, but if something is in the public domain, then it will be public domain here. As I said earlier, I do not know how trademarks will work for the userboxes. That is something to ask the Copyright Question Desk. If you want, you can contact me via email and we could have a discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image

If we want to include some non-free images, our best bet is to let reliable sources pick them. The image needs some sourced text that says why it's important, and then we would need to come up with a good rational why it can't be described with just text. The easiest thing probably would be to find some commentary on the visual aspects of a statue of him. I'm thinking a game action shot would be the best, though. I haven't looked much, but "iconic+image"+jackie+robinson this google search might be one way. Apparently there are some iconic images of him sliding into home.[1] I think that would be pretty sweet to add to the article. I'd like to find the one they used for his shoe."iconic+image"+jackie+robinson+sliding&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Anyways, something to think about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've researched the iconic sliding-into-home picture, and it is not public domain. I forget who owns the copyright, but it's still in effect. At this point I no longer want to add any non-free pictures until the FAC is resolved, if ever. BillTunell (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

info

YOu fired some e-mail to ZScout with regards to copyrights/trademarks. Any chance you could send me a copy too?

Sure thing. I'll do that now. BillTunell (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was attached in an email yet, but I should see something in due time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have it now. BillTunell (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Received. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: {{User:UBX/MLB-Phillies}}

I know that image is free, but not every MLB cap logo is. So, for uniformity's sake, could we please keep it as is? Thank you, Tom Danson (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy to that effect? BillTunell (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia projects like to keep things uniform when it comes to userboxes. Anyways, I believe this logo is not PD due to it being simple, but being PD due to age. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to see if there's a Wikipedia Baseball policy .. if so, I'll obviously adhere to it. BillTunell (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's likely no policy, but there are probably some guidelines, which are stongly encouraged, but not required; adherence to the guidelines can avoid unnecessary confrontation though. As for the logo being PD, it probably doesn't meet the criteria as far as age goes since it isn't that old. It does, however, fall into the category of uncopyrightable logos as it is ineligible for such protection. It is a registered trademark though and is entitled to certain protections. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It was used in the 1930's and 1940's and was not registered at the time, thus PD under US law. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's free-use, but not every baseball logo is. So, in order to keep things uniform, I've reverted it back to the original version and ask that you respect that. Thank you, Tom Danson (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that mandates MLB userboxes be uniform. If there were, it would be up to the wikiproject (in this case, WP:baseball) to develop, not left open to the whim of an individual user. I am not going to respect your reversions unless it has sanction from the wikiproject administrators. Otherwise it is a purposeless reversion war.

Moreover, you should know that your reversions not only effect the logo issue, but also the color coding and text format built into my prior edits. Please leave those alone if you revert again in the future. BillTunell (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you want that on your userbox so bad, how about I create a new userbox made just for you with that format? It'll be {{User:BilTunell/MLB-Phillies}}, so you could have your userbox as you want it, with every other one enjoying a standard and uniform with the rest one. I'm working on it right now. Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. That only fragments the user community and defeats the purpose of uniformity. You do not own the userbox pages of wikipedia. I've created a RFC here. Comment if you'd like. BillTunell (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I object to you creating a shadow page mimicing my user page. Delete immediately or I will ask for sanction. BillTunell (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How about I add TWO sections, one with standard boxes, and one with those teams whose logos aren't copyrighted to have these cap logos up? That way you can enjoy your style, while the standard fans can enjoy theirs? (BTW, I've removed your shadow page and requested its speedy deletion) Tom Danson (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, this debate finds you violating several Wikipedia policies, such as WP:OWN and the last comment violating our No legal threats policy. Tom Danson (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits to my user page, which itself is a gross violation of wikipedia policy. Do not change my user page or create shadow pages in the future. If you wish to continue cordially through the RFC process, you may do so. If you insist on combative tactics, I will absoutely ask for sanctions. Your interpretation of this as a legal threat is both self-serving and ridiculous, since you know well the procedure for sanctions under wikipedia rules. BillTunell (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My tactics were not intended to be combative, on the contrary, that was done so a settlement could be reached (I had not heard it yet). I reverted these edits as soon as I found out you didn't want that new userbox. I'm sorry if you saw it as combative, and all further discussions will be done on that RFC page you helped start up. Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope we can work through this amicably. I did not see any requested deletion notice, so I've inserted one. BillTunell (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BMCHS logo.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:BMCHS logo.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source, I have now added a fair use rationale so the image can be kept. The logo on the website you gave is different to the one which has been uploaded, I assume this is because the website has changed it since you uploaded it. Could you let me know if this assumption is correct, or please give a specific place on the website where the uploaded version of the logo can still be found? Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of the logo File:BMCHS logo.png. I have lowered the resolution as necessary for copyrighted images to comply with the WP:NFCC, and converted it from .jpg to .png as the latter is the preferred file format for logos on Wikipedia. As File:BMCHS logo.jpg is copyrighted and no longer used it is now scheduled for deletion within seven days unless a reason to retain is given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:UCLA Logo.svg

I replied to your post on my talk page. —teb728 t c 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Phillies userboxes

No worries, my friend. I think there simply is a misunderstanding as to how the userboxes function. I responded on the page and I think you two have more in common than disagreement. If you want to help put together a guideline page, let me know. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FA?

It's pretty clear that JR is going to pass. Do you have any other articles that you'd like to take to FA? JR is such an icon, that I decided to do another, Abraham Lincoln, but it's really hard to do by oneself. I'd like to team up with someone, and I know you are about as good a teammate as one can get. I don't know if you're a baseball guy, or a civil rights guy, or that you just like JR. I'm not particular about the article, other than I want it to be someone/something important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine: Thanks. I'd like to do another one. During the Robinson saga I got interested in Joe Louis and considered traying an FAC on it a couple months back. Now I realize there's more work to be done on it than I previously thought; mostly formatting stuff, but the article is probably close to FAC in terms of the editorial content.

Lincoln intrigues me, though. It would be about as big a subject as you can tackle on wikipedia, I think. I'll gie the article a once-over (probably this weekend) and give you my impressions. My personal interests don't really revolve around baseball or civil rights, really -- I kind of randomly got interested in the JR article.

Anyway, I'll be in touch, and would like to do antoher FA project with you. BillTunell (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Baseball userboxes

On User talk:BlastOButter42, BillTunell said:
BOB, you may be interested in the request for commentary discussion here. It relates to User:Tom Danson's deletion of userbox images for MLB teams. I think you've run into this issue with him in the past. BillTunell (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 05:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've already reverted it back. Please, let's wait until a consensus is reached on that issue before you revert it to your style, OK? Thanks, Tom Danson (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating the alternate userboxes per the RFC disucssion in order to test these out. Please stop reverting. BillTunell (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I recommend starting your own userbox. As a recommendation, how about this: User:BillTunell/UBX/Phillies — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've housed the alternate userbox on the general MLB UBX page instead of my homepage. Links are at the RFC here. BillTunell (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed to make the one with the insignia the alternate userbox, and the one with the text the regular one. Could we reopen this RFC to tell which one is which? Tom Danson (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BOB suggested the opposite, so I've done it the other way. If people prefer the non-logo as the primary, that's fine. But no one has expressed that opinion so far. The RFC is still open. BillTunell (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Image primer

This was originally posted here, but since issues like this crop up all the time, I'm saving it here for future reference:

---

Opposition to the use of images on wikipedia usually focuses on the interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO, the last section of which reads:

"Use of company logos, sports team crests and other copyrighted images in articles can usually only be done on a "fair use" basis (generally as an illustration of the primary subject - eg the IBM logo on the IBM article). Use of such images as icons is nearly always prohibited (see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Logos)."

This part of WP:MOSLOGO speaks to copyrighted images, as opposed to trademarked images. The standards for use of trademarked images on wikipedia are different than for copyrighted images. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment.

For purposes of wikipedia policy (which can be, and usually is, more stringent than what U.S. law allows), one of the rules is that a copyrighted image can be used under a claim of "fair use" on wikipedia to identify its subject matter, but it can only be used on "article namespace" pages (i.e., the regular articles on wikipedia, not the behind-the-scenes type pages such as userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like). See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, Rule #9 (which you will often see referred to as "NFCC #9" for "Non-Free Content Criterion #9).

These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on wikipedia. Most logos are copyrights. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright status -- this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. So basically, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrights; typically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyright protection.

These types of simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on wikipedia. The Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.

For wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a Non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like.

Identifying what is a copyright, trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® denotes a "registered trademark," which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this as a copyright. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

On wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular "tags" that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyright, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on wikipedia. A copyright image should have a tag attached to it that looks like this:

{{Non-free logo}}

The code you would insert on the image page to insert this tag is: {{Non-free logo}}

An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.

Similarly, a trademark image should contain the following tag:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

code: {{Trademark}}

And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify for copyright protection should be tagged:

code: {{PD-textlogo}}

An example of an image page with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{Trademark}} and the {{PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale," because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on wikipedia.

However, just because an image page is tagged as {{Non-free logo}}, {{PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinitive. Like everything else on wikipedia, such tags are subject to change by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in principle, a qualified {{PD-textlogo}} image should be freely usable on wikipedia in any context, as long as it does not misidentify its subject. Images that are tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional indicator of being public-domain ("free") images – although again, this is not determinitive.

If editors have a disagreement about whether an image qualifies under the {{PD-textlogo}} stadard or any other standard, it is highly suggested that, instead of engaging in revert wars, that the editors use each others' talk page and submit the issue to the relevant noticeboard. Disputes about the qualifications of an allegedly public-domain image can be submitted to the possibly unfree images noticeboard. Disputes about the appropriate use of non-free content can be submitted to the non-free content review noticeboard. In other cases the request for commentary (RFC) procedure can also be used. Any questions can always be directed to the media copyright desk. Use of incident noticeboard is discouraged unless one of the above processes have been tried first, and/or an editor is clearly acting in bad faith. Referral of an editor to this primer may also help avoid any misunderstandings.

Comments

Wow. Nice summary! I think there may be a few more nuances that need to be tweaked (I'll try and get to it over the next week or so).

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tenacious work in greatly improving Jackie Robinson and bringing it to featured article status. Your work is a credit to Wikipedia. BRMo (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod. It's been a saga. BillTunell (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A...textstar? Barntext?

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." —Jackie Robinson

In appreciation Your work is bound to make an impact on many: there were over one million views of Jackie Robinson in the past year. Thank you for turning a good article into a great one, for staying calm and friendly throughout my nitpicking, and for bravely (if ever less eagerly) running the gauntlet of FAC til the job was done. I am so very pleased to have come along for the journey. It has truly been a pleasure working with you. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

On Honest Abe. I think it's doable. User:Rjensen has been working on it a bit, too. I think he has a PhD in History or something, and he seems to be able to find refs for anything he wants. He doesn't do a ton, but when I've asked him for a page number or a reference, he's come through. Just so you know.

I never realized how appreciative people would be about the Jackie Robinson FA. Kinda makes me feel good. I can't imaging what people would say about a Lincoln FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Right now, I'm working on formatical issues. Up until now I've been working on the Bibliography, which once better formatted should allow for easier fact-checking. My next step will be to complete links to short-form cited footnotes referencing the Bibliography.

After that, I'd like to consolidate the "Notes" and "References" sections into one. Having different sections seems wierd. Don't know if that will p.o. anyone, or if there is any FAC precedent for it. Then I'll go through the text code to see about homogenizing citations styles, which seem pretty varied.

So if you and User:Rjensen want to look at the substantive claims while I do the formatical stuff, that might be a decent divison of labor.

This is still going to take a while, though. BillTunell (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Right now the notes are mostly just uncited stuff. They can probably be replaced with fact tags, or if they're good, worked into the body or put into the references.

I'm going to try and keep adding about 5 refs per day. At that rate, there's probably 18 days left until the whole thing is cited (rough estimate). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. I think the article can attract POV pushers sometimes, and my plan if that happens is to do nothing (for a while). Until the article is close to GA or FA level, I'd like to just ignore any disagreements, and let them work themselves out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yo!

Great job! The Honest Abe article's edit history has blown up! I've been kinda busy painting some buildings, so could you give a short summary of what you've been doing, for maximum coordination? I see you've created links between the refs and their books. Very nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now I'm still on step "2" described above: creating the short-cite links in footnotes that reference the Bibilography. I'm a little more than halfway done with that. As that progresses, I've found a few miscellaneous issues here and there: books to be added to the bibliography, confirming missing page number citations, etc. A couple of times I have removed (with text code earmarks) some backup footnotes in the text code that did not match the underlying claim. I've also moved/re-sized a few images and consoldiated a few of the "Notes" into footnotes. I've done basically nothing with the text itself, except in one case, I think, and have only done sporadic fact-checking. So far I have not found any problems with plaigarism, but that is another item on the to-do list. BillTunell (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll take a look at those earmarks when I get a chance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done with step (2) -- now on to step (3) -- eliminating/consolidating the "notes" section. From my review, there's a lot of problems with relaibel sources in this article. BillTunell (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done with Step (3) and implicitly a fair amount of step (4). Other action items:

• flesh out all the missing citation fields (a big hassle given the state of this article)
• reliability check (this will be a big issue IMO)
• WP:Peacock and WP:NPOV review: probably not a big issue, but IMO the Civil Liberties Suspended section needs to be fleshed out a lot in order to give balance to the article
• image review (likely not much of an issue)
• deadlink review
• reform/move See also section per WP:See_also#See_also_section
• reformat judicial/statehood sections
• develop a separate article on Religious and philosophical views
• reform External links section per WP:External links
• plagiarism review
• footnote numbering order check
• Layout check per WP:Layout
• possible quote box insertions
• Project Gutenberg e-text review: not sure if there is a guideline for this or not

This is all in addition to a good sit-down session at a library. I'll probably have some time on the weekend of the 24-25th for that. But hte above list will nto be complete by then. BillTunell (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, sounds comprehensive. I've been addressing Moni's comments, and hope to soon get back to adding refs to the later sections that don't have them. Good job on the notes section. -

If you guys want a peer review on Lincoln, I'll go through and give it comments on style and readability. Let me know when you think you're ready. You can do it in sections or all at once. I may call in my ringer for comprehension and sources. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Moni. I'm guessing we're a few weeks away, but we'll definitely give you a heads-up. BillTunell (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a review of the first sections, stopping at "Presidency and the Civil War". My plan is to do what I've done in the first part to the later parts, so it would be good to have some general comments so I don't do a bunch of work for nothing. Mostly on sourcing and maybe comprehensiveness. I haven't copy edited it at all, so I'm not concerned with grammar or flow at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Image

Maybe add an image to the Abraham lincoln health article. Just an idea. Regards - BennyK95 - Talk 17:48, October 2009 (UTC)

Textlogo

Hi - no, IMO that doesn't qualify as a text logo, due to the positioning and colour. It isn't clear text. The rule of thumb that I always use is - could you recreate that logo perfectly and consistently in 30 seconds using Microsoft Paint, if you weren't given sight of it first? This one - no, I don't think you could. Black Kite 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The rule of thumbs the courts use is on User:Elcobbola/Copyright and page 3:4 regarding Eltra Corp. v. Ringer 37 CFR section 202.1(c). I fail to see how WV is copyrightable under the criteria of originality.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Elcobbola's userpage, whcih I think is a good sumary, and read the Ringer case (which deals with a small subset of non-oroiginal works, namely typefaces, which are not images themsleves). I'd agree that the WV logo does nto meet hte originality threshold. It's a letter-color combination, pure and simple. The "WV" is infinitely less complex than the IBM or Coca-Cola logos. "Positioning" and "color" are simply not copyrightable elements under U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. Page 3:7 of CrazyPaco's link reiterates the same standard, namely that "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not copyrightable.

Black Kite, are you the adminstrator on this, or just a commentator? I think the comments are evenly diovided at this point on the copyright board.BillTunell (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I gotta side with Bill and Paco here. It simply isn't copyrightable. References: Eltra Corp. v. Ringer: "[a] typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)" and a "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text."

The letters "W" and "V" in this logo are letters and intended to be used as such. Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium in which to create art. Accordingly, I'm fixing the licensing issue. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles

Sorry - didn't mean to step in. But doesn't it give you an "edit conflict" screen with all of your edits on it? I always seem to get one when it happens to me... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but depending on where I'm uploading from I might not get the underlying code I was working with -- in this case not. No big deal, and thanks for the input. BillTunell (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pei Plan (Oklahoma City)

Hi, Bill, do know you have a number of circular references in this article? I started to remove them, but was not sure if I was stepping on a master plan you have to fix them. Let me know... ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. Please refrain from deletions. BillTunell (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hands off... ttonyb (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to take a look at it now -- the refs should be fixed. BillTunell (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Wisconsin motion w.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wisconsin motion w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)