User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2009 9 8

Gasp!

Cenophobia compels me to post as soon as possible. :) Actually, good call. You were beginning to load slowly even for me. (Unless that was the intent? ;)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) I'm ordinarily loathe to archive, but if your comment is at the top it's not so bad. I'll tell you more about why I didn't before and why I did when I see you next. Dcoetzee 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

C# MUD Help

Hi there. I'm building a new MUD codebase in C# from scratch. The networking, socket and telnet parts are my nightmare. I'd like to ask you for a bit of help. I've seen your reply to a post in a forum where you posted "the simplest MUD". It worked perfectly because that's what I need. I connected to myself using MUSHclient and it worked perfectly. I want to study that small code deeper and I need help clarifying some things up. I can be found as viniciusbmeireles at either hotmail or gmail. Please send me an e-mail when you have the time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.70.145.113 (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Fibonacci dynamic programming.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fibonacci dynamic programming.png, 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lord Monboddo

Many thanks for your help with the John Kay sketch. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you do magic?

Your wizardy is sought at the gastropod cleanup project. Might you pop by and let us know if what is being requested is within your power? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are more specifics now on this at the Gastropod clean-up page. I'm also hoping that you can compile a list for me of the work of User:Footage, who seems to have been a problem for a while. He is currently on a two week block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to open a new section, I was thinking you might be interested in the proposal for Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. Not sure exactly where it's going, but your being all imagey and everything.... :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. :-) I responded on the Gastropods page. Good to hear from you. Dcoetzee 21:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Uck_kla_logo.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Uck_kla_logo.svg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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.

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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too curt

• Hi, sorry if I was too curt during conversation at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. I hope I didn't offend you. I certainly didn't intend to insult you. Best of luck Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I understand you have strong opinions on the subject and I'm glad we had the opportunity to discuss it. :-) Dcoetzee 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Me again, with strangeness

I've just cobbed a "press release" notice next to a reference which I added here. I've long thought we could use such a template and also one that says "public domain." I can't tell if we already have one, because quite a few templates are not categorized (these should be under Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates, I'd guess). For the pd one, I was thinking "Pd-source", but I see that exists as a redirect. I can't see that it's been transcluded anywhere. Can you tell me if Template:Pd-source would be likely to be free for use, assuming that I provide an unincluded hatnote pointing to the template it currently directs to, to help those trying to find it? Conversely, can you tell me if we already have something like this? (I don't know if you have some magic search engine (or prior familiarity) that would let you know. :) I'm not asking you to comb through the land of uncategorized templates, doing my legwork. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see right away any template like the one you describe, but I can tell you how to search templates efficiently: type something in the search box on the left, hit Search. Then scroll down to "Advanced search" and check only "Template." As for usurping templates, if the creator has lost interest and it's orphaned, be bold. :-) Dcoetzee 20:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm embarrassed to have to go "Oh,yeah" on that one. I had forgotten about "Advanced search." :D

Meanwhile, I've got a new question that sends me hat in hand. :) At my user page, it deals with creating images of cars; it's here. Can you help? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you adopt me?

Hi i'm new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could adopt me and help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaminski825 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the slow response - I'm afraid I'm pretty busy, but feel free to ask me a question if you ever need help. :-) Dcoetzee 09:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery

I believe you may know the copyright side of images from the National Portrait Gallery (UK), judging by uploads of yours I have come across. Today I'm interested in Nicholas Byfield, as in this page; this wouldn't be the only case. I'm generally busy with creating early-modern articles, and this point is going to come up again. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles. Those are all good and clear based on publication date - it needs two tags to be uploaded to Commons: {{PD-Art|PD-UK-unknown}}, which indicates that it's a reproduction of a work that was published in the UK before 1939 and the engraver is unknown, and {{PD-1923}}, which indicates it's public domain in the United States because it was published before 1923. Alternatively, you can simply say {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}, on the reasonable basis that whoever engraved it, must have been dead for at least 100 years by now. Dcoetzee 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi. I'd like a second opinion on whether a close paraphrasing situation rises to the level that the article needs to be blanked pending revision or not. I'm sorry, but there's a fair amount of reading involved. :) The situation is at Talk:Stacey Castor. If you are able, can you take a look and weigh in? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Constantly after you. :)

Hi, one of my favorite commons admins. :D We've got yet another massive infringement going at AN (here). They never stop, do they? :/ Anyway, this one may have spilled over onto Commons with the image: File:Bananaplant.jpg. Would you mind evaluating that and figuring out what ought to be done? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And deleted. :-) I personally consider reputation sufficient cause for deletion in cases like this. Dcoetzee 23:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Regarding car images

Thank you, and dont worry, I appreciate your work to keep wikipedia in the best shape. and I under stand that, I wanna know if this applies to all cars?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as its design has a utilitarian practical purpose, yes. When you talk about fictional cars like the Batmobile things might get more complicated. Read the policy I linked you for the full explanation. :-) Dcoetzee 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, you are so helpful :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hi, can you confirm it was you who signed up at The Wikipedia Forum with this username please? Thanks! dottydotdot (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am. :-) Dcoetzee 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, activated! dottydotdot (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Code block templates

Discussion about code block templates is being carried out at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 5#Template:Code block template. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons image question

Hi. I believe we have an issue with File:Georgia Guidestones.jpg, which is a picture of a sculpture that seems to be under copyright. Probably fair usable, but I don't know about Commons. Can you take a look at the discussion and see what may need to be done, including correcting me if I'm wrong? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutic hypothermia

Hey. I just saw you made a pretty significant edit to this article. Would you mind taking a look at the talk page and give your opinion about the Arctic Sun section? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in no position to compare various methods of inducing hypothermia. I just wanted to avoid the heavy front-loaded praise and survival statistics in the intro, and stick with a more neutral definition. I figured discussion and debate over evaluation could go elsewhere. Dcoetzee 07:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Marion Huxley

Many thanks for uploading this wonderful portrait! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. :-) The National Portrait Gallery did the hard work of producing the photo. It is a beautiful work. Dcoetzee 05:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY)

Would you consider restoring Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY, another editor speedied it as an implausable redirect to the essay, but it is the most concise and most used version leading to the essay akin to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The deleting person has now left about 30 redlinks in article discussion pages. It is shorter than Wikipedia:Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays as if they were Wikipedia approved policy --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This is already at DRV. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At first it seemed to have a lot of incoming links, but they really are all created by one user. I re-deleted it and will take no further interest in this, letting DRV sort it out. I also strongly admonish Richard against seeking assistance from admins without giving them complete information about the situation - this sleight of hand diminishes my trust in you. Dcoetzee 06:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• No sleight of hand at all. The deletion was based on "its too long" and "implausable". Certainly no more implausible than OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And it is very clearly marked as an essay, what secret information was I hiding from you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that it was up at DRV. It's a bad idea for admins to delete or restore anything when whether that action should be taken is the subject of current community discussion, as it amounts to usurping consensus. Dcoetzee 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• No one has voted on it. I could have just as easily withdrew it from DVR since I posted it and contacted you within a few minutes of each other. There is not a single vote at this point. Just a comment from a guy. If I had asked you to restore it and people had agreed to keep it deleted then that would have been deceptive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lodowicke Muggleton

Many thanks for putting up the 2 pix of Loddo- it really is appreciated by us folks out there in the dark. Also for the note (above on this page) about the NPG in London. I was a bit worried about that.Coxparra (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. :-) I'm glad NPG went to the work of producing these reproductions. Dcoetzee 22:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, help?

There's a listing I can't evaluate at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 9, on Weibull fading. The tagger seems quite certain. The creator is a long-gone SPA. Do you have any access to the suspected sources listed there? I like to be able to verify before deleting an article. If I can't, I will sometimes just rewrite it myself to be on the safe side. That's not an option here. :) And I don't even know which project I should best approach. If you don't have access to the source, do you have an idea how this should best be handled? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. :-) Yeah, I do have access to that document, but not at the moment (my company's site account is currently full for some reason). I can get it to you when I have it again. You can read the abstract here. Looking at the article, I seriously doubt it's a copyvio in its entirety - most likely, it's the formulas that are the concern here. It's unfortunate that User:Corfuman is not responding, as they do seem to be a capable English speaker and subject matter expert. Dcoetzee 08:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! I'll just hold resolution until we can take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI I haven't forgotten this, there are some technical issues, I'll get back to you. :-) Dcoetzee 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

More help (surprise!)

Can you do your magic here? Please? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: PD

If you wanted to do that, you'd have to start fresh. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise it's virtually impossible - and that nobody agrees with me about it. But if I could turn back time I'd see if I could talk Jimbo and friends into it. Dcoetzee 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

help with NPG images

I read that you uploaded images (paintings by Sir Peter Lely) from the National Portrait Gallery using a "special tool" i was wondering how you do this because im tryng to get a picture of Queen Anne by Michael Dahl (NPG also) pleease help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusislord65 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer possible to obtain high-resolution images from NPG in the manner in which I did. Please e-mail me for further discussion using Special:EmailUser/Dcoetzee. Dcoetzee 10:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady Mary Scudamore

Thank you for the image of Lady Mary Scudamore. I have added that to the article on Sir James Scudamore, in addition to a great deal of new material I have found. Golden Hound (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon

My under-translation Edward Gibbon article (in english wikipedia: Edward Gibbon) Thanks for your edit in my little under-translation (construction) article. I've been away for months and I haven't seen the modify yet. But please, if you edit this (or any else under-construction) article any more, write it on the Article's discussion page. Thanks - √ Dokee ⊄ talk √ 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. Dcoetzee 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you attended

Hello again! As we mentioned when you attended our focus group back in April, our goal was to use your feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what you thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Even if you are unable or unwilling to take this survey, we want to thank you for attending our focus group. Your generous contribution of your time and ideas was greatly appreciated! Commprac01 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

hello

I just wanted to say that I am back, and that I am sorry for being so bitter to you in the past. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, will respond on your talk page. Dcoetzee 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blog copy of Wikipedia

Hey there, in relation to this edit, if you compare the date of the blog post link to the date of the Wikipedia post diff, you can see that the material was on Wiki before it was posted on this blog. Whatever else this text may be, it isn't a copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This particular text, yes. This was already noted on the talk page. Dcoetzee 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin business, Commons

Hi. :) Can I tap you, please, to look into a copyright matter on Commons? Involved are the contributions there of this fellow. He had an article listed here and indicated that he would place a release on the external site. I can't find it, so I deleted the article with a note. The images are beyond my reach. It's always a bit puzzling to know what to do when the contributor probably is the copyright holder but doesn't follow through with verifying that. :/ Anyway, if you can find a release on the source, [1], that I've missed, we can restore the article Brother Joseph Thamby. I don't know what Commons does with images in this case, but I suspect it's not much different. Deletion debate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. :-) I double checked you, and no, no sign of a release statement on the site. However, I've seen no precedent for any such case on Commons, so I'm going to nominate them for deletion and see. Dcoetzee 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominated at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Polimetla. Dcoetzee 23:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I have no idea why the guy didn't follow through. But, then, sometimes people will actually write OTRS from an e-mail clearly associated with the publisher giving us an incomplete permission and then just not respond to our follow-up. That's even more baffling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Got an e-mail! It may prove to be sufficient for the images, but it isn't sufficient yet. The e-mail address is not visibly associated with the website. The text is not going to be usable unless he can verify that it is PD, since he says he did not author it himself. I assume most of the images are panorama? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean by panorama, but I've noted that you received mail on the deletion page. Several of the photos are of signs or plaques that are not considered a "work of artistic craftsmanship", and as such don't fall under freedom of panorama laws in India. These will have to be deleted regardless. Dcoetzee 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know quite what I mean by panorama either. I am parroting the term. :) I guess panorama must be for buildings only? Or does India have no freedom of panorama laws? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean freedom of panorama. :-) India has freedom of panorama for buildings, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#India and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom (India law is based on UK law here), which breaks down the distinction between works of artistic craftsmanship and graphic works. Personally I don't think the signage here qualifies, but the other pictures would. Dcoetzee 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

←Well, at least the term has some meaning, even if I don't know exactly what it is. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Music samples

Hi. I noticed you've participated in discussions at the music samples guideline's talk page, and I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on my proposal regarding sample lengths. Thanks. Timmeh 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on NPG

Congratulations on pissing off the NPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.23.29 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Derrick, I would be happy to work at the National Portrait Gallery to capture images for commons if the NPG offers that as an alternative to using their digital images. - Pointillist (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, I will keep that in mind. :-) Dcoetzee 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a twat for pissing off the NPG. So Wikipedia kicks up a fuss when people use small images from TV programmes or innocent diagrams and photos from Flickr yet it's fine to nick pictures from a public art gallery. Wikipedia is fucking stupid.--217.203.131.210 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The images you describe (small images from TV programmes or innocent diagrams and photos from Flickr) are generally protected by copyright in the United States, but some of them may be eligible for use under our non-free content policy, or you may be able to persuade the copyright owner to release them under a free license (see Commons:Commons:OTRS). If there's any particular images you have in mind I may be able to help. Dcoetzee 15:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't nick something that belongs to everyone. Good luck, Derrick. — Hex (❝?!❞) 07:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Earle. :-) Dcoetzee 08:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		As a British citizen, I'm very dismayed that my taxes are being used to fund a lawsuit against an American citizen uploading public-domain images to an American website. I'd rather they go towards fixing the economy, you know? Sceptre (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Sceptre. Dcoetzee 01:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are a genius. Hang in there: it must be a daunting position to find yourself in. I'm exceptionally pleased that you have people working with you towards a good resolution for Wikipedia. What you have done is very important and the outcome even more so. As a British tax payer who has paid into NPG's coffers I am furious that they seek to imprison these works in their own fiefdom. What you have done is completely morally right. If this decision were to go against Wikipedia it would set back public access to the arts by a hundred years or more. In a vast amount of cases there will never be an ultimate substitute for actually visiting a gallery and appreciating a painting in all its natural splendour, so galleries still have a great role to play and people will still have a compelling reason to visit them. But there is also now an unrivalled opportunity for all public domain art to be appreciated by everyone with access to the internet and this greater good must not be trampled on by vested interests. I hope you'll be hailed as a hero one day. The alternative scarcely bears thinking about. --bodnotbod (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of myself as a genius or a hero, but I still appreciate your support. :-) Dcoetzee 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Advice on UK Copyright Position

Hi, here is some legal advice I got here in the UK regarding copyright from a UK Barrister (Senior Lawyer):

"There is no current UK court ruling that says that copyright exists in the photograph of an out of copyright painting. It all depends on whether the person who took the photograph of the painting made an original contribution, if yes, they may be able to claim a copyright in the photograph. If no original contribution, no copyright. Originality has not been defined in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act and is open for the courts to interpret on a case by case basis.

However, there is UK case law which has established that a mechanical photocopy of an original work is not copyrighted (Reject Shop Vs Manners 1995) and in the case of Interlego A.G. vs Tyco Industries (1989), it was held that that a drawing which was a copy of another drawing did not hold its own copyright. ‘Skill labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality’ said the court in this case."

So it would seem that Farrer are bluffing - there is no precedent that supports their position - but there are precedents in your favour... I very much doubt if they or any other UK gallery would want to take a case to court because the chances are they would lose. The only thing stopping people now from scanning images from books, postcards and posters is either a mistaken belief that it is illegal or fear that it may be judged to be so..

Left on 19th July 2009 bhy Jimbodiddly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbodiddly (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

postbqp

Hi, I'm in the process of fleshing out the postbqp page and the connection to pp, can you undo the merge that you just did? Daveagp (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)daveagp

I could but can you explain why you don't want them to be merged? There was quite a bit of redundant material between the two articles, and that was the main reason for merging, not because the PostBQP article was short. Dcoetzee 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

[2] Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for me to advance an opinion in that discussion. Dcoetzee 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your real name is being used on an article at Wikipedia. You have the same moral right to object to such things as Sam had. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no moral objection to that aspect. I just don't think I should publically comment on an article with relevance to an ongoing legal dispute. Dcoetzee 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Should you unblock Amisquitta? This user has not brought any legal action against you. The user who has actually threatened you, the National Picture Gallery, does not have an account. This is as close to the mess as I will come. Good luck to everyone. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Amisquitta apparently represented Anthony Misquitta of Farrer & Co, who did in fact co-write the legal notice I received. I don't think it's wise to get involved as an administrator in matters related to the NPG, but neither would I object to an unblock. Dcoetzee 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you about this issue you yet again. But Regarding your remarks about the AfD, could you possibly comment whether it would be at all accurate to say that your desire to have the article in project space if the AfD failed was at all connected or influenced by the fact that project space is NOINDEXed? That is, did you consider this to be a reason to keep it around? I'm sorry to bother you, but Ottava Rima and I apparently disagree over what the simple, obvious reading of what you had to say is, and asking you to clarify would help matters (there's a long discussion on both OR and my talk pages, but we both replied to each other on the other's page, so it is a bit hard to read through). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that was not my motivation - in fact, in the days of the noindex debates, I argued that all pages on Wikipedia should be indexed, and I still believe that. The page itself should clearly indicate whether or not it is an encyclopedia article. Dcoetzee 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the word "duology"

Thanks - I've added my bit at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22 Robsinden (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy

You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

wow

hi, Derrick, I just want to say how cool it is to see that you've stumbled across my proposal at the Village Pump, regarding public domain sources. I've heard about your leadership in the National Portrait Gallery issue. You're a real Wikipedia hero. Keep up the good work. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your support. :-) But nevertheless please don't let my opinion carry special weight and feel free to voice disagreement with me. Dcoetzee 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee/Named topic bias

While passing through, I glanced at this essay and found it very relevant to my own work, i.e. writing legal articles. It is difficult to shoehorn legal principles into articles, because the legal principles themselves consist of full sentences. The phrase "named topic bias" describes this problem well.

Commercial companies like Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis have solved this problem by creating a numbering system! Each legal proposition is assigned a number. An example is on the top of page six of this document, another example at the bottom of page 2 here. (The company, Westlaw, provides exhaustive details here, though I haven't read the source myself.) Sadly, these companies have a copyright on their numbering systems.

Of course, Wikipedia is inhibited from developing such a system because it would be Original Research. I think the solution to this problem is that some reputed scholars need to develop a numbering system like this under a free license. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agradman, thanks for reading my essay. I think in a case like this your best bet is to just come up with the best descriptive name that you can, even if it's pretty long. An example would be Assumption of transferor's liabilities in corporate conveyance law. The idea is that the pages get renamed as people come up with better names for them. Dcoetzee 07:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  – iridescent 16:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

John Christie (murderer)

Hello there. I've requested a peer review for the article on John Christie (murderer) and I'm looking for feedback from people interested in serial killers. John Christie was a British serial killer from the 1940s and 50s who murdered a number of women but was also controversially involved in another murder trial, where he gave what's now considered perjured evidence against a fellow tenant. The case generated a lot of controversy in the UK. I'm hoping to turn the article into a featured article, so I'm looking for any comments about potential problems or if there's anything that needs improving. The peer review is available here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Wcp07 (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Image issue?

Hi. I'm heading out of town overnight and, as you know, off to surgery on Tuesday. Can I drop an image issue on your lap? If your lap is otherwise occupied, might you find somebody else who can manage it? :) I think there are problems with User:Sedna10387 which are probably resolvable if he can be engaged in conversation. Take, for a single example, File:Indianapolis montage.JPG, which is clearly a derivative work incorporating such non-free images as [3]. (It has a FUR and yet is claimed under CC-By-SA.) Okay, another example: File:SAN F. MONTAGE.JPG. It says it is sourced to Wikipedia images. Which ones? Under what licenses? He may or may not be open to conversation. I had previously tagged two images uploaded for lack of licensing permission, but his response was to remove the tags with his IP (same IP he used here; contribs leave no doubt it is the same person). He also had an article deleted as a copyright infringement, and he didn't engage in conversation about that problem either. Some of his images probably were taken by him, but there are others that he has placed under inappropriate license. For instance, File:Dealership 1916.jpg may be PD by age, but I don't believe that this contributor could be in position to license it under GFDL, since the other images taken from the same website ([4]) were deleted after the traditional time without verification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of everything, you worry about yourself. :-) Dcoetzee 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed his contribs and posted a note - I'll let you know how things turn out. Dcoetzee 06:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I knew he'd be in good hands with you. :) Your note to him is stellar; very thorough and clear! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem user

The user is Peterdjones. Occasionally, he comes to Belgian beer articles and inserts his POV and edit wars with beer editors who try to correct him. Here is one small example of edit warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupel&action=history In writing with his POV, he rarely (if ever) provides sources. So (please read his edit summary):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beer_in_Belgium&diff=next&oldid=142219789 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beer_in_Belgium&diff=next&oldid=144273686 or (note the "some place..")http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beer_in_Belgium&diff=next&oldid=142125068

Stalking: I requested mediation on an article dispute and the user followed me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-07/Tripel&action=history

Here is a personal attack on me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tripel&diff=next&oldid=307530523 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.63.37 (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

VPP#Automated creation of stubs

Er, it sounds from your question like you've skimmed the section too quickly, or even started at the subsection break. Start at the top of WP:VPP#Automated creation of stubs and it should be clearer. Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I sure did. My apologies. Dcoetzee 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Cormac mccarthy promo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Cormac mccarthy promo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid editing/Alternative text

I understand you're in the process of moving and that you have some other concerns, so this might be trivial to you. I mentioned your user ID in passing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Benjiboi_and_myself_at_Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing, you might want to comment there, but I doubt its too important to you.

More important (to me) is that I've started working on WP:Paid editing/Alternative text and several editors are joining me there. I just ask that everybody work under WP:1RR. We may be missing a more lenient point of view. I was impressed by you saying on the talk page that you'd like to have paid editing accepted and are willing to accept reasonable limits to reach that goal. I'd love somebody to put in those reasonable limits - please go to the alternative text page and contribute if you have the time. And good luck on everything. Smallbones (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPG

See here. Bye. --200.100.48.195 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm aware of that story, and many others, see commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage. Dcoetzee 03:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID

Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I'll reply on the talk page about specifics. Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Image issue; can you offer insight?

Hi. I'm wrapping another multiple article infringer, and this one has images. Under one of his socks, these are at [5]. Under the main account, they are at [6]. I had started deleting until it occurred to me (and I verified) that WP:Copyvio is written specifically to allow presumptive deletion of prose. Can you offer any insight? I don't know how to tell if some of these images released as "by self" are truly by self except through the painfully slow process of searching for visual similarities. I'm afraid I may not live that long. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! I think I've found the source! I'll have to look for specifics. In [7]. The shadowing around the images is suspicious. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The one I found blatantly duplicated has been F9ed. The others are at PUIC. Thanks for giving me a place to make notes. :D Hope you're well! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I wasn't able to help you before you helped yourself. :-) I'm well, and I hope you are too. With any luck we'll speak soon. :-) Dcoetzee 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope so! I've missed you. :) Anyway, I am back again with another image issue. A contributor asks on my page for feedback on this issue (the first comment, "Image Review"). This is alien ground for me. Can you offer some insight? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

C'est moi!

Hi, Derrick. I know you're busy these days, but if you had an opportunity, would you mind taking a look at User talk:Bleaney? I'm coming to an end of a thorough overview of his articles after I noticed him removing an SCV listing for his article and realized he had some confusion about copyright. I want to be sure that he is confident and capable in paraphrasing and would appreciate some feedback if you see room to explain something better than I do. Thanks, if you can. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I took a look over these and your comments are spectacular as usual - they're neither too strict nor too permissive, and extremely detailed and thorough. I really don't have anything to add. I just hope your contributor is getting the message. :-) Dcoetzee 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for the update at my talk page. :) And, while I'm here, if you have an opportunity we're discussing ways to increase community awareness and involvement at WT:COPYCLEAN. Among other things, we are discussing splitting multiple article infringer investigations away from the project. I'd really appreciate your feedback, especially with respect to my new template. I'd like to get it fairly polished before submitting it to vp. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have attempted to incorporate your ideas in my subpage, should you have a chance to check it out. :) Meanwhile, there's an image issue of some concern to me, and you have tool use on both projects. Can you check out File:Denverartmuseum.jpg, File:SF MOMA.jpg, File:Helnwein installation.jpg and File:Helnwein state russian museum.jpg? I'm concerned that these may constitute derivative works, containing as they do prominent representations of copyrighted artwork. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! The relevant policy here is Commons:Commons:De minimis, which regards whether representations of copyrighted art in a photo should be sufficient to constitute a copyright violation. Of those four, I think File:SF MOMA.jpg might be okay, but I'm pretty sure the others are not (partly because the artworks are displayed so prominently, and partly according to the descriptions, those photos are intended to depict copyrighted works of art). Some of these, like File:Denverartmuseum.jpg, are very likely to be plain-old copyvios, images copied from the websites of the artists (note that they are originally credited to "C. Helnwein for Studio Helnwein", not User:BChulmers77). Regardless, I'm going to mark all the ones remaining on En as not eligible for move to Commons, and requiring a fair use rationale. Dcoetzee 19:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple image copyright infringer; Wikipedia & Commons

Hi. We've got a listing at COPYCLEAN that I'm hoping you can help out with concerning a multiple image & project infringer: [[here. I've done my slow visual scan and deleted a dozen or so that I've verified to have bee published elsewhere, but that leaves a good many images of stadiums of uncertain origin here and on Commons. Can you lend a hand? I'm loathe to make the leap to "Okay, time to delete everything" myself with images, and I can't do anything about the stuff on Commons anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hi. I wanted to leave you a Halloween card (I compiled it myself! I figured out how to make the text orange! and centered! and am as gleeful about it as a five year old), but given your policies on talk archiving figured I'd better not. I'm already much over-represented here. :D But I wanted to stop by anyway and wish you a Happy Halloween and just let you know how much I appreciate you. People like you make this place a pleasure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And I would love to see the card - I promise I'll archive soon if you'll show it to me. :-) Happy Halloween, and I greatly appreciate you as well. *hugs* Dcoetzee 07:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but you're going to go, "Really? This is what made her as gleeful as a five year old?" And then I will remind you to consider the source. Visuals are not my thing. :) You lose some of the black details from the background of the image, but I'm willing to sacrifice them, because it really makes the orange pop. Orange is good. I like orange. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween from a Moonriddengirl to a very valued colleague.