User talk:SchoolcraftT/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome to WP:WVA, by the way. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Mountain Parkway Byway, you will be blocked for vandalism. You need to stop deleting other peoples' talk page comments. This is now the second time you've been warned about this. Brian Powell (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying to the comment you left on my talk page: Todd, you deleted one of my comments entirely and removed a paragraph from another. That's not permitted under Wikipedia guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Also, please keep article related discussion to the talk page for that article so that it is all in one place rather than strung out in multiple areas. Brian Powell (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing a protected article

Hi Todd, as I explained before, an admin has locked the article for a few days to stop an argument. The correct way to edit in this situation is to make notes on the talk page - so for example if you agree to taking the churches out, you can note that, if you find some typos, you can note them. If necessary, you can paste a chunk of the article text onto the talkpage, and suggest how you might rewrite it. You and Brian can discuss what makes up the backway - none of the online maps seems stunningly good, so there's good scope for a discussion here. Don't try to create another article and edit that.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway/Archive 1

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway/Archive 1. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - User talk:SchoolcraftT/Archive 1. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at User talk:SchoolcraftT/Archive 1 - you might like to discuss new information at [[Talk:User talk:SchoolcraftT/Archive 1|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Brian Powell (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave things alone unless you know what you're doing

Todd, It seems you're having a lot of difficulty in understanding correct Wikipedia protocol and how to perform administrative tasks correctly. In your attempt to archive comments from Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway, which you shouldn't have done in the first place as they were still active discussions, you've ended up creating four different incorrect pages that have to be manually deleted by administrators. All of your misspellings just complicated matters further. Your actions ended up in all of the comments actually being deleted until I got an administrator to restore a page.

Before you try doing anything else on Wikipedia, please read through the documentation and learn how to do it properly. Unless you know how to do it right, don't. You're seriously messing things up and creating a lot of work for others. If there is something you think needs done, please ask and let another editor who actually knows how to perform the task correctly do it.

There is no need to archive or restructure Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway. Leave it alone. Brian Powell (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Backway Spurs on CR 20/2 and CR 20/3?

If you have some time, would you be able to go out and see if CR 20/2 and CR 20/3 are signed as actual parts of the Mountain Parkway Backway from along CR 3? It'd help us finish figuring out the spur routes if we could tell for sure. Since the Department of Commerce map doesn't say, it's hard to figure out exactly how things are marked. Thanks. Brian Powell (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WC RT 20/3 dose go into WC RT 3, but it impassable due to the road being washed away. CR 20/2 dose enter the backway, it enters the backway at the Mt Zion Church.

Is CR 20/2 actually signed as part of the Backway, or does it just intersect it? Brian Powell (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WC Rts 3 and 20/2 intersect there at the Mt Zion Church, and several years ago it was singed as part of the backway, but its now signed as part of the byway. We don't have to worry about the spurs because I listend to my mountain parkway Talking Tour and what in the article now is what the talking tour had listed for the spurs, and they have road names. All thats left to do is to cite it.

I'm Moving this to the Article's Talk Page for safe keeping just in case I inevertently delete it.

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hinkles’ (Lowther's) Store.JPG

Due to the photo's apparent age, I would assume that you did not take the original photo in File:Hinkles’ (Lowther's) Store.JPG yourself. That would generally mean that you don't own the copyright yourself and cannot license the photo under Creative Commons.

You posted a comment saying the photo isn't public domain and isn't copyrighted. That is impossible - it has to be one or the other. The photo can be copyrighted and licensed under Creative Commons, but a copyright still exists.

Due to the old age of the photo, I suspect it may be public domain. In order to tell for sure, and to correct the information on the photo itself and for Wikimedia Commons, you need to clearly provide information on when the photo was taken, who took it, and how you obtained access to the photo. Otherwise, this photo will have to be deleted for copyright reasons. Brian Powell (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the comments you made at [1] and subsequent edits you did to the photo itself, it looks like this image should be public domain. I've updated the tags to reflect this and requested that both of the copies on Wikipedia be deleted since it is also available on Wikimedia Commons. Brian Powell (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright 101

I apologise in advance if any of this comes across as like teaching granny to suck eggs, but you're not coming across like someone who has had to tackle copyright before, so I hope this might be helpful.

If I go to your house and take a picture of you, I am the creator of the picture and I - not you - hold the copyright. If I wanted, I could publish the picture in a book, or sell it to a newspaper, and I would have to be credited as the creator and copyright holder. If you wanted to use the picture in your book, you would need my permission and you might have to pay me for it. If I get my daughter (who is good with computers) to photoshop out your cat, which wandered into the picture by mistake, I am still the copyright holder - what she has created is a derivative image, for which she can't claim copyright.

Another thing I could do is upload the image onto Wikimedia Commons. If I did that, I could license it under the CC-BY-SA License, which would mean that anyone who came across the image could use it, they wouldn't need my permission or have to pay me any money, but they cannot claim that they created it or hold the copyright and, if asked, they would have to say where they got it.

After a period of time (varies by country, but about 70 years), copyright expires and the image enters the public domain - ie anyone can use it, they don't need permission.

"Free" in Wikipedia terms means that an image is either in the public domain or someone has licensed it for free use under CC-BY-SA or a similar license.

In the case of the Lowther's store image, you cannot possibly be the creator unless you own a time machine. It follows, that you cannot license the picture on the grounds that you hold the copyright. If the picture was taken when it appears to have been taken (ie before World War I) then it is so old that nobody can hold the copyright in it - it will be in the public domain. The fact that your friend owns the paper original, or put the image in a powerpoint presentation, doesn't give him copyright, so he can't give it to you.

With this in mind, can you tell me everything you know about the photograph (did Dr Anderson know who the photographer was, or when it was taken?) and we'll see if we can unravel this. There should be no need to delete the image if we can just get the information straight.

Thanks for your help --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hinkles’ (Lowther's) Store.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Hinkles’ (Lowther's) Store.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Brian Powell (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Glitch

Hi Todd. Your last couple of edits wiped about half the content from the article. I've put it back to where it was - do you want to let us know on Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway what you were trying to do, and see if we can work out what happened. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I figured it was an accident of some kind. I put it back how it was in case you want to have another go --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to move Mountain Parkway Byway?

Why are you trying to move Mountain Parkway Byway? We've already been through this issue about the correct legal name of the Byway. Brian Powell (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Byway.ogg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Byway.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Brian Powell (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Backway Routes.ogg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Backway Routes.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Brian Powell (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)