User talk:ChrisRuvolo/Archive/2005

This is an archive of past discussions about User:ChrisRuvolo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:ChrisRuvolo/Archive for the year 2005. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.) See the annual archives for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

Greetings, Chris. I tagged it fairuse for the following reasons.

• It is clearly under copyright, since William Empson would have been only 16 in 1922, the year copyright is still protected in the U.S.
• The source isn't known, but specifying the source isn't necessary for a fair use claim in the United States. (It is required for a fair dealing claim in Australia, but the Wikipedia servers reside in the US and are bound by US law only.)
• The nature of the work: it is a posed portrait, designed to display Mr. Empson in a good light. I would guess that this is either a promotion photograph or a portrait used in a commercial work, but I can't be sure. Either way, its value is clearly not in its obscurity.
• The nature of the use: this version is certainly a lower-quality image than the original, whatever the source. It is being used for educational use only, and is not detracting from the value of the original.

I agree that the tag's text is confusing ("the uploader. . ."). Perhaps a separate {{fairusetagger}} could be made to specify that is the tagger, and not the uploader, who makes the fair use cleam?

Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I left comments about the new template at Template talk:Unknownsource. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...it was the weirdest thing. I was looking at the images of the 1906 quake and when I saw quake.jpg, it appeared to be vandalized because I saw a screenshot from the Quake video game. I just found a new one and uploaded it... but now that I look at the image history, it seems that it was never vandalized. Must have been a problem with my cache, or Wikipedia's cache... in any case, I reverted it. Sorry! --TheCoffee 04:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the map was one that I created using data from another source and having lived in Adachi-ku. Kirkpatrick 13:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, the image:IsadoraDuncan.JPG should be in PD now, as its author has died more than 50 years ago. Or did I miss something? Srtxg 23:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not certain that the image is either in the public domain or retains copyright. It depends on whether the copyright was retained by Arnold Genthe or assigned to a corporation as part of publication, and whether copyright renewals were filed. However, if it is under copyright, I believe that its use in the Duncan article is fair use. BTW, the Sonny Bono act extended the term to life+70 years for works not already in the public domain by 1998 — but this one would have become public domain in 1992 if the copyright was kept by Genthe. --ChrisRuvolo 00:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(moving to Image talk:IsadoraDuncan.JPG — please reply there)

Tnx for interest, replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk do hereby, and with all due and deserved ceremony, award you, ChrisRuvolo a barnstar for your help with expanding Wiki by oh, ~25,000 articles :) It is hugely appreciated. Thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for the barnstar, it is my first Wikipedia award. :) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:) Could you adjust the soft so it would generate several txt files, each with lets say 500 entries? Wiki dies when I try to give it the entire file and I am having trouble counting the # :) Btw, if you are looking for more challenge, check what is the average lenght of one entry and see if there is a better number then 500 - so we get x wiki pages about 32kb each :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You should get a better text editor that will tell you the line number you're on. I've broken it up by 1000 lines using unix tools. The files are here: [1] --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milpitas, California for my responses. Milpitas guy 21:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the copyright statuses of these images. Where can I learn about copyright laws? I really don't know about the different licenses and which web sites provide free images. Milpitas guy 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem, copyright laws are rarely straightforward. The core information you need is at Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, but there are many details not covered there. Read articles linked from the FAQ and try some some of these references for more details: copyright, Wikipedia:Copyrights, copyleft, GFDL, public domain, fair use, Creative Commons, United States copyright law, Berne convention — Good luck, it can be quite a mire. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you correct your entry for Union Township, Union County, NJ. I grew up there, and even still it does not have a commission form of government under the Walsh Act. It has the traditional 5-member, elected-at-large committee form.

I didn't want to be presumptuous and make the change myself.

Thanks!

Removed, I must have it confused with somewhere else. Feel free to correct these kind of things, this is why Wikipedia is publicly editable. Just comment in the edit summary or the talk page if you think it would be controversial. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure the Silicon Valley InfoZone links are broken? Try it again, it works in my browser. I realize that the articles have been copied from Wikipedia, which makes that part redundant, but there is also a lot of other information on the site (such as addresses and maps - this probably wasn't obvious if the HTML didn't work) that is not available here. The InfoZone is a new site which hasn't had many contributions yet, and the placeholder articles are there so that users are aware that articles can be added.

If you're wondering why a separate wiki has been started for Silicon Valley articles, it's so that other information can be included along with the wiki, and so that articles can be written which may not follow the Wikipedia rules (for example, former or present employees of Silicon Valley tech companies can write about their experiences working there). I added the links in an attempt to integrate the new pages with the Wikipedia articles, thus providing the readers with additional information (such as contact details) which could not be added directly to Wikipedia.

I hope this clears up any confusion over the links.

--Quadra630

Hi, thanks for your reply on my talk page. Yes, those pages are broken, the HTTP "Content-Type" header is showing text/plain. This will only render properly in MS IE, which ignores the header and tries to determine file type in some other way. You can see this with wget:

> wget -q -s -O - http://www.siliconvalleyinfozone.com/es/Flextronics | head -20
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 19:36:47 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:12:02 GMT
ETag: "74438a-891-4296f272"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 2193
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain

[...]

Regarding content, there is no reason why maps to the headquarters and other details cannot be added to Wikipedia. Also, without any/much original/additional content, I don't see it as a link worth having. And certainly, the SVInfoZone links should NOT be the first in the list of external links. I've considered this link spam, since: a) it directs to a site without much additional content, b) links were added en-masse to many articles at once, c) SVInfoZone seems to have few links to it from other web sites and these links would raise its Google pagerank™. I hope it is clear why I removed them. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must differ with you on all counts. I tested the links in Firefox, Safari, and IE, and they work fine (the pages render as HTML). So, the problem appears to be with your browser, not the website. Also, there is lots of additional content on it - as far as I know, it is the only interactive Silicon Valley map and timeline in existence. Moreover, the links are not spam, as I only added them to relevant articles, and the number of links on here to Yahoo! Finance information (similar idea, different content) far exceeds the number of SVInfoZone links. Quite a few corporation-related articles link to Yahoo! Finance, and no one has complained. Yes, there are not yet many links to SVInfoZone from other sites (I did find a few with a quick search), but that is just because it's only been around for a few months. In time, I'm sure there will be more. So, I'm still not quite clear on why the links had to be removed...

--Quadra630

Oh, how convenient, the pages are now returning text/html. So, SVInfoZone is your website, yes? See Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 07:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with listing U.S. Highways on the State Highways Pages? The lists were kept seperate from the State Highway lists, and some of those U.S. Highway numbers are now decommissioned, which added some extra information to the lists. If you don't want them listed on the state pages, where do you suggest they should be listed?

(from 68.188.159.93 (talk · contribs))

My concern here is about the distinction between State Highways and US Highways. If the list is a list of State highways, that means the roads were designed, built, funded, and maintained by the state, and not the federal government. Listing US Highways there is not appropriate, unless there is some reason to do so (as there is with California). The way I would expect things to work is similar to the Nevada page, where there is a Transportation section that says:

Nevada also is served by several federal highways: US-6, US-50, US-93, US-95 and US-395. There are also 189 Nevada State Highways.

This clearly shows that there are federal highways and directs the reader to a comprehensive list of state highways. If there are more federal highways than can be listed succintly, there might then be need for a seperate Transportation in Nevada or List of U.S. Highways in Nevada page. Here, I don't think it is appropriate because of the short list. Note that I do not object to listing the US Highways on pages like List of Nebraska numbered highways, because that page does not limit the origin of the roadways. I hope this is clear. Thanks for talking with me about this. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I read your comments on the discussion page of the Photographers and photography of the civil war. It's good you were concerned. Just letting you know that I'm the author of that text, I write through an IP only and it is authentic. I wrote it for school originally. I have many more texts but they are not in encyclopedic forms. Also when I have time I might translate some articles.

from 205.144.32.250 (talk · contribs)

Hi, thanks for the comment. However, we have no way of verifying that you are the same person that originally contributed that text. You're now coming from the networks of a school district, and not AOL. Also, how can we verify that it was original work? Suggestions? Also, I urge you to create a user account so that we may more easily recognize your contributions. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I like the template, but would it be OK if I put the " " back? I find having the parens run into the name looks ugly. Noel (talk) 16:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Hey as for the Burnsville stuff, the credited portions were from the Heritage committee but you took out several uncredited portions which are writings on my own as an Urban Studies BA. I'll be reinstating those if thats okay with you.

(from Davumaya (t c))

Absolutely. It was hard to tell what was original and what came from an external source, so I removed all of it. If the text from the heritage committee is online somewhere, you can also provide URL links to it. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you marked my image "Beeswarm1.jpg" for deletion due to missing copyright information. This is actually an image I took myself, but I haven't figured out how to enter the information.

I've added copyright information. Is this enough to prevent deletion? --Temtem 02:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The text of the {{unverified}} message used to be more polite and thorough, asking for more information about the image source and copyright status. Tagging the message as you did is exactly the action required. Awesome photo, thanks for the contribution. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted List of Japanese given names today. Why? It had a VFD debate without a consensus being reached. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Japanese given names. There was some further discussion about the fact that there was not a consensus on the talk page, but that appears permanently gone. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for dropping by. That poor title had been created and deleted 114 times, mostly as nonsense. Last time it was posted, it was, well, nonsense. It can easily be unlocked if you'd like to write about it. Gotta run, but take care. Best, Lucky 6.9 23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confusing this article with another one. This one just appeared in the transwiki log the other day. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Found the problem. I've undeleted it and restored it to pre-deletion/vandalism status. When I saw "Brad" and nothing else coupled with 114 edits, I thought it was another vandal bot target title. These checks and balances work pretty good, eh? :) - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response ChrisRuvolo, I took a look "WWWJDIC".. chō muzukashi :-) demo domou, it's a good resource. What happened with the List of Japanese given names? I thought I saw one once, or was that a category? Gryffindor 17:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. That article has been transwikied to Wiktionary. For the category, see: Category:Japanese given names. Not all of the given names have been moved into this category from Category:Japanese names yet. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have written this bot (actually, I thought of the idea independently and only just now saw your post at Wikipedia:Bot requests#HTML Entities to Unicode conversion). See User:Curpsbot-unicodify. -- Curps 09:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I own the picture {{subst:www.jackieleonards.com|Image:Tomleonard.jpg}} --PalX 12:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Do you own a print of the photograph? Or do you own the copyright to the original? What year was it taken? You would have to be the original photographer, or perhaps the inheritor of the original photographer to own the copyright. Under what license terms do you want to provide the photograph to Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:Copyright and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to select a free license. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

{{PD}}PalX 13:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer any questions except what license you would like to have it under. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes. I own the photo. I own the original. it was taken in 1949. it's posted on the web in the public domain. you can do whatever you like with it.PalX 14:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and your contribution. I'm changing the image page accordingly and placing a copy of this discussion on the image's talk page. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you found this image easy to track. :) Can you also find a free replacement we CAN use in the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a couple I found on flickr with appropriate licenses: [2] [3] [4] Hope this helps. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I want to thank you very much for this edit. The reason I made some changes to the earlier example (which was the account User:Axon) was that this account did not illustrate the underscore issue (since it does not have a space), and because the log and blocklog queries for this account return nothing; the latter can be confusing for users looking at the examples for the first time. I got the User:Gabrielsimon example from {{userblock}} (I have no idea who this person is and have never been involved with any of his projects or activities), and Jimbo of course was a fairly intuitive choice for an account with two words. User:Example though is perfect for this sort of thing, and I thank you for making the replacement. I have also changed the example at {{userblock}} (and noted in passing that the editor who originally wrote the example seems to have intended to make a change himself, but perhaps forgot!). Anyway, thanks once again for a good call. Regards encephalon 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to take so long to respond, but I didn't notice your comment until just now. Just stopping by to say that I've moved my first draft of Japanocentrism to the main Wikipedia namespace. I've been stalling because I wanted to find a Pacific-centered world map that didn't violate our image policy. Bhumiya/Talk 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the wikilinks you recently reinstated to the forum disambiguation page do not conform to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) which states:

• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for; these pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific place.

That's the Manual's bolding. cheers Nurg 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that MOS policy. Scaled back those links. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about this template. It does not seem that CA has a blanket public domain policy - and in fact, I have found various statues that claim the contrary. As you have commented previously claiming there was such a policy, I would strongly appreciate your input at the above talk page. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer or expert in this matter. I have only repeated information that I've come to understand from others on Wikipedia. Wikipedia project pages indicate the California public domain status: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Public domain. Perhaps you should ask there for more information. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Chris, welcome aboard on to WP:NJ. We've (or at least I've) made much progress in a very short period of time and there's much more that can be done, particularly with the assistance and guidance of an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself. I'd love to learn about creating maps, and I would really want to create some maps for NJ legislative districts. Alansohn 21:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Alan, thanks for the kind welcome. I agree, you've made tremendous progress in the NJ government articles. The maps I created were based on the Bergen County map at the state's website, [5], with some basic image editing software (The Gimp in my case). As for maps for NJ legislative districts, see New Jersey Congressional District, which incorporates public domain maps from the National Atlas. I'm not sure if there are corresponding maps for the state legislature's districts. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The logo you reverted is most widely used as decoration on the licensing templates {{PD-USGov-FWS}} and {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}}. In this capacity we do not have a basis to claim claim fair use of this media. I see that it is also used on, United_States_Fish_and_Wildlife_Service. I previously missed that last fact because there were so many inapproiate uses and I was caught up with the incongruence of using a fair use image on a public domain image template. Sorry about that. I'll pop it out of the templates and fix the license text (which incorrectly claims that the image is public domain). --Gmaxwell 05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On Passat, do we really need the full spec of one specific 4-year old car owned by some guy called Ralph (who's admittedly clearly very proud of his car)? Will links to the current spec not suffice? I really think it'd be ludicrous for Wikipedia to have such detailed spec for each and every Passat model ever produced, and there's no encylopedic reason to single out the 2001 Passat GLS V6 Sedan (North America), is there? Spute 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reason to single out that one model. I'd prefer to expand it to all models, perhaps as a table. Why would it be ludicrous? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose i said it'd be ludicrious because it just seems a bit over the top to have details for each and every model, particularly if it's listed in such a long-winded way. No other car page i've seen has such detilaed specification, and i was considering the article's need to be accessible to a general reader - someone who wants to know the turning circle or compression ratio of a specific could look it up at a specialist site. On reflection though, I would support the introduction of a concise, well formatted table. Spute 14:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for making the {{badJPEG}} template! I started a list of images in the wrong format long ago, and have been adding to it since then; and just a week ago or so I had the idea that a category would really be the best way to do this. I'm glad someone else reached the same conclusion. I've added 128 images from my list to the category. —Bkell 21:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. I've noticed the new category for images with inappropriate JPEG compression, and it came in very handy. The New Jersey state flag is quite a challenge, but I'll try my best! –Mysid 14:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here you go. If there's something I've missed or anything you'd like me to improve, please let me know. –Mysid 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap, it looks awesome! Thanks for your effort, I'm really impressed! I'm going to go replace all uses of the previous PNG with this one, thank you! --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You were absolutely right—I might have moved it by accident when re-centering vertically. It's fixed now. –Mysid 14:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be easier to work with country/flag template information through {{countryedit}}. Of course, there is no ISO country code for NJ nor an Olympic abbreviation. (SEWilco 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

{{countryedit|USA-NJ||}}

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of this set of templates. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made a set of circular shields in SVG and plan to make more. Details are at Talk:Circular highway shield#New SVGs; please reply there. --SPUI (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please vote to keep my image on Wikipedia. You may voice your opinion on whether or not to have the image deleted at [Dec 10th images]. I also wanted to let you know that it looks like my WBC personal subpage will remain on Wikipedia.--JuanMuslim ^1m 23:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the {{badJPEG}} tag from Image:MollyPitcher.jpg, since it seems to me that a scan of an illustration like that from a book is a pretty good use for a JPEG. If you disagree, I'd like to hear your reasons. —Bkell 06:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Please offer me a solution concerning the problems of pictures of Sao Jose. I contacted city hall and have email from them authorizing me to use pictures. If I cannot use GFDL offer me please appropriate tag. It is not a solution to leave pictures with no tag. The claerly stated that I had authorization to use pictures just with the disclaimer " For educational purposes only". please offer me a solution for pictures. I do not know what to do.

Cloretti

How could it possibly connotate ownership when the template literally says: this does not connote any form of article ownership? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 05:15

Connotation is in the eye of the beholver. Just because it says that it does not have that connotation, doesn't mean that users won't interpret and act on the template in that way. Ripe for abuse, this template goes against wiki spirit and should be deleted IMO. BTW, don't assume bad faith. I looked at the template and carefully considered its possible uses. Finding frequent editors via history and article talk pages are more open. Use of this template will harm wikipedia IMO. I have had problems with people claiming that all edits need to be approved by themselves, and having this template available will increase/legitimize such behavior IMO. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 05:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I have previous email contact from the author of the book I just emailed him again to confirm he has any problems with this usage on wikipedia.

What sort of labeling or author permission verification are needed to keep the image on Wikipedia?

Tom Ruen 05:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, Wikipedia uses the GFDL, which requires authors to not only be accepting of static use in Wikipedia, but to also grant the rights of modification, redistribution, sale, and transfer of license. If the author does accept the GFDL license, then the image can be tagged with {{GFDL}}. Otherwise, the specific license terms of the author will have to be hashed out. Either way, the image needs to be tagged so that users can know what license they can re-use the image under. Please see Wikipedia:Image Copyright Tags for more information and a list of licenses/tags that are in use. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 06:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

PS, for verification, it is probably best to include in the image description page the email where the author grants the rights requested. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 06:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, how would we convert this into an SVG? It's a logo. I don't think Microsoft would look to favourably on us converting it to another format somehow... - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its not always easy to get or make a SVG. Some companies make EPS files available for using their logo in print. See Image:EEA agency logo.svg for an example. EPS can be converted to SVG with tools like pstoedit. For others, the logo has been redrawn in a tool like CorelDraw or Inkscape. See for example Image:007.png (hrm, looks deleted now) and Image:007.svg. As for formats, I'd say that converting between formats would fall under fair use (EPS->SVG or JPEG->PNG). Redrawing could also. The redrawn logo might be an original work of authorship, or it might be a derived work (for example by tracing the outline of a feature), but fair use of the trademark should be straightforward.

As for this particular image, having a clean PNG would be all I would hope for. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)