User talk:Infrogmation: Difference between revisions
Altairisfar (talk | contribs) →Commons: thanks |
→Guatemala: new section |
||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::Thank you. <b><font color="green">[[User:Altairisfar|Altairisfar]]</font></b><sub><b><font color="#9ACD32">[[User talk:Altairisfar|talk]]</font></b></sub> 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
::Thank you. <b><font color="green">[[User:Altairisfar|Altairisfar]]</font></b><sub><b><font color="#9ACD32">[[User talk:Altairisfar|talk]]</font></b></sub> 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Guatemala == |
|||
You have changed information from Guatemala's page that I've edited. Why? |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guatemala&diff=292209423&oldid=292171824] |
|||
--[[User:Cancuen|Cancuen]] ([[User talk:Cancuen|talk]]) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:35, 28 July 2009
- This is the talk & discussion page for user Infrogmation.
Archives
Old discussion moved to archives: March 09 - July 09, July 08 - Feb 09, May June 08, January April 08, November December 07, September October 07, May-August 07, March April 07, Feb 07, Decmeber 06 Jan 07, Aug Nov 06, June July 06, March May 06, January February 06, October December 05, July September 05, May June 05, March April 05, Jan Feb 05, November-December 2004, September-October 2004, May - August 2004; January - April 2004; August - December, 2003; and User talk:Infrogmation/Archive1 (oldest, October 2002 - July 2003).
Please add new disussion at the bottom of the page. Please sign comments.
File source problem with File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BattleofCrecyEngraving.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 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The source I got it from was and is clearly indicated. The engraving may well be even older, but I think my documenting it back to 1885 publication is quite sufficent to confirm PD status. Infrogmation (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Avrocar images
I was the author of the book Avrocar, Canada's Flying Saucer and later technical director on the films that were derived from this work. All the images that were used in the article came from sources that were owned by me. In order to provide images, I had to alter the 16 mm film stock which I also owned to make into single frame images. The other still photos came from flight manuals that I also own, and were derivative works from these sources. FWiW, this article was one of the first in which I contibuted and may not have the correct information given for the images as I was quite a neophyte at that point. Bzuk (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC).
File:AlohaOe1913.jpg missing description details
File:HowYaGonnaKeepEmDownOnTheFarm.jpg missing description details
File:CollegeLifeCover1905.jpg missing description details
File:1912EverybodyTwoStep.jpg missing description details
File source problem with File:PhilaTownHall.jpg
Can you indicate which postcard please? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which postcard? The one shown in the photo. That and all the others you've listed above were scanned by me from early 20th century originals in my own collection. There is no intermediate secondary source listed because there is no intermediate secondary source. For my uploads from the early years of Wikipedia that look to be similar cases, they generally are. Feel free to ask if you have serious questions, but it seems to me in most of these cases there is zero "problem" nor "missing source" with these images. They were simply uploaded long before Wikipedia was using image description templates. Thanks for your efforts to clean things up, but it looks to me that adiquate information is already there in many or most of these cases, and you can figure things out for your self by reading the description and looking at the image. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, the reason for trying to clean these up, is so they can go to commons and so
it can be shown that there are not 'lifted' from some archive that claims additonal copyrights on reproductions and archiving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:PuucChunjuju.jpg
Can you be more specfic which book this was sourced from ? Thanks :)
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Infrogmation (talk)
File:MollyPitcher.jpg missing description details
Re: George "Honey Boy" Evans
Hello. I undid your move of George "Honey Boy" Evans. He was actually known and billed under that name, so a Wikipedia-specific neologism need not be invented. Discuss at Talk:George "Honey Boy" Evans if you wish. Thank you much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Was it a stage name that he actually used or just a nickname? An article about a person who employed a stage name (or a pen name, for example) will typically be at that title but that's not always the case with nicknames. I see both the sheet music covers pictured in the article bill him as "George Evans". The NYT review in the external links section uses George Evans too. I don't have access to the NYT piece on his death that the article cites but it uses "Honey Boy Evans", and this site seems to use all three. --bainer (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say both. Yes, historical use seems to inconsistant, with examples of George "Honey Boy" Evans, "Honey Boy" Evans, and George Evans, the Honey Boy all seen in period print. I think George "Honey Boy" Evans is a reasonable choice for the article, disambiguating him from other people named George Evans without having to construct a neologism, but if you have other ideas feel free to bring them up. Further discussion, if needed, really should go on the article talk page not here. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk)
Who took the photo? , It's probably commons candidate anyway :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
American History
Why did you go against the American History page being the featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- When, what? That doesn't sound like something I've done anytime recently. If you could provide a link to what you're talking about, I might be able to answer your question. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Images
You seem to have a lot of experience with images so I hope you'll be willing to help me. Two editors believe using three images in the article for Gaslight is OK because two of them supposedly are in the public domain, but I don't think the person who uploaded them (File:Gaslight 1944 trailer.jpg and File:Gaslight 1944 trailer(2).jpg) described them correctly. According to him, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice" but he doesn't say where they were published, and his source for the images is the film's trailer. Since there's no way you could copy an image from a trailer and upload it, it had to have been found somewhere online, but he doesn't say where. It seems to me these two images are screenshots and neither one of them adds to the understanding of the article. Isn't the image of the film's poster enough? I'm very confused by a lot of the image rules but in this case I think I'm right. Thank you in advance for your help. LargoLarry (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Six Flags New Orleans issue
Why did you delete my edit? In the Renewed Interest section, it clearly states that investor Southern Star Amusements has lost interest in reviving the park. Besides, although the company may have taken another look with the park, it seems that it is now impossible to revive it. -- ROT9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC).
- You changed one word, it seemed to me inaccurately, so I changed it back, and explained why in the edit summary [1]. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Commons
I hate to ask here, but since I can't ask there, would you take a look at my Commons account? Altairisfartalk 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken a preliminary look. Your edit was indeed inappropriate, but given your history of constructive edits an indef block does seem to me quite harsh. I'm going to ask the blocking admin for feedback, and will look at the situation in more detail in a bit. Infrogmation (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I've shortened the block to one week; see your talk page on Commons. I'm giving you the benifit of a doubt that your edit was a momentary loss of temper. However it seems to me that User:High Contrast really was personally offended, which is a reaction a good number of people will have if they think profanities are directed towards them. High Contrast was willing to accept a shorter block, but recommended it be "one month, or at least 2 weeks". Infrogmation (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Altairisfartalk 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Guatemala
You have changed information from Guatemala's page that I've edited. Why? [2] --Cancuen (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)