User talk:Mwanner/Archive 5

Author dead 100+ years = PD?

You recently added the statement "Works of painters or photographers who died more than 100 years ago are also in the public domain in the United States." to Wikipedia:Image use policy. What's your source for this? I am unaware of any "100 years p.m.a." rule in U.S. copyright law... Lupo 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right-- the US law is 70 years pma. I went with 100 because

• the image upload page only offers {{PD-old}}, not {{PD-old-70}},
• there are countries that use 100 pma (which is, I suspect, why image upload doesn't offer PD-old-70,
• there are (rare) circumstances in which the work of an artist who died 70 years ago is nevertheless copyrighted,

and because there is so much fud, generally, over copyright. If you want to change it to 70, I'm fine with that-- in fact I was thinking of doing so myself, and adding a link to Wikipedia:Public domain (just so everyone can be as confused as I am). -- Mwanner | Talk 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the U.S. rules are horribly complicated; it can be "70 years p.m.a", or "95 years after publication", or "120 years since creation". "100 years p.m.a." might look like a useful rule of thumb, but in fact the U.S. rules are much more based on publication dates, and thus I fear that 100y-rule is more confusing. I think it should be removed because it's too misleading. Even in the U.S., "70 years p.m.a." applies only to things published since 1978—which are not very interesting for us, because they are so recent that they are copyrighted in any case. However, see Peter Hirtle's chart for a useable breakdown of the U.S. rules. WP:PD is more intended as a poor attempt to explain what's behind that chart, and to explain and show the difficulties that can arise as soon as one begins considering international issues. BTW, the link to WP:PD is already there. If you have any ideas how WP:PD could present its complicated subject in a clearer way without sacrificing correctness, I'm all for trying it out! Lupo 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I had missed the fact that the 70-year-pma only applied to unpublished works and those published after '78. It's really a sorry mess, isn't it? Especially as date and place of first publication are well-nigh impossible to track down for most images. And the text of {{PD-old-70}} is really not quite on, is it?

Anyhow, I have self-reverted at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain. I suppose the complexities are such that the whole 70 year pma/100 year pma issue is not worth mentioning on that page? I find it especially charming that "the interaction of Wikipedia, the GFDL, and international law is still under discussion."

Blech! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Salmon

Mwanner,

Thanks for taking care of the salmon link of doubious use. You might want to check out my userpage and website. I used to work on computers doing high end software, usually stuff no one wanted to read a book about. In 2001, I noticing the bubble bursting and went to work for a grocery store - note my handle meatclerk .

In any case, I note you removed the aforementioned link. While the link does not follow the theme of the article it is important to salmon. In short, I see why you deleted it, but may I request that in the future you move such doubious items to discussion. As such, I may decide if it may be of value. In the future I hope it will be we, instead of me. Salmon is an overwhelming subject. I add notes daily on my webpage about salmon.

meatclerk 00:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your wanting to stay on top of things. If you'll allow me to warden the salmon page, I'll be responsible for any movement to the talkpage. Hence, this should reduce your overhead by one meager page. ;-) However, don't let this stop you from taking any action you deem necessary.

--meatclerk 03:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: nogallery

Hello there! There have been a previous discussion in the archive of the Fair use talk page, also here, then here, here and now here. Per FUC #9, it seems there must be consensus to keep a category with thumbnails. How to achieve that is not really clear at this point. Categories that should display thumbnails must become tagged as belonging to Category:Wikipedia fair use exemptions for now. Any idea can be mentioned in Category talk:Wikipedia fair use exemptions. -- ReyBrujo 02:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can delete the tag, I have seen it has already been done in some parts, I believe it is possible to keep the categories as how they were, at least in these ones, until consensus is achieved. Or tag it once the day has passed. Another workaround include doing a diff between two versions, which invalidates the tag. -- ReyBrujo 13:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: External Links

Dear Mwanner, Thanks for getting in touch. I am not posting any commercial or generic links. The articles I post are specifically related to the entries and are meant to offer an interesting perspective not necessarily appropriate to be included in the main body of the article. This is what I understand the purpose of the External Links section to be. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNicol (talk • contribs)

Re: Marbella External Links

Dear Mwanner, there must be a missunderstanding as I am the one *removing* the commercial links on the Marbella article, yet you wrote to me asking me to please stop posting links to my own site. Thanks.

Re: Manhattan picture

I'm from Rockland, and I've never been able to see the city as clearly as in that picture (especially being able to see the Citicorp building). Where in Suffern did you take it from? 66.65.7.197 17:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s, Newfoundland and Labrador

You recently created Portugal Cove-St. Philip’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, but there's already a Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Newfoundland and Labrador (note the straight, not curly, apostophe in the latter). I made your page into a redirect. OzLawyer 13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverts

Thanks for the reverts you did on Seattle, Washington and Washington in regards to Midwesterndynasty modifications to the articles. --Bobblehead 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job on reverting Moldedpulp's edits, this guy is a habitual spammer that I've had to clean up after before. Have you filed a report at WP:AIV yet? --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

One last thing- if you do, this guy also appears to be spamming from the IP 147.46.152.45, which you might include. Just let me know if you do, otherwise I can file him at AIV. Thank you. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Even so, though, all but a handful of his edits have been spamlinks, and he has continued/edited from an IP even after being given the run of warnings. If the AIV report doesn't result in anything, I'll have to see what I can do. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See? Sometimes the system does work. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFID

Thanks for the heads-up. I've blocked the user. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Links

I understand that you do not want commercial links posted on Wikipedia, and all posts that I have made were relevant to the content on the sites. Can you offer any advice for future posts so that I can avoid making any errors? Or am I going to have to jump through my monitor and take care of you with my fists? I am unsure about how to pursue your merciless reverts. TrisDG 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your feedback with regards to adding links and information to Wikipedia. Some of us were also wondering if external links can be added throughout the articles on each page, or if that is reserved for linking only to other Wikipedia pages; can external links only be posted under the External Links section?--TrisDG 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spokane

Mwanner: I've worked hard to add useful and interesting content to Spokane. I don't know where you're at, but I grew up in that town and care very much about how it presents to the outside world. Some esoteric study on poverty levels doesn't fit with anything else in the neighborhoods section. That was the point I was trying to make (albeit at your expense - I apologize; no offense intended). I believe you have to read one section in conjunction with the others it's grouped with. That study didn't mesh. It also didn't say just who was the group who solved the poverty problem, or whatever. So, the section was like a hanging chad - no one could reasonably understand why it was there.

As for the manner in which I offer changes, I will certainly avoid handling it that way again. You are right, and I'm sorry. But in answer to your specific suggestion, that I offer improvements, I believe I was doing exactly that and will continue to do so. We all own that page.

Take care. Thanks for your time.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JfrenchGU (talk • contribs)

Unspecified source for Image:Louise Brooks 1920.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louise Brooks 1920.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 10:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

You recently have removed three external links, which I have added to the Laptop article. You have explained the removal at my talk page and pointed me to the appropriate WikiPedia guidelines for external links. Thank you for your friendly response. I have to admit that I have looked for these special guidelines before but didn't find them. I have read them now. But I still don't understand why you have removed the external links. For example I have added a link to TuxMobil.org a resource about Linux on Laptops, which provides a free service since almost ten years. The site is sponsored by some (decent IMHO) ads. It provides links to almost 6,000 Linux laptop installation reports. You seem to have left the link to Linux.org untouched, though there are only a few links to reports about older laptops and many more ads. User:wehe

Woamaria External Link Issue

Mwanner-

As you've suggested, I've dug deeply into Wikipedia's policy pages, studying Talk pages (including yours) that discuss External Link (EL) policy and, beyond Wikipedia, I've read recent press and blogs by Wikipedia editors and users. And, I ended up concluding that I still am mostly in disagreement with you. So, I followed Dispute Resolution Second step: Disengage for a while, and stepped away from this for a week, then did my analysis again. But I'm afraid that I've come to the same conclusion, and it appears that, for the most part, we will have to agree to disagree.

I've inserted the emails from our exchange into my Talk page. You'll find the results of my research into the matter there, as well as my response to your last comments.

Woamaria 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of External Links

re: Kailua, Oahu Page

Mwanner,

I noticed that a link placed to one of my pages, http://www.hawaiibeachcombers.com/kailua-beach.html was removed from this page's external links. While granted the page does include ads I believe it does include substantial information that would be of interest to someone wishing to learn more about this particular location in Hawaii.

I would be the first to agree that such content might be too "subjective" to include in the Wikipedia article itself yet I sincerely believe that persons wishing to capture the attraction of this area need to know more than what the Wikipedia style of writing can, and should, allow.

Is it such that any link to a page or site that contains advertising is prohibited in Wikipedia regardless of the content that might be offered by the page/site?

Please re-visit my site keeping in mind the possibility of reinstating the link which was removed.

Thank you in advance for any and all consideration.

Rskyoung 09:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interracial friendships

Thanks for your concern. I redirected the article because, frankly, it wasn't an article. It was a research paper. It was fundamentally beyond cleanup. Finally, there is no deletion element in redirection; anyone is free to revert me. Deltabeignet 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I am not sure this is the proper way to communicate with Mwanner or not. Admittedly, I am still learning my way around Wikipedia, so I apologize if this isn't the correct approach. I was certainly not trying to spam Wikipedia, but the links I made all add substantially in some way to the material on the subjects linked to. As I understand it and reviewing the same pages in question, I see much more commercial links on these page, which frankly I am trying to avoid. On a number of photographers I was simply adding each link to a biography and a special exhibit of images by those photographers or to a substantive group of photographs by the specific photographer for research. I also intend later to at least build stubs for a number of important photographers that are not yet in the system, because I have substantial bio information that I have written on several hundred photographers. I am also not certain how one disagrees with another Wikipedia person, the etiquette involved and how differences of opinion get resolved. But my intentions were pure, I can assure you. All the best. Photoarts 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote

First, thanks for your note, and yes, you did it correctly. I'm sorry that I jumped to the conclusion that you were a spammer-- you're edits yesterday fit the profile in a lot of ways, and you appeared to be pushing the site www.iphotocentral.com, which is clearly engaged in online retail trade. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia's External links policy (and maybe WP:Spam). As for the commercial links already on those pages you edited that I did not remove, please understand that when we think we find spamming in progress, the tendency is to quickly remove it without going through the more laborious process of checking all of the pre-existing links in every article involved. So yes, there probably are a number of other commercial links that ought to be removed, and as you are likely to be working in those articles far more than I am, let me urge you to be bold and remove any that you see fit.

As to your original (and admirable) intensions, it can be difficult to find good ways to illustrate articles. We have to avoid commercial links as assiduously as possible precicely because so many people see Wikipedia's high traffic and open access as an invitation to post free ads-- if there weren't a lot of people working hard to keep them out, our articles would be burried in spam. Nevertheless, there are, generally, non-commercial sites carrying the kind of images you're looking for (see, for example http://www.wesleyan.edu/dac/coll/photos.html, http://www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/guac/japan_04/kusakabe_tea_1880.jpg, http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/museum/7.html for Kusakabe Kimbei). Also, please note that generally, images published in the US before 1923 are in the public domain, and can be added directly to Wikipedia, not as external links (if you would like help and/or advice on doing so, I would be glad to be of assistance).

Wikipedia can be a vast and confusing place, but well worth the trouble. Happy editing!

My further query:

Thanks for your clarification, suggestions and pleasant civility. That is all very helpful to a newbie like myself. But I have a question: the sites that you list as examples of alternatives to the one I used only show one image by Kimbei, and the link I had put up connected directly to a dozen images by Kimbei. And most of the other links that you edited out had even more images and often extensive biographical content. I used the site in question, because it often has good editorial material on photographers and a large number of photographs that are just not any where else on the web and can be brought together under one simple URL address, making it a good reference builder. Just an FYI--the very first external link on this page (Kimbei article) is that of a commercial dealer in Asian images. His site is still an excellent and pertinent resource, IMHO, and so should probably stay. Frankly I would probably have added him and the other non-commercial resource, which I use regularly. When I read the Wikipedia directions on this, they seem to say that commercial sites could be used as link references when they have a unique or important perspective on a given topic. If you agree, would you mind me adding a number of commercial (and, of course, non-commercial) sources that I might normally use in my research anyway, as long as they were clearly on point and had something important to add? Also, as you note, it is hard to get copyright permission for images after 1923 and even be sure of it prior to that date, so what if commercial sites are the best alternative to showing depth for a specific photographer?

Also, on another topic, I think you mentioned posting up such links to the talk page on the particular subject/photographer, but these pages seem not to get any discussion. Most have not even been started yet. I am not sure that this would move along the process of getting better descriptions/listings. Alternatives?

Thanks again for any of your help and your kind patience.Photoarts 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Saratoga

I see you restored a paragraph about Saratoga being the first battle with large amount of troops on both sides. I don't want to get into a revert war with you (I see your other good edits elsewhere). So could you add a reference to that comment? The Battle of Long Island had the biggest collection of troops on the field (at least according to the Wiki article). The Siege of Boston was an American victory that used pretty conventional tactics. The comments about France are mentioned elswhere in the article. To me the paragraph is unnecessary and inaccurate or covered elsewhere. Thanks. Americasroof 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! In addition I just wikied the title here. Keep up the good work! Americasroof 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV

Thanks for venting. Please remember, though, blocks are preventative, not punitive. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point; if a user has had several "last warnings" and appears to back off for a while before starting again, note in your summary at WP:AIV that those warnings are there, and the block will be much more likely. Thanks again! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Syntax

Glad to help. Yuo haev no idea how many tiems I get things backwards around here.  :) Lucky 6.9 01:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam advice

Thanks for the friendly advice. I will be more judicious in my editing.KonaScout 13:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bemused, much like the rest

You kindly pointed out I am new to wiki and removed an external link to my blog. I understand why you would remove links, in this case from the word entrepreneur, but like the othrs I see completely pointless and unhelpful links already in the notes. My blog is free, has no adverts, has no commercial purpose and is written by me. I am an entrepreneur of 23 years, a lecturer at the London Business School teaching MBA students on the topic so I feel qualified on the topic. Also, my articles run into 100s pages so I don't think it makes sense to discuss them all on the page. Therefore I have added a link to my pages so others with an interest in the topic can visit. SURELY this is the point of external links and resources??

Its not spam - its real world, useful information on the topic.

If I am misunderstanding what is allowed or sensible do let me know? Right now i am trying to enrich the resource, whereas the other links seem to be commercial or useless links...they should be removed and mine should be left!

(Jsgbrown = Jsgbrown)

About the site of Playa del Carmen with the map and the directory

Hi Mwanner,

I have added that link because I always knew that if somebody has something to give to the comunity regarding a specific thema is always welcome. I don't think that that site is commercial. Every page is complety free and we don't sell the possibility to navigate the site and to take the information located in the site. There is a very good directory where you can find everything about Playa del Carmen. After that you have a comprehensive navigable map of the city that allows you to locate easily what you need to find. Everything is free! The site wants to be a portal that gives the opportunity to the internet user to find what they want and how to contact a specific shop, hotel and restaurant. All these information are added for free, without any cost. If you look the portal, you will see a sign up section where everybody, without any cost, can join to the system. Only in the case that a specific company wants to put an advertising, we charge it. Every site uses this system.

After that I think that is easily to see that in the page of Playa del Carmen there are other real external link of commercial sites, with the only purpose to sell and not to give information about the city. We give information but we has been deleted from the list.

Of course, this is only my opinion but I'd like to know what you think about this.

Regards,

Carolfab

Links on Migraine

I have put the following link back on the Migraine page as it provides a significant amount of information on triptans. I have contributed to this page several times over the years, and don't know why you're suddenly deleting links that I added to it.

Triptans: Overview and Comprehensive Profiles

I would appreciate understanding your reasoning for removing some of the links you removed before I do anything more to the page.

Thanks!

--TeriRobert 10:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Wanted to thank you for stopping by my talk page and answering my question. I posted a reply to you there.

Thanks again,

--TeriRobert 05:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop to delete links that are not commercial!

Stop to delete links that are not commercial! Mwanner, I think that before you should try to answer to all our questions before to delete something. This media is not yours. Here you have the possibility to answer to our question and explain your idea. This doesn't mean that your idea can be ok. But we can discuss and find a solution. TeriRobert has right and what I have seen, you have not answered to him too.

So please, don't delete our link without an explenation. If this link is commercial for you, we could delete many other links (that are really commercial) included in the linsting on the page of "Playa del Carmen".

We are waiting for your answer!!

Carolfab

Responded on User_talk:201.96.62, since that appears to be where you edit from. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)