Wikipedia

User talk:Airplaneman/Archive 16

< User talk:Airplaneman
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Airplaneman in topic Supernatural copyedit
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody!


Stats
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars.

 
GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July
  • Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest.
  • Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+).
  • The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc.
  • The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono.
  • Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+).
  • The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK.
  • The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey.
  • The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr.
  • The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW.


Gold Star Award

Gold Star Award Leaderboard
Articles Words 5k+ Articles
1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13)
2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8)
3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7)
4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6)
5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5)

Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

My Guest book

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, what do you think I should do because of the vandalism from Nascar1995 and Lopizza (or what ever)? I don't understand how they got a hold of my guestbook. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They probably just found the link to it from your sig. As for what to do, I would warn them, and report them to AIV if needed. You could also request semi-protection of the page if you want. Airplaneman ✈ 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and their actions reek of sock-puppetry. I highly suspect the accounts are operated by one person. Airplaneman ✈ 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking they were socks, too. I also will consider having my guest book semi protected. They need to be warned; I find it weird that there are a Nascar1995 then a Nascar1967. Also one made a comment that they don't even like NASCAR. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they're here to play. I would suggest trying to turn them into constructive users. If that doesn't work, well… anyway, see Wikipedia:Username policy#Similar usernames, to which Nascar1995 may apply. Maybe they should change their username. Don't let this bug you :) Airplaneman ✈ 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User(s) warned. Airplaneman ✈ 11:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, for your help. This is really the first time anything in my user space has been badly vandalised. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 13:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Novels

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey did you see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Category:American_novels, the discussion is kindof stalling and we could use some new thoughts. Sadads (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me; it's been a long day and my brain is quite fried. I've read the discussion and will keep tabs on it, but I feel that I will offer a better opinion if I have some time to think this over and a well-rested brain :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA. It was an eye-opening experience. I will not be trying for it again any time soon, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't turn out well. There's always a next time :) Airplaneman ✈ 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Latest comment: 14 years ago95 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Airplanman,

I have materials (complete with references etc.) for a new article and wanted to check out if you would be interested in creating it, provided I can send it directly to your e-mail if possible (with attachments and photographs).

Mountlovcen8 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment and don't have time to create an article from scratch; how about you create it in your sandbox or a subpage of yours and I can help you from there? Also, make sure your photographs are free. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article will be ready in the next several days. Some other people are diligently working on it (but I am not sure of their technical knowledge about Wikipedia so I am trying to coordinate everything). I don’t want to waste your time until the article is almost complete and ready for your review and final touch ups, fine tuning and possible adjustments. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I can't wait to see it! And a general comment: could you try using edit summaries? Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplanman, I think the article is ready for your review and it needs a few things fixed, so I would kindly ask you to open the Sandbox you have created for me. (1) References did not appear in the separate section. There was an explanation about some templates and how to do it, but I was busy with the text and now that instruction is gone. (2) In the selected works, poems appear as one column but they should be in three. It must be that I did something wrong. It should stay the same, except that there must be three columns, otherwise, like this, it is too long and doesn’t look nice. (3) In the first paragraph of the section Style, the last sentence and one half of a previous one appear in cursive. I had a problem with some titles and pressed italics button many times (right before this part) and I think that caused it. I am tired now, but I think the article will be very nice. And, of course, the title will be the name of the person. I tried to do as much as I could to spare you and it took me a lot of time to figure out how to deal with photographs. I would greatly appreciate it if you review the article and do some final editing and fine tuning. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an awesome article! I am touched (and glad for Wikipedia) that you put so much effort into this :). I will go ahead and make some tweaks - overall, this is great. Virtual high-five! Airplaneman ✈ 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. Next thing I need to do is help attribute the photos you uploaded for the page (which are great). If they are indeed free, the correct host is http://www.commons.wikimedia.org a photo-wiki for the Wikipedia projects. I have one question - did you take the photos? If not, who did? I need the info so I can add the correct templates to the files. After making sure they are all free, I will mark them as candidates to be transwikied (moved across wikis) to the commons. They will then be deleted here and stored at the commons, so anybody and any language project can make use of them. How does this sound?
Airplaneman ✈ 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplanman, Thank you very much for your kind words. I appreciate the work you are doing. (1) Regarding the text (maybe you overlooked it), the first part of the section Selected works, Poems, should be converted into three columns (it is too long as it is)—I probably used a wrong command. (2) Under the first photograph, within the frame, it says –Yugoslavia (the full name was SFR Yugoslavia). To me this doesn’t matter but I am just informing you so you can decide. (3) I noticed that sometimes before the name and the last name, where pronunciation is described based on IPA standards, there is an apostrophe. I think it is distracting (makes it more complicated), mostly with Serbian names, while, for instance, it is not used with the name of Vladimir Nabokov. I did not use it, but maybe you know if there is some special reason for that; if not, I think it is easier without it. I would appreciate it, because the article is now in a final form, to publish it once you do the final check up. Please keep in mind that there is a letter—ć, at the end of the last name, so I would advise you to copy the name from the article when you create the title of the new page. The three photographs, bellow, are licensed under CCO 1.0. Please check these links:

Regarding the first photograph—it was taken in the office and there is no any copyright related to it and you have the approval to use it. Regarding the second one—I already explained to Magog Ogre (if you go to my talk page you can see it), it is almost 50 years old and there is no copyright problem. I have the right to publish it and I transfer it to you. Regarding the third one—it was taken by his cousin (Vuko Rakocević) in Belgrade in 1981. If you go to this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic_21.jpg And scroll down, you will see him with his mother, Olga Stojanović (nee Rakocević), in Peć, circa 1959. I was thinking of including this photograph, along with Prince Nicholas Petrović Njegoš of Montenegro, but I was not sure if that would be too much. You can make that decision, and Nicholas photograph is here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovi%C4%87_and_Prince_Nicholas_Petrovi%C4%87_Njego%C5%A1_of_Montenegro.jpg The photograph was taken in the Prince’s apartment in Paris in May of 1990 and is also licensed under CCO 1.0 Universal at the Internet Archives (the link is one of the first three listed). I think, your idea for the to be transwikied (moved across wikis) is great and if you need more photographs for that purpose, I am providing you with additional links bellow, all licensed under CCO 1.0 Universal. If you even need more or think that would be appropriate or beneficial, I can provide you (upload) more photographs. 

More photographs at the Internet Archives, free to download:

http://www.archive.org/details/DejanStojanovicAndSaulBellow http://www.archive.org/details/ConversationSaulBellowAndDejanStojanovic http://www.archive.org/details/MomoKaporAndDejanStojanovicBelgrade1990ConversationsRazgovori http://www.archive.org/details/DejanStojanovicInterviewWithHelenDelichBentley http://www.archive.org/details/HelenDelichBentleyInterviewWithDejanStojanovic http://www.archive.org/details/PrinceTomislavKaradjordjevicInAConversationWithDejanStojanovic http://www.archive.org/details/DejanStojanovicAndJacqueClaudeVillardParisMay1990 http://www.archive.org/details/InterviewDejanStojanovicAndAlekVukadinovic http://www.archive.org/details/DejanStojanovicAndAlekVukadinovic http://www.archive.org/details/SteveTesicAndDejanStojanovicConversations Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have used the term row instead of column to describe how the first section in the Selected works, titled Poems, should look like. There should be three rows. If there is any misunderstanding please look at the Robert Frost page. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, column is the correct word. I saw Frosts' page; erm, I used {{div col}} with the "cols=" parameter set at "3". It divides the columns evenly automatically. It is working for me; I will look into it. Airplaneman ✈ 02:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it doesn't seem to work with the browsers Internet Explorer and Opera. I'll use the ones you showed me on Frosts' page, then. Thanks for telling me! Also, thanks for the image links. I think we'll stick with the current ones because too many images will make the page load slower. Airplaneman ✈ 03:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate very much the good work you do. Article is much nicer now with three columns. You are not only kind but also very prompt and efficient. Please feel free to publish the article when you are ready. Again, thank you very much. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you please try to resolve the issue related to photographs with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magog_the_Ogre or from my talk page. I sent you more information than what I sent him. I think he marked those photographs as candidates for deletion but there is no reason based on the license CCO 1.0 Universal at the Internet Archives, and based on the information I provided you with about other photographs. (Those labels—candidates for deletion, don’t look nice under the photographs). Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded this photograph--File:Dejan Stojanović, Chicago, 2003.jpg, which is the same as the first one in the article, but it is larger; the one used in the article was cropped. Please evaluate whether to use this one or to keep the one already used. If you think this one is better, please feel free to replace the existing one with this one. This is the adress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovi%C4%87,_Chicago,_2003.jpg Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I received the same information from Magog for the last photograph I sent you. There is no issue with these photographs. They can all be used under the license CCO 1.0 Universal. It looks that the message from his is something automatic because he did not answer my messages. I did not choose the tag because I did not know exactly which one is the right one because I don’t think there is a CCO 1.0 Universal listed there. I think the information I provided you with is sufficient. I am sorry for bothering you with this, but would you please try to resolve this because I don’t know how to fix this? Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you would please tell me which one of the licenses on the list is the equivalent of CCO 1.0 Universal, or what tag to use (the name), although once uploaded, pages with photographs don’t show the list of licenses so I am not sure now how to do this, or should I reload everything once you tell me the right license (tag). Thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked by Mountlovcen8 to respond to questions, and I'm going to do so here in the interest of keeping the topic centralized. When you first upload the file, you will have the option to provide one of several licenses to the image. The first thing: if you are the one that took the image, is you can choose the option that says "my own work" on the upload form, and it will fill out the form for you. Next, make sure to choose a license. You can choose {{self|cc-by-3.0|GFDL}}, {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, {{self|cc-by-3.0}}, {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}, or {{PD-self}}. Out of these licenses, the last one is the most open: anyone can use it for any reason and does not have to give you attribution. The cc-by-3.0 means anyone can use it for any reason (within law), but must give you attribution. The cc-by-sa-3.0 means they can use it for any legal reason, but if they use it, the work that they create must have a similar license to cc-by-sa. If you aren't the photographer, or don't own the copyright to the photo, then we'll need to address that separately. You can actually add these tags directly to the images by clicking on the image, and choosing "edit", just like you would a normal page on Wikipedia. If you have any more questions, feel free to let me know, or drop by the help desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Magog, Thank you very much. Your instructions were very helpful and the problem is resolved now. I hope I have chosen the right license. I am already so pleased with Airplanman and now I see another example of kindness and efficiency. You both do a great work to the benefit of all society. There is nothing more elevating and noble than spreading knowledge and helping others. I thank you both for that. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplanman, I think this is resolved now. There was some confusion produced by different talk pages, but the whole thing is easy. Please, don’t replace the first photograph with a new one. I checked it again and the one already there is better. If you would please remove the speed deletion tags now; I don’t want to interfere and I don’t know if I should do it, otherwise would not bother you with that. I think there are no issues now so please free to publish the page. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Magog, for taking the time to help sort things out. Sorry for the late reply, Mountlovcen. I was a bit busy in real life today, which I consider more important :). Looks like you tagged the images with the CC 3.0 tag, not the CC 1.0 tag. I'll go ahead and fix it - the correct template is {{cc-zero}}. I have checked the photo links you provided and since the images are free, I'll look into requesting that they be ported to the Wikimedia Commons. Airplaneman ✈ 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed this part: you said earlier that File:Dejan Stojanovic, Chicago.jpg was "taken in the office" - does that mean you took it? You said File:Dejan Stojanovic 21.jpg is over 50 years old. I don't think it was taken before 1923, though, which is when copyright expires on any and all works (see here). Could you be more specific? Lastly, I didn't find a source link in the above text for File:Dejan Stojanovic, 1981.jpg; could you provide one (or did you take it)? I'm only being nit-picky because Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued for hosting copyrighted images. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of these licenses exactly or maybe my interpretation is different. To make it clear — I did not take any of these photographs but I have the right to publish them. (For instance, a photograph taken 50 years ago has no copyright holder.) Regarding the one you say misses the source link — maybe I was not precise in one of my earlier message but here is the source, described in that message, again—“Regarding the third one—it was taken by his cousin (Vuko Rakocević) in Belgrade in 1981.” Regarding the one in the office – it is one of those photographs taken by asking the first person nearby and nobody even remembers who took it, so there is no copyright holder or any obstruction related to it. If there is some other license, more appropriate, I would use that one. I did not mean that I took the photographs but only that I am the owner with a right to publish them. I don’t know if this helps or if my interpretation of the license is correct. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you were right that the correct template is

based on the facts I offered, since I have the right to waive the right (this is the simplest explanation) so it should be converted to this template. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplanman, I would like to inform you that my modem sometimes disconnects and sometimes I leave the things on my screen for hours before I come back. Today, when I came back I thought I was still signed on because there was Wikipedia still on my screen. The modem went off in the mean time but I thought I would be still signed on with Wikipedia and when I pressed the talk button, some other information appeared. I was confused; it said to do some test check and similar and I got out and got back on to check it out again and saw some strange information about somebody doing editing from some IP number that was listed on the screen. None of these things have anything to do with me, so I don’t know how this happened and what it means exactly. It seemed so strange and based on what I remember the information to contact the administrator if this is the IP number. There were multiple articles listed that I have never seen in my life. I don’t even know my IP number but I know that I have nothing to do with any of this. I am sorry for bothering you but maybe we need to check out what is happening or if you can contact the administrator. It looks like somebody is doing something wrong and I found out about this by accident when I wanted to go to your talk page from my talk page and accidentally (since obviously I was not signed in with Wikipedia at that moment) I discovered this. Is this only the wrong information or is there any possibility that somebody can not only misuse Wikipedia but also misuse who knows what else?

Regarding the article, I think it is ready now but if you would please check out the licenses and which template is most appropriate, and insert it if needed, before publishing. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This means someone was using the same IP address as you to edit. This doesn't mean you did it. It simply means someone probably shares an IP address with you. An example could be that you share the same network. It is nothing to worry about (unless you can find the person making the edits and warn them not to mess up Wikipedia :P) as long as you weren't the culprit. As for the article, I'd like to resolve the photo issues before publication. Since you didn't take the photos I asked about a few posts ago and we can't find official authorization that says they are free, I cannot assume they are free. I asked an administrator for an opinion. Here is what he had to say. He referred me to another user who knows copyright stuff well. I think I'll ask him about this. The article, however, is great (better than any I have created from scratch!) Airplaneman ✈ 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this. You say they are from a private collection - is it your private collection? Airplaneman ✈ 02:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is--yes. This part of the message relates to comments by Blurpeace. The photograph taken circa 1962 of a child, obviously, was taken in Pec, Kosovo, the former Yugoslavia (where and when people even didn’t have any idea of copyright laws). Also, nobody has any recollection of this and there is no way in the Universe that there can be a problem with it. The one from 1981 was taken in the park in Belgrade by a cousin (also thirty years ago without any idea of not releasing the copyright, which means it is free to be published and there is no possibility of a problem with it). They are out of any dispute, as well as the one with Steve Tesich, taken by the cousin in Chicago in 1991, who released the right and I have the authorization. Similarly, the one with Saul Bellow was done in a friendly manner with an understanding that it can be freely published. The one in the office was taken by an accidental person and nobody remembers who it was, which means that a person who took it cannot remember it too and, again, there is no way that there can be any problem with that photograph, even theoretically. It was long time ago and by a pure accident. People don’t remember accidental things even a few days later.

Regarding the IP, I understand now and it is good I asked you. I was so surprised but now understand it better. I remember when once I had my line used by somebody else and started receiving numerous calls every day. When the technician fixed it, he said there was another line using the same line. There are some strange things happening with electronics.

Thank you very much for the compliment regarding the article. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear it up: The comments were made by fetchcomms (at my request), and although he did refer me to Blurpeace, he did not comment on this. Now, back to the photos. It is not enough to say that people didn't know about copyright laws, or that it was an accident, or that they were taken by friends and given to you. The photographers own the copyright unless they specifically say that it may be used by anyone. WP:C contains guidelines on copyrights for Wikipedia. This site has strict rules on non-free content because it is a free encyclopedia; it needs to avoid breaching copyright laws. Since you said the images that I haven't tagged with the CC1.0 template are in your private collection, does that mean you own them? Airplaneman ✈ 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it means that. And there is no problem with Bellow, but I will still replace it with Prince Nicholas. This is 100% safe. (Regarding the templates, I’ve been checking these things and making some changes during these days so please check out again. I think the one you mentioned ((cc-zero)) is the right one. Please make sure when you publish it that this is the title – Dejan Stojanović (the last letter is not c [it has a little mark on it]). Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've asked Blurpeace for a third opinion on the following images from your collection (since you own them but are not the author to them): File:Dejan Stojanovic, Chicago.jpg, File:Dejan Stojanovic 21.jpg, File:Dejan Stojanovic, 1981.jpg. The other two were covered in the links you gave. Airplaneman ✈ 23:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This message is related to the image with Prince Nicholas (and I own the image so there is no confusion). I don’t know if you have any special protocol regarding the text describing the image. Should the person about who the article is be first mentioned or it doesn’t matter? Also, it was in the Prince’s apartment in Paris. If you think any of this is important (like that it was in his apartment) please feel free to change it. Do you think signature (beneath the first photograph) would be appropriate or make the article better? In case you do, please instruct and I will provide you with that so you can include it (I would not like to mess up something). I appreciate your help very much. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... if you're talking about a caption, they usually name the people depicted from left to right. As for his signature, it is not required, and I only recommend uploading it if it is free and you have a source link. I will wait for the file issues to be resolved before publishing (Magog tagged them because they lacked sources). Airplaneman ✈ 01:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask about Prince’s signature but about the person’s presented in the article. Regarding the photograph with Steve Tesich - it is not from the outside source. How did Magog get that idea I don’t know. It is true that it is at the Internet Archives but it was not downloaded to Wikipedia from there. I own the photograph and there is not even 0.1% chance that you would have a problem with the photograph with Steve Tesich. But, if the exclusion of that photograph pleases Magog, please feel free to publish the article without it and don’t bother explaining (too much headache). It doesn’t matter so much. I can perhaps include the one with Prince Tomislav Karadjordjevic instead. I don’t want to bother you anymore with this, but again, all photographs that are in the article now, I own, including Prince Nicholas, Prince Tomislav (just letting you know in case I include it in the article), and Steve Tesich. You already wasted so much of your valuable time on this and I appreciate that. If all you have now is OK, please publish it. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Prince Tomislav is not uploaded yet, maybe it is better to publish it as it is than to bother with new messages and explanations. (Also, disregard the signature from the previous message.) Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this would help: Please tell Magog to delete all other images except these four already in the article now. The purpose was only this article. I can delete other images if you tell me how. For these four, in the article now, I state again that I own them and there is no problem of any kind to publish them. This will probably resolve the problem and reduce confusion. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I will look into it. Magog isn't an administrator, so he can't delete them. Since you requested it, I'll put the tag {{db-g7}} on all photos not currently in the article. After that, we need to resolve the sourcing issues for the four photos in the article. I doubt the exclusion of the photos will please Magog; he is just enforcing copyright laws when he sees photos that may not be free. His tags give the reason: no source information. Since you said they were from your private collection but were taken by others, I am not 100% sure who owns the copyright. I am pretty sure it would still be held by the photographers, and that the images will be deleted (some already have been) for insufficient sourcing. Please realize that all this tagging and deleting is to ensure that Wikipedia is kept free and people don't file lawsuits and such against Wikipedia using their photos without their explicit permission. People who tag/delete your contributions are just doing the dirty work. Airplaneman ✈ 12:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplanman, I’ve just read the comment related to photographs and I am stating that none of these photographs, including the ones Magog (deleted) were from other websites and they are not printed materials either. I provided the links to Internet Archives as a reference so you can see that there is no problem (some of them are at the Internet Archives). Comment that they are “obviously” from other sites is only a conclusion and not a fact.

Wikipedia exceeded my expectations in terms of becoming the main source of information on the whole Internet. I’ve been so happy to watch over the years how it grows and I always use it as a source of information. This would have not been possible without people like you. I also appreciate strong policies and high criteria because Wikipedia and the people who are using it deserve it. Still, I just want to clarify this and help Magog understand. Again, there is no infringement of any kind with the photographs in the article. I am the source. This was all done to make the article better, more informative, esthetically more appealing, and for noble causes. If even this doesn’t suffice and pleases Magog, then I don’t know what else to tell you. If he still wants to delete everything, please let him delete all of them. Further discussion about this, in this manner, would be unnecessary and frustrating for all of us. You already invested a lot of your time and effort into this article and I feel bad at this point and don’t want to be a cause of frustration for you. I think common sense and wisdom should rule us in all we do. I appreciate your efforts very much.

At the time of writing this message I received a message from you and am adding this part now. I think a common sense should be used. For example – (1) the photograph taken almost 50 years ago in Pec, Kosovo—how there can be a problem with it since the person who took it is not even alive and I am the only source? (I mean, just think logically—there is no other valid source of it except me). How can there be a problem with the first photograph I the article if there is no other source either? 3) How can there be a problem with the one taken in 1981 in Belgrade if I have the right to publish and take all responsibility? (4) The same goes for Prince Nicholas? You say that they still can be deleted. We have to resolve this before it is published because I would not like to receive messages or notices placed on the article, once it is published, for no reason because I know that these photographs are 100% safe. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's frustrating. It has to do with U.S. copyright laws. The tags were asking for who took the image because as of now, that's unclear. I'll wait for further input, but remember, look on the bright side - article itself is great! Airplaneman ✈ 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

While I was writing this message I got disconnected but thought I was still on, so I sent the message but noticed there was no signature and then I ralized what happened. I thought I was on. So I deleted that message and place it here again when I am on with a signature. (I think the system did not recognize for tildes for that reason. Technician fixed the line a week ago but it still doesn't work properly.

This is the message and an answer to your message: I understand and, again, thank you, but the article, you must admit, is esthetically much more appealing with photographs and in a way more informative; photographs bring some additional flair to it. My understanding, based on common sense (not based on reading), of copyright laws is that they exist for books, paintings, photographs and other works (scientific for instance) because they are works of art and science that need to be protected and they were produced with that intent. Photographs privately taken, without any intent to be used for commercial purposes and without any rights held, in my opinion, do not belong to that category. It is not just that they were privately taken but there is no infringement of any kind or even a theoretical chance for a problem. Not even a single incident happened with these photographs at a few other places they can be found on (since last year) and the same source is providing you with them. They are not coming from some other source (external or any other kind). There could be a problem only if somebody without the right to publish them tried to do that. If the right person, who understands these matters, interprets it, then that person would agree, based on the facts already explained in various messages, that there is no infringement of any kind. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2: Well, I wish it worked this way too. I've asked Blurpeace for his take on it so we'll see what he says. Airplaneman ✈ 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing notices attached to these four photographs, I realized they all state – this file has no source information. It looks like only the source produces confusion. Then, maybe this statement would clarify the whole thing: Dejan Stojanovic is the source of the four photographs in the article. There is no infringement of any kind and all is done bona fide to the benefit of Wikipeadia (out of admiration) and to the benefit of its users and readers. If you want to edit this source information and make it simpler, please feel free to do so and place it appropriately with those photographs. Thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It saddens me to say that this most likely means the images aren't free, as they were taken by someone other than yourself. As I understand from here, the images you uploaded do not fall under any of the four criteria. A fair use rationale would not work because it is possible to obtain a free image of Mr. Stojanovic. I have found the relevant policy detailing what I've been trying to say at WP:C, in this section:
As it now stands, Wikipedia does not have permission to use the creative work of the photographer of the image you have. It's complicated and frustrating, and I would offer the same reasoning you have offered (as it is the most logical), but that guideline is what Wikipedia has to follow. An option you have is to provide the external links to the photographs that you gave me above in the article's external links section. How does that sound? I know it isn't ideal, but it is the best thing I can think of. Airplaneman ✈ 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights for the images 1981 and with the Prince were disclaimed. For the first one, Stojanovic doesn’t remember who took the photograph (it was a person nearby who took it with his camera and it was long time ago; there is no way that person who took it would remember either). For the one in Pec almost 50 years ago, it can be only said that the only source is Stojanovic; there is no other. So, these photographs are clean; the only thing is how to interpret the law because there must be a way.

I did not understand the part about the outside source links. What did you mean? To keep the photographs on Wikipedia but to state they are from the outside source? If that is the case, then that is a good idea. Three of these, except one in Pec in 1961 (as a child) are already on the Internet Archives and only the one as a child is at Stojanovic’s website. If that is the solution and they stay within the article, that is a good idea and I don’t see any problem with it. In that case, if you think the article would be better with Steve Tesich and Saul Bellow, or one of them, we can bring them back. Regards and thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia needs concrete evidence of the photos being disclaimed. More can be found at WP:COPYREQ, specifically the first paragraph of the first section. I don't know how else to put this. About the external links - I was saying that you could put the URLs to the photographs on the Internet archives and to the one on Stojanovic’s website here; I suggested that because the photos uploaded from those sites are on track for deletion because their copyright statuses can't be verified (per the first two sentences of this post). Airplaneman ✈ 03:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Photographs were never uploaded here from those sites (I stated this before); rather from the same source that provided those sites with them. I will read now about verification or you can tell me, if you know, what is needed. In the meantime, maybe the article can be published with the links and photographs incorporated later on when you instruct me how to provide you with verification. I am sorry for bothering you with this, but maybe it is better if I send you the links to make sure it is done properly. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the sentence from the link you provided: “If the poster or uploader claims to be the copyright holder and website owner him- or herself, leave them a message on-Wiki asking them to include a license statement on their website that says that the text or image in question is indeed published under the claimed license.” My understanding of this sentence is that if Stojanovic would make this disclaimer at the Internet Archives and the other website, then there would be no problem for Wikipedia. Am I right? Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, WP:COPYREQ details the procedure. You should contact the taker of the photos and ask them for a declaration of consent. Then you go through the volunteer response team which validates that and gives you a "ticket" to put on the photos released through the declaration. May you please give me a link to Stojanovic's website? WP:COPYREQ states "Sometimes, images from other websites are uploaded and claimed to be under a free license (CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain, {{No rights reserved}}, or others.) If the external website does not have any indication that such claims are well-founded, it is a good idea to try to verify such claims." If Stojanovic's website contains well-founded claims, we may be able to salvage the images. Sorry for the massive confusion above. I don't work much with files, usually, so I'm learning, too  . Airplaneman ✈ 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I feel sorry for bothering you this much but I would have never thought that the laws about images are so complicated, regardless of the fact that based on a common sense there is no problem. The statements you provided in two boxes would be needed at the other websites for this to be resolved? Just to make sure. Then in that case, this is resolved. Please, just confirm and this will be done accordingly. (Do you think the article would be better with the images removed, or one moved back, since there will be this statement on other sites before that is done?) Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm encouraged to help because you're diligent and want to improve the encyclopedia, which is encouraging! I think what you said is the general idea. Before we proceed, could you provide a link to where the copyright release statement is? Airplaneman ✈ 04:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you recognized that my intent is to improve Wikipedia. That is true, regardless of how modest my input is. But if we all do little, but well, then these contributions will make this place – Wikipedia – even greater than it already is. Here are the links for three photographs, except the one as a child, and that one must be done separately, and only as a statement, because of the nature of that site where there no these forms. If there is any confusion, there is an edit button to open it for further information. The first photograph in the article is listed as third one here but only a leg can be seen there so HTTP button needs to be pressed and the whole photograph can be viewed. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC) http://www.archive.org/details/PrinceNicholasPetroviNjegoOfMontenegroWithDejanStojanovicParis http://www.archive.org/editxml/PoemInFrenchByDejanStojanovicTranslatedByBorislavLazic http://www.archive.org/details/MasteryByDejanStojanovic http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (this link is only for information and not a link to the photograph) Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the right link for the second one in the last message (that one was right too, but was a link for editing). Two of these photographs, except the one with the Prince, are cropped a little bit. Here is the right link. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC) http://www.archive.org/details/PoemInFrenchByDejanStojanovicTranslatedByBorislavLazic

OK. I'll see what Blurpeace has to say :). Airplaneman ✈ 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to check if you clarified this with Blurpeace? Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet; I'll do some more research on this tomorrow, and maybe I can sort this out for good :). I think you were missing the information template, with the description and everything (there was only a source template there). This file is an example of an image from Flickr uploaded and kept. Airplaneman ✈ 04:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right; it’s only a matter of how to classify and describe it. Since I am not familiar with these things, I did not know what the right template is. But I think now you are close to resolution and when you resolve it, please feel free to use the right template; the one that is not producing confusion (because there is no infringement of any kind anyway). Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that if the images are indeed free, the place to upload them is the Wikimedia Commons. More detailed instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Upload. Airplaneman ✈ 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I uploaded them them at Wikipedia:Upload. Also thanks for the link to Wikimedia Commons, which is an article, where I found the link to Commons Copyright tags. I think that this one, ironically, describes this sitation the best:

– for works too trivial to be copyrighted.

I wouldn’t say that these photographs are trivial (only because of the person on them) but the reasons in relation to copyright laws, as explained before, are non-existent. These photographs were not taken with the intent to be copyrighted. For the first two of them, it cannot be even established, under any circumstance, who took them since they were incidental (on the street or in the office) and one was taken almost 50 years ago. Even if we wanted, nobody can establish copyrights on these photographs since for the first two nobody would know, even the people who took them (the person who took the second one is most likely dead since it was so long ago). The reasons were trivial and therefore they are ineligible. The same applies for the other two, because cousins never intended to establish copyrights, which means they are ineligible. So, the best explanations is that they are not eligible, which is true. (I just don’t like the term that works themselves are too trivial because of the person on them. Usually copyrighted works are done with that intent and at least with some artistic purpose and they are done professionally. I think when photographs are taken by pure chance, almost accidentally, by that sheer fact they do not belong to works of art. They can have a value only because of what is on that photograph (or just because it so happened) and not because there was some special treatment or input. For instance, somebody takes a camera and takes a photograph, which takes a few seconds, on the street or in the office and nobody remembers it: that is a photograph taken in a trivial situation and for trivial reasons (from a point of vew of the person who took it and will not remember that even a month later, not to mention years). Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how it goes. I think you still need to add an image description in addition to the license template, though. I'm learning with you :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me with the description; not because I cannot do it but because I want to do it properly so there is no confusion. These photographs are definitely ineligible and that is the most important part. The rest is technicality and maybe you know better what description fits this circumstance the best. Thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. May you please provide the links to the images you uploaded? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am summarizing the descriptions again for you to choose the best language. The first photograph in the office: not only that the circumstance or reason for taking it is trivial (it was completely accidental) but there is no possibility of even establishing the original authorship. The same applies to the almost 50-year-old photograph (by the way, in the former Yugoslavia copyright laws were 50 years, not 100, if it has not been changed recently; the one, not in the article, but at the Wikipedia upload and below this one [with the mother] is more than 50 years old ). In any case, even with that photograph, the circumstance and reasons were trivial; therefore not only that the original authorship cannot be established, it is also legally nonexistent. The third and the fourth photographs were taken by cousins, without any intent of establishing copyrights or authorships, and like in the first two cases almost accidentally (the third photograph taken in the park just because the camera was accidentally there and there was no special intent of taking that photograph or establishing authorship). The fourth one was under similar circumstance and without any desire to establish an authorship or copyright. Note: The circumstances under which these photographs were taken and the reasons of the people who took them (although in the case of the first two there is no way to ever find out who took them) are, we can say—trivial, and exclude any possibility of infringement. Photographs are simply ineligible. This is the general explanation and maybe you can sort it out in a better way. Here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_Chicago.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic_21.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_1981.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovi%C4%87_and_Prince_Nicholas_Petrovi%C4%87_Njego%C5%A1_of_Montenegro.jpg

I appreciate your help very much. Thanks. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I just took a look at this. I can't really add a full description or provide the source information without knowing who the author is. The template for the images is {{Information}}. If the images do indeed get deleted, we can still add the links to the photos (such as these three:

in the article's external links section. And thank you so much for supporting at my RFA :). It means a lot! Airplaneman ✈ 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. That is the least I could do because you deserve more. http://www.archive.org/details/PrinceNicholasPetroviNjegoOfMontenegroWithDejanStojanovicParis http://www.archive.org/details/MasteryByDejanStojanovic http://www.archive.org/details/PoemInFrenchByDejanStojanovicTranslatedByBorislavLazic

The last link is for the second photograph (as a child) in the article and it goes to the personal website. In order to see the photograph, you must scroll all the way down, bellow the text, and you will see it on the right side, close to the end (with many other photographs. Here it is –

http://www.poezijadejanstojanovic.com/prikazi.php Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The proper information, although you can phrase it more elegantly, is that there is no copyright that can be established. This is, again, the sentence in connection with the last license I provided you with (and from there) – for works too trivial to be copyrighted. What this means is that it would be trivial to copyright a photograph taken on the street or in the office accidentally.

These images can be deleted only based on an arbitrary decision of the person who does not understand the law, and not because it is right to do so (if that were to happen). I knew that there must be some explanation, and I found it based on the link you gave me. What trivial means is that copyright is almost always established only when there is an intent or professionally taken photograph and similar. And trivial would be that you ask, for instance, a five-year-old child to take a photograph on the street and than it needs to be copyrighted (although many years later nobody even knows who took it, and the situation was completely trivial). Some things are in the domain of common sense, not law. And this is nonsense. That is why the law predicts trivial situations like these (where common sense must be applied), to exclude them from this nonsense by classifying them as ineligible. (If there is any potential for them to be deleted, please ask these people if they really understand the law or make arbitrary interpretations and decisions.) These photographs completely fit this description and this category; any other interpretation is only arbitrary and not based on law, logic or common sense. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand. I will add the information templates by the end of the day tomorrow. Airplaneman ✈ 00:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make one more clarification and to apologize for taking so much of your time. I still don’t claim I have chosen the best possible template. I just provided you with a background (facts, examples, and explanations) which precludes any interference with the copyright law. As to the template itself and final description, I am positive you will make the right choice and use the right words. Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try my best. However, since we don't know the authors, I am not 100% sure that the pictures can be here to stay. I will try, though! Thanks for keeping up with this. I really admire the fact that you persist; you are the kind of user Wikipedia values :). Airplaneman ✈ 02:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is even covered by the license from the Internet Archives, which allows the usage of photographs. This situation is covered from a few different sides, at least, and is pretty much not a question of – if, legally (it is clear). Reasons mentioned in other messages are legitimate too, but even without them Wikipedia cannot be responsible for anything if the other site (at which the same images have been for about 10 months) allows the usage. This is plain common sense. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done one (still cannot find who took it - can you add it?). I cannot finish up the following because I don't have the URLs to where you got them from (or did you scan them and upload?): File:Dejan Stojanovic 21.jpg, File:Dejan Stojanovic, 1981.jpg, and File:Dejan Stojanovic, Chicago.jpg. Airplaneman ✈ 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Thank you. To me, it looks like you almost completed the work. I can add the information but don’t want to mess up something—Marko Rakocevic (this is an information for you—first cousin of Stojanovic took it—the one with the Prince). Regarding this one -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_1981.jpg – it was also taken by a cousin, Vuko Rakocevic (Belgrade, 1981). Regarding the other two, for the first two in the article, it cannot be established who took them: the first one in the office was taken under the trivial circumstance almost accidentally by an unknown person and for the other one in Pec, almost fifty years ago, it is impossible to find out who took that photograph (the person who took it is most likely dead; circumstance was trivial); also in that country copyright laws were covering 50-year periods, not 100 (which means that the other photograph—with the mother, already expired to put it simply). All these photographs were scanned first to the computer and then uploaded. I thank you very much; you had to invest so much time and work into this, but now I think it is almost complete. Please let me know if I am not clear enough with this answer. And I apologize, but I would greatly appreciate if you insert the additional information because I don't want to do something wrong. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to include this comment in the previous message: categories cannot be seen now in the article. They were there before. Is it because the article is not published yet so they were disabled temporarily or some technical problem? Just letting you know. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A list is in the order from your last message. Again, if needed:

1) The photograph with Prince Nicholas was taken by Marko Rakočević in the apartment of Prince Nicholas in Paris, May 1990

2) The second photograph (a child) was taken in front of the hotel Korzo, Peć, Kosovo (former Yugoslavia) circa 1962

3) The third photograph was taken by Vuko Rakočević in the park, Belgrade, 1981

4) For the last photograph, it is impossible to know who took the photograph (it was under a trivial circumstance, when the first person nearby was asked), Chicago, 2003 Regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you would want to reincorporate into the article (below the photograph with the Prince) the photograph with Steve Tesich, then here is the link, and it can be downloaded from there – http://www.archive.org/details/SteveTesicAndDejanStojanovic&reCache=1 Information: Steve Tesich and Dejan Stojanović in front of the Goodman Theatre, Chicago, winter of 1991. Photograph by Marko Rakočević. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When everything is sorted out in regard to photographs, I would prefer, of course if you don’t mind, if you not only publish this article but if it continues its presence as your article under your auspices (since you expressed that you like it, and one of your areas of interest is literature). Several people were involved in editing the article before it was uploaded; I only tried to make sure it will be done properly. Although you have not done it from scratch, still, your work, coordination, and input were most important; it required effort and you did it diligently. I think this would be by far the best for the article. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like File:Dejan Stojanović and Prince Nicholas Petrović Njegoš of Montenegro.jpg is here to stay (Magog kindly removed the tag). I'm working on the others. Airplaneman ✈ 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and I thank Magog too. We all try to do our best. I appreciate it. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the rest of them and posted here. I will gladly publish the article once the images are fixed. Please extend my thanks (on behalf of Wikipedia, of course :D) to the others who have also worked on this article. Airplaneman ✈ 17:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will. Thanks. I know this can be confusing, when the information get mixed (there was too much writing from my side), and I would like to clarify a few things before the completion:

  1. Marko Rakočević did not take the photograph taken circa 1962 (he was not even born then; that information must be removed). So the best is to keep the author as unknown. It is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic_21.jpg

As for the source, I think the best is to connect it to this section of the site where it can be found (although the photograph is all the way down, on the right; the page must be scrolled down): http://www.poezijadejanstojanovic.com/prikazi.php

  1. Regarding the first photograph in the article – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_Chicago.jpg

It is correct that the author is unknown, but maybe it would be better to connect the photograph to the Internet Archives in the same way the Prince is connected. Here is the link (and there is a license there) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_Chicago.jpg

  1. The same would be for this one – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dejan_Stojanovic,_1981.jpg

It is true that the author is Vuko Rakočević. I would only connect it in the same way as Prince Nicholas to the Internet Archives— http://www.archive.org/details/PoemInFrenchByDejanStojanovicTranslatedByBorislavLazic

  1. This one is not in the article now, but in case you decide to reincorporate it, it is located here and licensed http://www.archive.org/details/SteveTesicAndDejanStojanovic&reCache=1 Information: Steve Tesich and Dejan Stojanović in front of the Goodman Theatre, Chicago, winter of 1991. Photograph by Marko Rakočević. So, only this one and the one with the Prince are by Marko Rakočević, but Marko definitely did not take the one in 1962.

The reason I think this way would possibly be better is consistency – to keep all photographs connected to the Internet Archives (only for the one of 1962, the connection is not the Internet Archives but the other site already listed). I think this simplifies the whole thing. Thank you and best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I'll go ahead and make the fixes. Airplaneman ✈ 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the last one ("Dejan Stojanovic, 1981") but the first one's link doesn't provide any copyright release evidence, and the next two... erm, may you please give me the links to the internet archives for them? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the link to the first one— http://www.archive.org/details/MasteryByDejanStojanovic The link to Steve Tesich, if you decide to include it (it was removed), is http://www.archive.org/details/SteveTesicAndDejanStojanovic&reCache=1

The one you fixed is now perfect I think, and the Prince is already done. It is true that the site I gave you the link to doesn’t provide that information ( it would be too complicated to deal with that now), so perhaps the best is to keep it as it is and remove Marko Rakocevic because he is not the author of that photograph. I apologize; this was more complicated than I thought it would be. I only can thank you for your work and sincere efforts. I did not think it will require so much of your work. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made fixes accordingly. I will not upload the Steve Tesich one as there are other photos. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see any problem now. Again, thank you very much. You put so much work into this article and I appreciate it. I think it is ready to be published now. Of course, it would be good to get Magog’s approval for the newest revisions. You’ve done a great job and I congratulate you on that. Best regards, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, all of the images are out of hot water! Magog has a few suggestions, which he left at User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#Photos, if you have a minute. Airplaneman ✈ 02:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the answer to Magog’s legitimate question: Yes, I personally know Marko Rakočević and Vuko Rakočević and they approve of the license we've put up. Please keep in mind that there are those speed deletion words, still, under the second and the third photograph in the article; they should be removed before publishing. Also, one more time — the title of the article must have a letter - ć at the end of the last name – Dejan Stojanović (just making sure because this can be tricky). Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do! Airplaneman ✈ 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and that category about "user pages with images up for deletion" should resolve itself. As for the categories, since the article was in your userspace and yet to be published, someone hid them. I will unhide them after publishing. Airplaneman ✈ 02:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See Dejan Stojanović. Well done!!! Airplaneman ✈ 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I cannot thank you enough and I apologize for making you work so hard on this. I think though that in a long run, this case with images will help you resolve other problems easier (these are mostly legal questions). And actually I appreciate Wikipedia’s tough policy in regard to that part. The most important thing is to establish the truth because some copyright holders are really strict with their rights; on the other hand, some people are not truthful. Best regards and many thanks. I will also thank Magog. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine :). I know I learned a lot from this thread, which is huge, and filled with good information. I'll go ahead and archive it tomorrow (to make sure you read this) and any new posts can be in a new thread started at the bottom of this page. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thank you very much again. Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Strahinjic Ban

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since Banovic Strahinja is mentioned in the New Article, I looked up the articles under that name and was surprised how poorly written they are (one is about the movie). I don’t have the time now to make them longer, but I would like to fix the English used, the style, and also fix the grammar. I wanted to ask you if I can do that. I would not change the meaning, maybe only reformat a little bit and fix the language, although only the poem Banovic Strahinja (before the Battle of Kosovo in 1389) would deserve the whole and long article. It is considered not only one of the most beautiful poems of the Serbian language but authors like Goethe, brothers Grimm, and Sir Walter Scott were impressed by Serbian poetry of that time and one of these three (I don’t remember at the moment who exactly) said that they are the most beautiful ballads in Europe. I am so surprised nobody has written an article by now about this famous person and also about the poem the way it should be. If you want me I can send this to you or fix it myself. I am a little bit sad to look at it although I am happy somebody did it with good intentions, but obviously poor knowledge of English. Thanks, Mountlovcen8 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course you may fix it up! This encyclopedia is free to edit, by anyone at anytime, anywhere (unless pages are protected, usually because of heavy vandalism). Any improvements would be appreciated. And, take you time and have fun. There is no deadline. Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I Have also sent you an answer related to the photographs in the previous section (just to make sure you did not overlook it). Mountlovcen8 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc. August 2010 Newsletter

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
The iNewsletter/issue 1/august 2010/by mono & dwayne
Project news
  • After several months of collaboration on Macintosh, the article was delisted from featured article status.
  • Last month, WikiProject Apple Inc. quietly launched several new departments (collaboration, outreach and strategy). A new program by the outreach department is preparing to launch a recruiting effort (ORDER).
  • Please take a moment to welcome our new members: Eraserhead1, Leet Sher, and Allmightyduck.
  • Details are being ironed out for a weekly project discussion on IRC. Contact Mono for more information.
New articles Featured article

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

WP:NASCAR

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments2 people in discussion

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject NASCAR for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help me with this problem (you should know what you talked to me at Royalbroils talk page).--Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been investigating the situation and will offer an opinion at RoyalBroil's page tomorrow at the earliest. I think sleeping on it will help me formulate a more thought-out comment :). Airplaneman ✈ 02:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry; disputes are part of life, I guess. It's how you deal with them that's important! And I guess that is what you are asking :). I suggest logging off and clearing your head a bit. That might help. Airplaneman ✈ 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I can the race is tomorrow. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been reported for edit warring so I might not see you in a while. I am so furious! I may not return. I am tired of this, it started when I first met NoseNuggets. He thinks he is better than me. We are the same and we are supposed to do what is better for Wikipedia, not for ourselves.   --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't! Or else I'll be the one posting crying faces :'(. Remember though, this is an online encyclopedia. Don't let stuff like this cause you too much stress; it isn't healthy and not really worth it in then end, IMHO. If you indeed leave (again, please don't!!!), I am always }open for an email (which I check occasionally). Get some sleep :) (I should as well) Airplaneman ✈ 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The dicision has been made. I wouuld hate to leave Wikipedia, I think I have done well. I do need some sleep, but I won't be on here a lot tomorrow anyway.   --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally would have done the same thing, considering both of you were "warring". Be glad Courcelles didn't block both of you :). I personally would be insulted if I was called "ignoramus" or told to "grow up", but again, don't let it get to you. Take Courcelles' suggestion and use the article's talk page. That is what I was saying on Royal's talk page in regards to "talking it out". Guess my opinion didn't wait until tomorrow :). I use smileys too much :). Anyway… :) I'll keep an eye on the talk page proceedings. G'night (now that I said that, I will proceed to make several more edits before actually logging out) Airplaneman ✈ 03:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy that I met you. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  The Barnstar of Good Humor
I, Nascar1996, herby award Airplaneman the Good Humor Barnstar for helping me out while being humorous. :) Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much  . I have fulfilled my prophecy, BTW. Airplaneman ✈ 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You are so very welcome. When are you planning to run for adminship again? You most definately have my Support. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The exact date is still unknown, but it will be in mid to late August, most likely. Your support means a lot; I don't know how else to put it! Airplaneman ✈ 03:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(Yawn) Well I better go to sleep, good night. I bet you can't believe that I am leaving you a lone for a while.  --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 04:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I would like your opinion on doing this to 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series to save room on the article once it begins. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 17:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're asking if that's how you put results? I would also put the race link instead of just a race number, but I'm otherwise fine with it. Also, zap all state flagicons from the article. Airplaneman ✈ 17:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't because Nose Nuggets (it might have been someone else) will re-add them. I also cant because not even you can edit the article. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 17:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about flagicons? Point them to the relevant policy explaining why flagicons are in this case trivial information and a waste of space. The birthplace of a driver is of minimal importance in a race results/team lineup table. Airplaneman ✈ 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
And hey, this page is still empty. Remember what Courcelles suggested you guys do? :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait until the end of this month where most is unofficial. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 17:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is you should use the talk page to, well, talk. Airplaneman ✈ 17:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Will do, are you watching the race? Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 17:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No :(. I don't watch much NASCAR, as I'm busy editing Wikipedia :). Airplaneman ✈ 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing both. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 17:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea; I am currently conducting a GA review, which commands my full attention. I'm also sorry to say that although I'm a NASCAR fan (go Kasey Kahne!), I'm more into Apple Inc., planes, and books. I do keep tabs on the race results, though :) Airplaneman ✈ 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you like this? Here is a example. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely better than the old one. Specifics - neater, thinner, and smaller text - less intrusive. Overall, good job. I'll go ahead and make a tweak. Once it is in widespread use, protection (at least an indef semi) would be a good idea. Airplaneman ✈ 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but now is the hard part. Changing all the infoboxes. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. Airplaneman ✈ 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeap. Uhhhh, at least I have time this week since I finished the race article. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Article about Andreas Savvides

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Airplaneman,

Very sorry for the delayed reply. For 8 days now it is like living in hell hear in Cyprus. The temperature(for the first time in our weather history) has climbed up to 46 degrees Celsius!!! So, we stay indoors, no appetite for food or work. Instead, sleep, showers, again sleep in the armchair, and drinking water (5-6 bottles a day). Fortunately, today is only 39 degrees Celsius. The article about Andreas Savvides is now entirely in your hands. I much appreciate your hard efforts to help. Thanks a lot. As I was wandering around Wikipedia, I noticed a List of World/International Days recognized by UN. I read twice in the List that April 3 and May 3 is the World Day for Press Freedom. I think that the World Press Day is on May 3, and that April 3 had been added by error. Corerect? CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 20:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

Looks like you triple-posted, so I'm keeping the longest post. Glad the heat wave seems to have left your place! I'm keeping an eye on Savvides' article and am thinking of ways to improve it. I haven't forgotten about the photos you emailed, either :). As for the World Day for Press Freedom, I don't know. What do the (reliable) sources say? If so, feel free to remove the incorrect date(s) and add the correct one, with a reference :). Is that your new signature? The signature policy states that "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". I'm not seeing that; maybe that's why a bot came by and signed it again. Airplaneman ✈ 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman, at the end of my talk page there is a para by fetch-comms, saying "A file that you uploaded or altered, File: Gold medal A. Savvides, June 23, 2003, JPG,has been listed at Wikipedia Possibly Unfree files because the copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified,it may be deleted....". I don't understand what the message wants from me to do. I had already explained that the photo of the medal and the diploma was taken by me on June 23, then I scanned it,placed it in a docket, and wrote below the two sides of the medal enough information. Also, you had corrected the thickness of the medal from ml to mm. But now I find that it is written again as ml. I am completely confused and I don't know what to do. Would you please be patient enough and tell me what shall I do? Thanks a lot. Christakis Demosthenous. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 12:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

Well, see his reasoning here. I'll look into it (I don't work with files often) and also ask him if he has any suggestions. Airplaneman ✈ 16:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this is also the reason I've hesitated in uploading the images you have sent me. I'm looking into getting a OTRS ticket for the release form from Mrs. Savvides that you sent, as well. Hopefully this will be cleared up soon. Airplaneman ✈ 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The issue is, while you took the photo of the medal and diploma, and scanned it, you did not actually design the medal or write the text on the diploma. Thus, an image of the medal is copyright of the original medal designer, and an image of the diploma has text copyrighted by the original author of the words. I hope this clears the issue up. Basically, you could use one or the other under fair use, but the item would have to be covered in the article (and by "covered", I mean there's at least a section about it, not just a sentence). Thanks, —fetch·comms 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman and dear Fetch-comms. I respect your opinion, but let's discuss it a little. My humble opinion is: The person who designed the medal and the person who wrote and signed the diploma are not the owners of the design, writing, etc. The design, writing, etc were made on behalf of the Cyprus Olympic Committee, which is the real owners of the design, etc (The designer, etc was paid to do this work for them). The C.O.C awarded the medal and the diploma to A. Savvides. By doing so, they had transferred both the possession and the ownership of them to him. However, the design, etc remains ownership of the C.O.C. Now, the person who took photos of this medal, etc (that's me) is the sole owner of the photos. So by giving my permission to be published, it is obvious that this permission is given only for the photos, and not for the design of the items in them. This means that nobody can steal the design for his own purposes. Something similar happens with a car involved in an accident. The photo-reporter can take photos of the involved car and of the scene of the accident. As he is the owner of the photos, he can publish them or they can be published with his consent. There is no need (as I believe) to take the consent of the manufacturer of the design/model/made of the car or the consent of the designer of the road, or the consent of the involved driver. Again, by doing so, the photo-reporter doesn't give the right to others to steal the design of the model etc of the car, etc, as he has no authority to do so. This is my opinion, and I hope that you agree with it. However, if there is a different convincing opinion, Ill respect it, and I am ready, if needed, to take also the consent of the owner of the design, etc of the medal, etc., which is the C.O.C. Thanks a lot. Yours sincerely. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 09:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

If the committee owns the copyright, then photographic reproductions of it are copyrighted too. This is a common misconception. If I take a photo of a car, I own the copyright, as I take the photo. But if I take a photo of a sculpture, then the sculptor is the copyright holder, at least in the US. This has to do with something called freedom of panorama (see also this page). In some countries, taking a photo of a building can mean that you cannot use the photo for anything other than personal use, as the building is copyright the designer even though it is in a public place. Just like if I take a photo of some artist's drawing, I do not own the copyright (otherwise I could just sell my photos for cheap and make the artist broke). I understand your opinion, but you are (no offense) wrong in this regard. Your best bet is to ask the COC to release the design under an appropriate free license (I find that unlikely, however), or just use the medal image under fair use. —fetch·comms 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Fetchcomms :). Unfortunately, Wikipedia has to abide to copyright laws; since this is a free encyclopedia, we have to keep non-free content such as book covers, and, yes, photos of medals such as this, to a minimum. I would suggest adding a fair use rationale, which I can help with. {{Non-free use rationale}} is the template we'll be using. I think you've already explained the "replaceability" part quite well above. What I need to know is the source. Was it a printout, brochure, or something? After I know that, I'll go ahead and add the form. As for the images you emailed, I think I'll make an OTRS request with the release form you sent, as I mentioned earlier. Thanks for dealing with this; I know it's frustrating. Airplaneman ✈ 21:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think the photos you emailed me are released in the release form you sent me. It pains me to see that all of the effort you have put into obtaining the photos is not going to get them on Wikipedia, but I doubt that the copyrights are owned by Mrs. Savvides. This includes the photo of the diploma Mr. Savvides received as well as the pictures of the medal (I may be able to upload the medal photos citing the fair use rationale). The pictures Strongman. Mr. Cyprus 1969. A. Savvides.JPG and Olympic House. A. Savvides.JPG look like photos from a placard, a book, or a brochure. Although they were taken by Mrs. Savvides, they contain other text that is copyrighted. I could crop out the photos and upload just those, minus the text. You said Bronze medal to A. Savvides in World Police & Fire Games.doc was taken by Mrs. Savvides. I believe that, if we crop out just the image, we could use the release form on it. Since the release form from Mrs. Savvides only releases the copyrights for the photos she took, cropping looks like the best way to go. Airplaneman ✈ 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that User:CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS/Sandbox is ready to be published as an article. We can continue to make tweaks, add images, and such, but I am confident that it will survive on its own now :). Plus, it will be exposed to new page patrollers, who may offer suggestions, make tweaks, or add a few maintenance tags. Airplaneman ✈ 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman. Since the design on the medal and the writings on the diploma are owned by the C.O.C, it is a good idea not to publish this photo. Don't publish also the photos "Olympic House.A Savvides.JPG",as they are miserable. If you think that the other photos should not be published also, it's OK. You are the pilot. Regarding the pictures "Strongman.Mr Cyprus 1969.A.Savvides,JPG", the first photo on the left, as I had already explained, consists of 9 photos taken by Mrs Savvides. They had been cut around and glued on a card-board. Below them I glued "ANDREAS SAVVIDES- THE HERCULES OF CYPRUS", then I scanned the cardboard and transferred the pictures into a docket.After that, I wrote the information "Andreas Savvides performing....". Sth similar had been done with the second photo on the right. Finally, I sent you the docket through e-mail. Owner of the photos is Helen Savvides, but owner of the writings below them is me. Nevertheless, as you say above, the article can stand by its own. Again, thanks for the whole effort. Yours sincerely. I'll get ready to publish a second article. By the way, I have forgotten to tell you something I learnt 2-3 days ago. The grandfather of Helen Savvides was an American citizen(from New York). Indeed, she, herself, looks like an American, rather than like a Cypriot. Anyway, goodnight. Yours sincerely.CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

OK; got it. If you ever wish to publish any of the photos, just tell me, and I'll crop them and upload them (without the captions, which I will add using Wikitext here on Wikipedia). Airplaneman ✈ 19:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman. You have just made me happy. I wish to publish the two photos of "Strongman.Mr Cyprus 1969.A. Savvides.JPG"(that's the one showing him performing strength feats, and the one showing him as Mr Cyprus, 1969). You may crop them, upload them without the captions,and add them using Wikitext, as you've suggested above. Thanks a lot. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 10:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

I will look into it; I cannot guarantee a quick upload, but it will be done as long as no issues arise (such as if I stumble upon a new policy I never knew about…) Would it be OK to publish the article as it is, or would you prefer to wait until the upload is finished? Publishing it is easy; you just move the page. See here for how. Airplaneman ✈ 00:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman. Of course it would be OK. Could you please publish it instead of me? The rules are very difficult to understand, and I don't want to make any errors. Next week you will have my second article, about two paras.Thanks a lot. Yours sincerely. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

Done! See it at Andreas Savvides. I've also created Andreas Haralambous Savvides as a redirect to the article. Yay! Airplaneman ✈ 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ding!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You have messages at simple. Nothing urgent, but I'm preparing for a PGA (GAR), so response sometime in the next few days would be awesome! PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dinged there :) Airplaneman ✈ 02:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meet about WPNovels

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I remember at the beginning of the Summer you were talking about restarting WP:Novels, are you still interested in doing this? Since you are local in the DC area do you want to meet for coffee or something to get a plan together the sometime between Aug 21-26? This recent lengthy discussion could really have used some guidance and it appears we have some interested and active people around, just not working with the project. I am in Springfield, and am willing to make my way downtown if I need. Sadads (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am still interested in restarting WP:NOVELS. I'm open for an email to discuss details, but I don't think I can meet up in DC. Airplaneman ✈ 15:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should start a discussion on the project page and start from there. I can start devoting time to WP:Novels again, and it seems Truthkeeper, Icuc and Aripothenese are actively working on that kind of content and my recent stub tagging has gotten responses from people in the field (see my talk page), Sadads (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. As for the stub stuff, yea, I wouldn't have tagged the article as a stub (maybe C class?). Airplaneman ✈ 15:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem was that it was already assessed as a stub, I partially started tagging them in this way, so that people near the articles would reassess them instead of me manually culling 17,000+, Sadads (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Airplaneman ✈ 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

See Talk:Human-animal sexual intercourse, and perhaps you can help me to fight deletionism, because instant deletionism should not be tolerated. That is what is making Wikipedia "stupid". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35th4gv834 (talk • contribs)

TFD, thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the concerns... but TFD and all the xFD's burn my ass in that a few busybodies can undo man-hours, even man-months of work and mistake it for "THE GREATER GOOD"... The WP Project... Really, REALLY, really needs 'a ten 'DELETE' votes to delete quorum' or leave things alone unless it's obvious trash. Which should easily get ten votes in any case--since if more votes were needed, more people would likely patrol and participate in said forums... strengthening the institutional consistencies... Too Often have I seen small CABALs develop that dominate such for a time.

 • Hadn't ever heard template space was taking up too many resources (BRIAN AND TIM IN FACT explicitly STATED THE OPPOSITE back when we changed template documentation for the better— and they altered the expansion cap limit), yet that kind of fuzz for brains make work costs gobs of time and makes the place hostile...

 • Even should I return these days to make big edits, sometimes half of what I try now no longer works without frustrating effort. Someone wants to patrol and subst some templates to imagine they are aiding the effort, fine... subst... but why make a working tool unavailable?

For example, why delete useful formatting templates like {ibull} (nothing else does the exact job), and even {**}... piffle! What is more offensive... strong language or someone deleting your hours of work, that then cost you more time in the future over and over when the tool is missing??? Both are rejections, but harsh words don't cost someone over and over. Still, thanks. Take care, I can see limiting my time here is still a good idea... just like this! Be well. // FrankB 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, take care. I'm sorry that your work is being deleted. :( Airplaneman ✈ 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

EOKA members hanged by the British colonialists

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Airplaneman, I am ready to write my second article, under the title "EOKA members hanged by the British colonialists". How can I import a new sandbox on my page on which to write this article? The first sandbox is occupied by the article about Andreas Savvides. Thanks a lot. Yours sincerely. CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

WP:TPS For a new sandbox to use create a new article with the title you want. For this case try User:CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS/Sandbox 2 or maybe User:CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS/Sandbox2? Whichever one you prefer click on the red link and create the page! Though be careful, I'm not exactly sure that the article you want to create is WP:NOTABLE though I have no experience in that area. Good luck and happy editing! Derild4921☼ 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What Derild said :). I'm not 100% sure the title you suggested will be OK (see the policy on article titles at WP:AT), but I think I'll have a better idea when I learn more about the subject through the article you are planning on writing. Have fun, Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman, I have noticed that the article I was going to write is already covered in Wikipedia under the title "Imprisoned Graves". However, the article mentions two references that are the same. It says also that "citations needed". Can I add two citations referring to History Books,though I am not the writer of the article? Christakis Demosthenous CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

Of course! Feel free to edit any article on Wikipedia unless it's fully protected meaning only admins can edit them. Lol, I'm talk page stalking a lot. Also remember to sign you posts with 4 tides(~)! Derild4921☼ 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Airplaneman, I always sign my posts by clicking the 4 tides. I don;t know what is happening. Perhaps a devil has settled in my computer because today it has broken down while I was writing. Now, I'll sign in 3 ways to see what's wrong, ie. I'll write my name, then I'll click the 4 tides that are below the phrase "sign your posts on talk pages", and I'll sign a 3rd time by pressing the tideof my keyboard 4 times. Only by this way we can find out what is happening. Yours sincerely. Christakis Demosthenous, CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 12:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC), CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS 12:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS (talk • contribs)

Yes, feel free to edit. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, after all! Nobody is supposed to own their created articles, anyway. As for your sig, are you using a custom signature (I use one)? (That's where you go to the "user profile" tab in "my preferences" under the "Signature" section and insert some stuff while checking the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup".) If you are not currently using a custom signature, doing so may solve the issue. Maybe you could use the following code for a simple custom sig:
 [[User:CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS|Christakis Demosthenous]] ([[User talk:CHRISTAKIS DEMOSTHENOUS|talk]]

If you are using a custom signature, the format may be wrong; try the above instead. Hope this helps. Airplaneman ✈ 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for help to resolve recently added comment on Wendy McMurdo wiki page

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Airplaneman

I am dropping you a line to ask if you can (once again) pls help me resolve an issue with the Wendy McMurdo wiki page. I originally went under the name of Robiticus2 but have since forgotten the password (oops!) and therefore had to create another one (ie this one!!)

I set up a wiki page for Wendy McMurdo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_McMurdo) back in 2009, with your help and others who commented on it, but someone called Wizardman has now suggested that ..."This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available. (July 2010)"

Can you pls help me resolve this? All the links to the page are indeed from related articles, and the suggestions available are simply not relevant (ie they refer to a different Wendy McMurdo). I suppose I could undo Wizardman's comments but imagine that would be poor wiki protocol ...?

On a second note, but also related to the Wendy McMurdo wiki page, are you able to fix the formatting of the summary infobox at the top of the page to the right? there are some odd gaps and some of the symbols do not appear properly

Very grateful to receive your help

With thanks and kind regards

Luxexterior (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Luxexterior. If you look here, you will notice that no other articles link to Wendy McMurdo's page. If you can find other pages which might mention her name, but don't yet link to the article, then you can "de-orphan" the page. Once there are at least three incoming links to Wendy's page, you can just remove the notice giving you the orphan message. For the infobox issue, it looks alright on my computer. Perhaps you could get a screenshot to show what you mean? —fetch·comms 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Fetchcomms pretty much answered it! (@FC - in response to your edit summary, I don't mind talk page stalkers; why do you hate tps-ing?) The orphan message is a "maintenance tag", which just lets people know about the problem (as well as putting it in a hidden category for administrative purposes). I full text searched Wikipedia and followed the suggestion link in the maintenance tag but found no mentions in articles elsewhere on the site about the artist named Wendy McMurdo (although I saw a few mentions of the politician of the same name, who doesn't seem to have an article). I am not seeing any formatting issues in the infobox. What internet browser are you using? About your username: I suggest adding a mention to your old userpage about your new name, and a mention on your new userpage about your old name. It is not mandatory, but encouraged. It was nice talking again, Airplaneman ✈ 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I dislike TPS because I prefer to answer queries personally, is all. If I'm away, I don't mind, though. —fetch·comms 15:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Folks, very grateful for your considerations, it's a bit odd that there are no other links to her, guess I'll need to keep an eye on that and check from time to time, but many thanks for helping to make this clearer for me. I'll see if I cant do as you say Airplaneman wrt my usernames. I tried to attach a screengrab but sorry, gave up, too complicated! (can only see about half of each of the funny little symbols with an outline arrow going thru their top right hand corners, and they seem to be suspended in mid air) - no worries tho, I can live with it!. Am using IE8 here, and I see the same thing on IE7 (the work machine) ...dont know what thats about! Anyway, thanks again to you both for your time, best, Luxexterior (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the external link symbols are the culprits - I've moved them to the bottom of the page. Is that better? Airplaneman ✈ 21:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I like it! thanks. I do want to put in a photo tho, one which typifies her work, so I'll probably come back for your advice on that shortly. cheers Luxexterior (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Source

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention; I've replied at the RFD with a new vote. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah; OK. Thanks for clarifying. Airplaneman ✈ 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Reclicking on the results, I remember now — it redirects to Wikipedia:Citation needed, so I suggested that it be retargeted to Template:Citation needed. I suggested that we change the namespace to which it redirects. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh - so it must've been me who wasn't paying attention :O. Airplaneman ✈ 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not just you; if I'd been paying proper attention, I would have realised that instead of changing my vote and then having to change it back again :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Newsletter/201008

Latest comment: 14 years ago34 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, before August 25, 2010 will you find an article that can be added to the Newsletter as Article of the Month? If you want to see how it goes you may want to preview this first, but please note 2010 Toyota / Save Mart 350 shouldn't be on there because it was last month. Thanks. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comments at Royalbroil's talk page about 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series! Also, you may want to know that Kasey Kahne is on the pole position for the 2010 Carfax 400. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  - glad I could help. I would keep an eye on the suspected socks. If you don't want to report them now, that's fine, but if they keep up the disruption, it may be a good idea. I've taken a look at the newsletter. How about another race GA article from this year as the selected article? Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as its mot 2010 Toyota/Save Mart 350. Maybe 2010 Food City 500, 2010 Goody's Fast Pain Relief 500, or 2010 Showtime Southern 500. ~ Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 00:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I pick the 2010 Food City 500. Airplaneman ✈ 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, my first GA. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 01:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  Airplaneman ✈ 02:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  Done   --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 04:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to make some small contrib to look at this! Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job; looks great! Airplaneman ✈ 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a question that you may be able to answer. In January 2010 [1] announced that their sprig race will be 600km but now without any news on it their sit says its a 500 km? Is it 600 or 500? --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The link you gave didn't have an announcement - as both races are "500"'s, I would assume that it was 500km, not 600. Airplaneman ✈ 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I know, but what do we do with Subway Fresh Fit 600? Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The ref [2] says otherwise. Looks ok to me. Airplaneman ✈ 03:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, are you talking about next year? If that is the case, just wait and see. Airplaneman ✈ 03:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes next year. I'm wondering because 2011 Daytona 500 was just created. If you would like, you can create 2011 Budweiser Shootout. Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
When could be the next time you can add to the review for 2010 Auto Club 500? I'll be editing full time until Thurseday (When school begins)--Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 04:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go full-out today, hopefully finishing the review. Airplaneman ✈ 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing some of my articles. I have already changed 2010 Crown Royal Presents the Heath Calhoun 400, but it's not yet complete. On that article I probably will have to redo the race summary and add the post race. While I have been looking for references for the articles, I have found sites that I can use for my newer ones! Whats so bad about this weekend on, I won't have a chance to do this anymore because I'll be busy adding to the new articles. Again thanks!   --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 03:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I may sit on the sidelines and let someone else review the next article or two so we can get some new ideas. Airplaneman ✈ 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ummmm, an article is for deletion. (2011 Budweiser Shootout) The user says it is not notable. It is isn't it. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, what do you think is wrong with this article? The flagicon for Texas has messed it up. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 13:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would say the Budweiser Shootout it notable, as it is tied in with the Daytona 500 - looks like you removed the prod. I have fixed the link in your previous post (you forgot the "NASCAR" part of the title). What is wrong with it? I don't see anything out of the ordinary. Just expand it a bit once more info becomes available. Airplaneman ✈ 16:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It was fixed, also there are now more created articles: 2011 Coca-Cola 600, 2011 Emory Healthcare 500, and 2011 Ford 400. Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 16:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good! I've tweaked the location of the reference list. I would also suggest using the {{cite}} templates for the references. Airplaneman ✈ 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is too early to create them because they may be deleted. Also, once the races get closer I will fix them like the newer articles, unless I find something better. You know the race track desription in the back ground of 2010 Carfax 400, will you help me add similair ones to the future races? One of those references have all the Sprint Cup, Nationwide, and Truck tracks so you have to be careful not to add them too. They have a graph on it the has SS (Superspeedway) etc, but if you can't iit is okay. I am just asking. --Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 16:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll try :) Airplaneman ✈ 16:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay!!!! :) Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! Virtual high five :) Airplaneman ✈ 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this is inappropriate. One editor tagged all NASCAR broadcasting list for delete while no others are tagged. I think this is anti-NASCAR or something. NASCAR is as important as baskestball, football, or baseball. NASCAR is the #1 specalator sport. Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 01:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Airplaneman, do you think race broadcasters are notable to the race? Here is an ongoing discussion talking about the subject. ~ Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please read above. Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Will respond there.Airplaneman ✈ 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

First article: Person has same name as other entry

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have written an article about a fellow who has the same name as another entry. He does not come up on search, I do not know how to add him to the redirect page or how to get other entries to link to him. For example, a song my subject produced is on here, but when I click on title in my article, I am told there is no page for it when there of course is. I am not stupid, but I am finding the instructions very technical. Can you give me the quick and dirty? Thanks a mille. Did I even format this question correctly?!?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexcordis (talk • contribs)

Yup, you just forgot to sign. :) More shortly. Airplaneman ✈ 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you created Gordon Keith disambiguation for people named Gordon Keith. It is not needed for two entries. So you made Gordon Keith (Jackson 5 Michael) and moved "Gordon Keith" to Gordon Keith ("The Great Gordo"). I suggest you move one of the articles to just plain "Gordon Keith" (like you said, whoever is more important). Then, you can use Template:Distinguish. For example, if you were adding this to Gordon Keith (Jackson 5 Michael):
{{About|the producer|the radio host|Gordon Keith ("The Great Gordo")}}
which gives you
This page is about the producer. For the radio host, see Gordon Keith ("The Great Gordo").
I would only suggest making a disambiguation page for 3 or more similarities. If you haven't yet, take a look at WP:DISAMBIG for more. For future reference, the correct title for "Gordon Keith disambiguation" would be Gordon Keith (disambiguation)", with the disambiguator, in this case the word "disambiguation", in parentheses to separate it from the main title. Finally, the disambiguators on the articles you created are descriptive, but I suggest more easily guessable titles, such as Gordon Keith (producer) and Gordon Keith (radio host) (remember, you suggested that one be the primary topic, so one of the articles will be named just plain "Gordon Keith".) How does that sound? You can request deletion of the disambiguation under speedy deletion criterion G7 using the following code: {{db-g7}} in preparation for the article move. How does that sound? Airplaneman ✈ 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have moved Gordon Keith ("The Great Gordo") to Gordon Keith (radio host). Airplaneman ✈ 18:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 
Hello, Airplaneman. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can we pretend that airplanes in the night are like shooting stars? :p Just had to so do that and say hi. Anyway, see you around on Wikipedia! :D Netalarmtalk 21:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure :D. I like the song; now that you mentioned it, I'll have it stuck in my head forever  … I'll see you around as well, Airplaneman ✈ 22:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this official, then

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ. I accept the nomination. Airplaneman ✈ 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Well then go and answer the questions! ;) It's taken me the best part of 2 hours to put that nomination statement together. It might be a little long, but I'll see what it looks like when it isn't 2 in the morning! You can, of course, transclude it yourself whenever you feel like it, but there's no deadline and I'd be happy to transclude it for you if you wanted. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Congrats :)! Hopefully this RFA will pass and you'll have my support anyways. Though it might have been better to improve the Titan's Curse and Sea of Monsters before as pointed out in the previous RFA. Eitherways I wish you good luck and hope you don't die in this week of hell ;). Derild4921☼ 01:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, HJ, for the awesome nom :). I've drafted my last two questions and will add them shortly. @Derild - lol! I hope I don't die as well :D. As for improving The Titan's Curse and Sea of Monsters, well, I tried my best with the limited number of reliable refs I could find out there. This was one of the main reasons I waited a month after HJ first discussed a nom with me. I'm humbled to know that I have your support. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Support most definately! Is there anything better than support; if so a vote that! :) Nascar1996 Contributions / Guestbook 02:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nascar1996 and NSD, I have indented your !votes for now (sorry  ) because I'm not transcluding until morning (fetchcomms wanted to co-nom). Please re-sign and re-add the numbering when it's transcluded. Thanks!!! Airplaneman ✈ 02:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 02:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Co-nom'd. Hopefully I didn't make any silly spelling errors; sorry to the readers that it was 16 characters shy of HJ's nom's length! :P Sometimes, I really need to stop rambling. Congrats, I'll try to poke in a !vote as early as I can tomorrow, which will likely mean the afternoon due to RL :( —fetch·comms 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, fetchcomms; it looks great :)! I'll transclude when I first log in tomorrow. Airplaneman ✈ 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have transcluded it. Thank you for the support, everyone! Airplaneman ✈ 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The cookies were great!

I feel a bit more apart of the wiki community now :) really, I appreciate the welcome.

With regards to what you wrote about my request for page protection though (the one for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), I'd just like to ask; did you click the link to the Ha'aretz article I provided and read it?

Thanks again!

Raygolt (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure :). I did read the article; I still do think discussion would be a better course of action, though, per my reasoning there. Preventive protection is generally discouraged (see our protection policy for more). Since the page is routinely cleared, I'll copy the whole request over for context:
Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite full-protection High risk of subjective editing/vandalism, page along with all pages concerning israeli-palestinian conflict are at risk of biased editing by coordinated group of Israeli settlers. Evidence found here: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raygolt (talk • contribs)

  Declined As suggested by Airplaneman, there isn't any pressing need for protection, which shouldn't be preventative. If a problem arises, the article can be protected then. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
We want to keep this encyclopedia free for anyone to edit, and full protection is used sparingly. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the GOCE

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).
 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the welcome and advice

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thanks for the advice, I'm still getting used to the styles used in existing ship-related articles. For some of the more obscure ships I am adding, I don't know if any photograph exists, but people in the respective countries of origin may have some--is there a way to "call for submissions" in an article or in general? Tosevite777 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, there is a way to request photos. Use Template:Image requested on the article's talk page to do so. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I meant to get to you when it happened, but thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). Airplaneman ✈ 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilson

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've addressed all your tags - good luck on the RfA, too. :) Connormah 02:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I'll keep an eye on the article, which is great overall. Airplaneman ✈ 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello SilkTork. I was patrolling Category:Good articles without an oldid and came upon the above page, which you reviewed. It currently isn't categorized and is therefore listed here as well. I couldn't think of a good cat to put it in, so if you could categorize it, that'd be great :). Then it can be added here as well, I guess. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I had listed it under History, but put in a Bio cat, which GA doesn't have. That was the issue. I have now changed the cat from Bio to history. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *YES! 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank you personally for your thoughtful comments (backed with evidence!) and support at my RFA. I will keep that in mind while editing. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you will make a good Admin. SilkTork *YES! 15:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On my talk. Be back later. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural copyedit

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I'm not sure if you still do copyediting or not. If you do, would you mind copyediting No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)? I'm trying to get it cleaned up for FA. Thanks. Ωphois 19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Airplaneman ✈ 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the lead, first paragraph, last sentence: "An homage to the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life", Lilith is busy entertaining herself by possessing a young girl (Sierra McCormick) and terrorizing her family." – so are Lilith's action the homage, or is the episode an homage? It's a bit unclear (at least to me  ). Airplaneman ✈ 19:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lilith's actions. Ωphois 19:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And for any future questions regarding the article, you can just use the article talk page since I have it watchlisted. Thanks. :) Ωphois 19:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright; I'll run it through WP:REFLINKS for bare ref formatting now. Airplaneman ✈ 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I've gone ahead and nominated it for FAC. Ωphois 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem :). I'll keep an eye out. Airplaneman ✈ 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User Wikiproject Jazz

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yes, it can be deleted. Rainbows and Unicorns! (Tons of Fun!) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I'll request a G7. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 20:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Airplaneman/Archive_16&oldid=1138993910"