User talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  ... (up to 100)

Tri-Presidential Award

The Tri-Presidential Award For outstanding contributions in photography for National Register of Historic Places list articles covering Milton and Quincy, Massachusetts, I hereby present you with this unique barnstar depicting the three U.S. presidents born in the two municipalities. Congratulations!

Sswonk (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. GOod for you in picking up on the three presidents all living on Adams Street. IF GHW Bush had been a Democrat, I'm sure 173 Adams Street would be an NRHP site. Thanks, also, for the Moon Island photo -- I actually thought we might have to take a photo out there to complete the list, but you beat me to it.

Giving you a similar award seems appropriate on the one hand, and yet, with the two of us collaborating on the project, it feels a little like patting my other half on the back. I have a whine, however. On Firefox 3.5.3, at the type size comfortable for my ancient eyes, it sets with about half the legend below the box. If I hit ctrl-minus twice, it's fine, but I figure a pro web guy like you should be able to fix that. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: 173 Adams, by that logic it would be renamed Deval Street and Milton would now be Patrick, but let's not go there! I think this one is bulletproof for zooming. I also did an image only version at File:Tri-presidential-award.png if needed. I took a few shots from the seawall at Wollaston Beach this morning, I'll see if the islands came out suitable for use. You're kidding about other half, you must have done 80% of the work. Nice to be appreciated, however, thanks. Sswonk (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Boston neighborhoods map?

Is there an online official map showing the boundaries between Boston's neighborhoods? I wanted to consult one, but I can't find anything. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The map at Neighborhoods in Boston isn't great, but it shows the major neighborhoods in about the right place. This is official, and shows streets, but it's slower. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see what you mean about it being too slow: it's bad enough that I'm not going to bother using it. I've used such a website before, but only for the Denver list; it works much better than this. Is this what you used to determine neighborhoods for the NRHP list? Also, one request: as you can see at the Boston list talk, I'm not familiar with the "Mass Pike" — would you please explain there for my sake? Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do the neighborhoods in Boston, although I looked at them recently and corrected a couple without reference to a map. Sorry about "Mass Pike" -- it's so generic here that we forget that it's not obvious -- it's the Massachusetts Turnpike, Interstate 90. Since it wasn't laid out by cow trails, it's the only reasonably straight road in the Commonwealth.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Stearns House has been moved. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that you didn't add the neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles River Reservation Parkways

I'm confused with File:Charles River Reservation Parkways Boston MA.jpg: is this really along the parkway? To me it looks like a photo of a lake. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's taken at 42°21′53.6″N 71°8′15.5″W, looking west toward the Henderson Boathouse at 42°21′51″N 71°8′29.7″W I'm not sure whether I like it or not. I took it because it seemed better to show a little of two parkways with the Charles River in between them rather than a lot of one four-lane divided mass of asphalt. Of course, even with the leaves mostly off the trees, you can't really see the asphalt, but the trees on both sides are part of the two Parkways' rights of way. Maybe a better illustration might be a map, as this collection of parkways is another Boston mess of spaghetti. Certainly reading the list doesn't tell you much about them. What do you think? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While I've got your eyeballs, on a closely related topic, what's the best way to fill out an NRHP infobox for very recent nominations, such as Evergreen Cemetery (Boston, Massachusetts)? It's not in Elkman or Focus. Or do we just make do and update when it gets added to the databases? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, forgot to look at this section again; I personally prefer photos of a style that you see in File:Clermont Street Parkway.JPG, which shows the Clermont Street Parkway in Denver. As far as infoboxes: you can get most of the information you need from the recent listings page (and reflected on the city list page), so I'd advise you to put as much as you can in your infobox. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Revere House

You're welcome. Although I generally like distraction-free images better — except for the occasional image such as File:Intersection on the Zanesville Y-Bridge.jpg, where the cars are illustrating the way that the bridge works — the main reason I replaced the file is that yours is less distorted by the sun; note that you can barely see the top of the roof in the other picture.

I'm not aware of a faster method of uploading images. That's why I often take a while to upload large numbers of pictures; for example, the Y-bridge photo that I linked shows one of 24 sites that I photographed last Thursday, but I've uploaded pictures for only 3 of them so far. Sorry; I too wish that there was a faster method. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Christ Church question

Just curious, why move Christ Church (Boston, Massachusetts) to Christ Church (Hyde Park, Massachusetts) when Hyde Park, Massachusetts is a redirect to Hyde Park, Boston? Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the move summary, Old North Church is, officially, "Christ Church in the City of Boston" and the official name of the subject parish is "The Parish of Christ Church, Hyde Park", so there's potential for confusion. If you go to the Diocese's Find A Church Page it's not even listed in Boston.

As we've discussed, the Boston neighborhoods are almost separate cities; Hyde Park was not added to Boston until 1912, after the subject was built.

If you think there's a more felicitous combination -- Christ Church (Hyde Park, Boston), I'm not wedded to the one I used, but I thought it was consistent with our naming policy. I'd be equally happy with Christ Church, Hyde Park, which is consistent with its neighboring Cram church All Saints' Church, Ashmont, but I thought that was outside policy.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah — I'd not looked at the article history itself; I simply noted that you had changed the link at the list. Sorry for making you explain what I could have understood myself. Since the official name of this parish is "CC, HP", I don't think that there would be a problem with moving it to that title — the standard NRHP parenthetical disambiguation is meant for when the property name is simply [name], not [name, placename]. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Youth's Companion Building

Hello! Your submission of Youth's Companion Building at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello James. I offered an ALT2 version of the hook, to get around the citation problem with the first-proposed DYK. We can't document that the Pledge of Allegiance was actually written in that building. But the facts stated in my ALT2 can't be confirmed solely from the Youth's Companion Building article either. (The needed facts are spread over at least two articles). Conceivably a few references or words could be added to the Youth's Companion Building article to make one of the hooks fully cited. (Might have to copy some references from the Pledge of Allegiance article). I don't know how DYK's are usually handled, so you may have some idea of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Luckily User:Calmer Waters tweaked the article so it now qualifies as supporting the DYK. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Youth's Companion Building

On 20 November, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Youth's Companion Building, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First Church of Jamaica Plain

Sorry, I'm leaning toward the other guy's picture; aside from the sky, I like how it shows part of the side. Could you try to return to the site on a sunny day? I tend to go more with the document-many-parts-of-the-building philosophy but to choose the nicest-looking picture if I can only go with one; that's why I'll often upload many photos of the same building, as you can see here. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So many sites, so few days. There are a few where I may return, but I do feel that having pictures of two sites is better than spending time returning to one site. I agree wholeheartedly that documenting many aspects is good -- all four sides where possible, also details, see St. Johns Ruxton MD.

While we're on the subject of Saint John the Baptist Church, Maria Stein, why are they called "Cross Tipped Churches". While it's certainly not universal, it's very common to have a cross on top, particularly among the Romans and Episcopalians, so I don't understand why it's a differentiation in Ohio?

I also wish we could encourage people to look at the lists before they go out. The First Church photo and the great shot of the Loring-Greenough House across the street were taken by the same guy, but he didn't take three other sites within a hundred yards -- I took one that you'll see later from the back porch of the First Church -- First Church wasn't on my list of pix needed so I only took it as part of the HD there, then discovered back here that it's a site in its own right.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on the encourage-to-look thing; if you've never looked at the HABS list, you'll be amazed how many pictures are of properties virtually next door to sites that are listed, and the whole point of HABS is the documentation of historic properties and districts. As far as "cross-tipped" — I don't know why. We who live in western Ohio are all familiar with the name "Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches", even though the origin of the name is obscure, and the Multiple Property Submission for all these churches and church-related properties is called the "Cross-Tipped Churches Thematic Resources". Perhaps it's because of the nature of the area: most of these churches (with a few exceptions) are tall Gothic Revival structures in small villages or smaller crossroads communities (for example, this church and the former parochial school across the road are pretty much the only buildings in their community), and they're so close together that you can often see many of them; there are places where you can see perhaps half a dozen tall steeples. This in an area of nothing but sparsely-populated farmland, and many of the churches are bigger than most that you'd find in the Boston metropolitan area. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since we're on the topic of images: do you know how I can avoid getting the "leaning" look that you see in photos such as File:St. Henry Catholic Church side.jpg? Not all my photos of tall churches are like this, as you can see with File:St. Anthony Catholic Church in Padua.jpg, but it's common enough that I don't know what I'm doing wrongly. Is it simply a matter of holding the at a slightly wrong angle? I've taken to getting multiple pictures from each angle in hopes of getting at least one that's good, but as you see with St. Henry, it doesn't always work. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(Forgive me if you know most of this -- I'll use words of one syllable -- ignore what you know) There are two possibilities--

• In an ideal world, you want the digital film to be parallel with the main plane of the subject -- so, for an architectural subject you want the film to be vertical. If you point the camera up, it makes the subject look like it's leaning back. Of course, sometimes this is hard -- tallish building, narrow street, pointing the camera up is very tempting. With a View camera you solve this by moving the lens up and/or the film down, so you effectively get a larger piece of film. This requires a lens that has the ability to cover a larger area than is usual. Some 35mm cameras can mount a Perspective Control lens which will do the same thing -- allow the lens to move up (or any other way) relative to the film.

You can accomplish the same thing with a very wide angle lens and then cutting off the bottom of the image. I do both -- I own a 28mm PC lens for my Nikon, so sometimes I use it. Sometimes, particularly in the city, I'll use a 15mm lens and cut off half or more of the image. The First Church image was taken with the 15mm, and about half was cut off. So, first rule is, never point the camera up, because when you do, rectangles are imaged as trapezoids, with the upper corners closer than the lower ones.

• Also in an ideal world, if you obeyed the first rule, a lens would make an image of a rectangle that was exactly a rectangle. As you go to lenses that are wider and wider angle, this gets to be harder to design and much more expensive to make, particularly in the case of zoom lenses. The image tends to bulge in the middle of the rectangle, so that the corners of the rectangle bend in. This doesn't matter much for 90% of pix, but when you have a church steeple near the edge of the image, it comes into play. (The widest angle of all lenses, fisheyes, make this very obvious)

Now, I'll stick my neck out and guess that in the case of St. Henry, you cut off some at the bottom. There's not a lot of the first problem, although you can see some of it to the right, which appears to be leaning away a bit. The problem with the steeple is the second problem. You can also see it a little in the foundation of the church and in the fact that both visible corners of the church are closer at the top than the bottom. The solutions are

• get farther away and use less of the edges of the film
• get farther away, zoom in, and use the lens in a less wide angle way
• put the steeple closer to the center and avoid having straight lines near the edges
• depending on what you're using for a camera, maybe upgrade. Architecture is the most demanding of subjects on lens quality.

In the case of St. Anthony, you have less of the second problem because the steeple is closer to the center. There's more of the first problem, however. Sometimes you can't avoid it.

For a good example of a demanding subject that even a high quality lens couldn't make perfect, see today's DYK. You'll note that the buildings to the left and right lean toward the center just a little. The whole image is 2000x1312, which I cropped to 1449x784, so I threw away almost half the image from the bottom and a third from the sides -- fortunately I could get far enough back to do that. If I were getting paid to take the photo, I'd have hired a sky hook to get me up three stories and it would be close to perfect -- the bulge would still be there at the edges, but it's less noticeable than the leaning.

I hope this is clear and helps -- feel free to ask more. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much; virtually everything you said was new to me. In case you wonder: I have a Canon PowerShot A540. When I'm photographing tall churches horizontally, I'll often point the camera up. I do not crop my photos; the only image editing software that I really know how to use is Microsoft Paint, and that damages the image a good bit, so all of my photos are as they came from the camera. You know, I think I'll come back to your talk page to reread what you say before the next time that I go out photographing tall churches. Thanks very much! Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And congrats on getting the photo and article at DYK! I've only once gotten a picture on DYK. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I should have looked -- of course there's an article on the subject -- see the illustration #7A, barrel distortion, for the second type of problem, but don't bother reading the article, far too technical for the real world. For the first problem, see Perspective control, which is pretty good.

It's hard for me to believe that File:Merrill Lock 6 Landing.jpg is untouched after shooting -- the three quarter view really covers up the perspective problem -- I would have guessed that you cut off some of the bottom.

Starting with a Nikon F in the early sixties, I shot nothing but Kodachrome slides, and learned the discipline of getting it right, on the film, the first time. Ansel Adams was the great proponent of that and you have done very well with it. Now, with the F's great-great-great-grand-daughter (F > F2 > F3 > F4 > F5 > D1), but some of the same lenses, I've gotten away from that. Almost all of my Commons images are cropped and most are adjusted for contrast or exposure. (I should add that all my wide angle lenses are fixed focal length -- no zooms -- so I can't crop by zooming and must do it in post processing.)

Your Canon does very well for you -- glancing over your photos, File:Bear Lake Comfort Station.jpg is a very difficult exposure, balancing the sunny snow with the shadow brown, but it did fine. File:Empson Cannery.jpg is in the same category. File:Bowling Green Township School.jpg is an image where I would have instinctively cut off the road, but I'm not sure that it doesn't add to the stark simplicity of the building.

But, on balance I have to say that while some of my images can be criticized for being shot on poor days, some of yours need some post-processing. Nothing fancy -- the occasional rotation of a degree or two when the camera wasn't quite level, cropping off the bottom so you can keep the film vertical without having to show acres of grass or asphalt in the foreground, and a very few where you might touch up the contrast or exposure. Most of the world uses Adobe PhotoShop or one of its cheaper versions, I use Corel PhotoPaint (largely for historical reasons and I've never seen a need to learn new software), and Steve Swonk (who collaborated with me on fully illustrating Quincy), recommends GIMP, which is free. He's a web designer, so that recommendation has some weight.

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the detailed help! Yes, the cannery was hard; I'd spent most of the evening getting photos in Longmont, and that was the last site; it took plenty of balancing on my knee and lots of different photos from the same angle. Compare File:Longmont College.jpg, taken five minutes earlier from an angle that didn't permit anything except holding the camera. As far as the school — I also took some closer-zoomed photos, thus without the road, but they also missed out on the sky, and cropping just the road would make it badly-centered. I tend to see the building's context as significant, especially with pictures such as the school: I took it to illustrate the article on the township in which the school is located, and thus I wanted to get as much scenery — even a road — in with it. Finally, I too take cloudy-sky pictures; except of course for the map, all the images in Commons:Category:Mechanicsburg, Ohio and its subcategory I took on the same day. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] So it is. But it's dwarfed by most of the Cross-Tipped Churches in this group :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

sandwiching

Hi James. Thanks for your response. I edit mostly in Safari so I had not noticed the issue with extensive white space. Thank you for pointing that out. The 3 column list in the Charles Connick article is probably a candidate to be removed to a separate List article as "traditional" wikipedia articles typically discourage the inclusion of lists in first place.The Connick article is young, and it is still evolving, so it will probably be eventually fleshed out with more text and other elements. The issues of article image placement style and image size are often discussed. In fact, there was a recent rfc regarding increasing the default image thumbnail size that may interest you. Although monitors and resolution are getting bigger, the access to Wikipedia on hand held devices is also increasing, so sandwiching is still an issue even for users with the latest technology. Certainly it depends on the equipment people are working on (as well as images sizes and the article content itself), but there are still a large proportion of users with monitors and laptops with limited screen size and resolution in which sandwiching becomes an issue, but it probably won't be that way forever. It is certainly a point you could bring up in a community-wide discussion. Cheers and thanks for you comments and edits. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Francis B. Austin House is the one that I believe the majority of the wikipedia community would say is formatted more appropriately. Image galleries are really the way to go here I think, at least by previously established precedent. Honestly, there is so little text in Bunker Hill School that the sandwiching doesn't bother me, and I'm not sure it would bother most readers or editors. I'm not one to force issues on articles like this, but there are definitely those out there that do seem to enjoy that sort of thing. IMHO, the Bunker Hill School article is too much of a Stub-class article to worry about the layout there. However, sandwiching is generally not tolerated if it ever goes to any more advanced article assessment and such as the peer reviews for things like B- or GA- status. So, honestly, for such small stub-like articles, I would not be that concerned. Just be aware that someone may change it's layout in the future, especially if more text is added, but at that point it would be a completely different article. BTW, the National Register is in the process of digitizing all of their property nomination forms (see here), so as that project is completed, there will be a lot more information available on-line that will be able to be added to these nrhp articles. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Requests

1. Move completed. Couldn't you do it yourself? Not complaining — I'm just confused, as it never told me that I needed to delete the page in order for it to be moved; non-admins can move something over a redirect if there's only one edit in its history, as was the case here.
2. No. Not because you're not qualified, but because I'm not a Commons admin, and (as far as I know) non-admins can't approve people for AWB.
3. I always check with the Elkman generator for the construction date, style of architecture, etc. and try to put in categories for those; thus you'll see me putting on "Built in the United States in ____". I'll also try to put on the construction material; there are categories for brick, wooden, and stone buildings, and houses and churches have their own subcategories of those. There's always a category for whatever type of building it is (churches, houses, grocery stores, etc.), and I'll generally try to put in something for its former uses if I know what they are. For churches, you can generally find a category for the denomination; I'll try to put on former owners of the building as well, as you can see at File:Holy Spirit Fellowship, former First RPC.jpg — once a Reformed Presbyterian church, it was sold to a local Catholic parish, and now it's owned by a Pentecostal congregation, so I've put in categories for all three types of churches. Moreover, I'll try to put on categories for things that I see in the pictures, such as US flags (Commons:Category:Photographs of flags of the United States), wrought iron fences (Commons:Category:Wrought iron in the United States), etc. If it's on a state or federal highway and the photo shows that highway, I'll always put on a category for that; with the church example, it's in Commons:Category:Pennsylvania Route 18, and File:Church and town hall in Aurora.jpg is in Commons:Category:State highways in Ohio because the road in the foreground is State Route 146.

Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Lakes Maritime History website

FYI, you might be interested in Great Lakes Maritime History website. Happy Thanksgiving. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Historic postcard images

Huelse, Klaus -- Meine Leuchtturm-Seite: Leuchttürme USA auf historischen Postkarten -- Historic postcard images of U.S. lighthouses, Historic Post Card Views. There are many incredible lighthouses from all over the world. The downside is that I cannot figure out how he names these cards, and absent finding them at Russ Rowlett Lighthouse directory (which occasionally has proper links), I can't find the links for particular lighthouses. As an example, there are more than a dozen Michigan lights, including really old cards for such disappeared historic lights as Belle Isle Light, Windmill Point Light and Mama Juda Light. Has a really good picture of the Harbor Beach Light, Old Mackinac Point Light and Bay City Lighthouse, for example. Would be great to be able to put links into our articles. I know he gives Rowlett permission and the links (Rowlett and some other site note that occasionally). Any thoughts would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

What a collection! I don't see that he's trying to make money selling them, so maybe he'll cooperate with us. His permission, however, is not what counts. Commons would insist on permission from the original copyright holder, evidence that the image was published before 1923, or evidence that the image was published before 1979 without a copyright notice on the reverse side. He could help with that, but even his complete willingness to cooperate doesn't get us there.

1. Why don't you float it in front of him and see if he'll help?
2. Failing that, make a list of all the lights destroyed before 1923 that he has. Those, we can take.

Happy thanksgiving. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting them into commons would of course be great. All I really wanted was real links (Rowlett has some of those) so that one can go directly to the relevant card, without navigating through the home page of the website. He truly has an awesome collection, and we would like to give him exposure. Obviously, he is justifiably proud of what he has put together -- Meine Leuchtturm-Seite: Leuchttürme USA auf historischen Postkarten -- and may at least welcome links. When I put them into articles, I have been scrupulous in putting in putting in both his name (Rowlett just mentions "Huelse" has a postcard) and his full website name. I have not looked at his other pictures (not "postkarten") but assume that they are just as beautiful and comprehensive. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Is your question how to get the URL of the image? Right click on the image - full size, not the thumb - and click on "Properties". The URL will come up. For example, Harbor Beach Light.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are a genius, or I am a dunce. It worked like this: Huelse, Klaus -- Meine Leuchtturm-Seite: Leuchttürme USA auf historischen Postkarten -- Historic postcard images of U.S. lighthouses, Historic Post Card View of Harbor Beach Light. Thanks for the help. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Stan

Our standard software has so many features that we can't possibly know all of them -- so no "dunce" applies. As for "genius", I have the advantage of maintaining a web site that has a lot of images from other sites, so I look up URLs all the time. If you don't regularly use right clicking, though, you might try it out in various contexts -- it can save lots of time. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for you and your contributions here! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. From an editor of your skill and experience that's very high praise. I am thankful for many things, including the community spirit of Wikipedia, of which you are certainly a part.

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know...

I saw in your last edit summary on the Wick, Highland page that you were unsure whether the Gaelic was correct or not. As someone who lived in Wick for about 15 years, I can confirm that it is correct. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm pretty good at smelling vandalism, but I really had no idea whether it was a legitimate edit or not; I'm glad to know my guess was right. I spent only one night in Wick when I took the panorama of the harbor. We were on our way from Rosyth to Holyhead on Ilchester and the Caledonian Canal was closed longer than expected, so we went around.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dry dock tonnage

Thanks for that. I'm pretty sure you are correct. It didn't seem right to me either, and I was thinking of rechecking the source, but your edit persuaded me to do so. The dock is mentioned in the source in several different articles, on the first two it talks of "gross tons", the second "net tons", and the final two, just "tons". So I'm guessing the original source got it wrong on the first couple of occasions, and corrected it in later editions. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

More than you wanted to know: Ship size is measured several ways.

• Cargo vessels are typically described by deadweight tonnage, which is the weight in long tons (2240 pounds) or metric tonnes (1000 kg) of the cargo they can carry -- the weight of the empty ship is not included.
• Military vessels are usually measured in displacement tonnage (either long or metric) -- the actual weight of the vessel and a stated amount of stores ("lightship", "standard", and "full load" are typical). Vessels that don't carry cargo (tugs, etc.) are also shown this way.
• Most non-military ships, passenger, cargo, and yachts, are measured for regulatory purposes into their gross and net tonnage; in the USA this is the number of 100 cubic feet contained within the structure, according to fairly arcane rules. "Net" is gross (everything) less deductions for non-earning space. Typically in smaller vessels the gross tonnage is less than the actual vessel weight because the owners use all sorts of loopholes to reduce it, thus reducing crew size and the size of the licenses required. In larger vessels it is often much more -- a typical cruise ship measures 50% more gross tonnage than its actual displacement, which is why most cruise ship ads show gross tonnage when describing the vessel.

A drydock cares about only four things -- length, beam, draft, and actual weight -- although in fact, most drydocks can lift any ordinary vessel that fits inside, so weight is a good shorthand for describing the dock, but is not the critical thing.

. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read the dedicated articles on the different tonnage types several times, but that's probably the best simple explanation I've come across. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. From someone with your long history of ship articles, that's high praise. Why are you Gatoclass?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's a long story behind that nic. But in case you are wondering, as some people have, no I never served on a Gato class or any other kind of sub or indeed any kind of ship, and the fact that I ended up editing ship articles with a marine-associated nic is purely coincidental :) Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Furnace Brook Parkway

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Furnace Brook Parkway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy_of_Spinoza

Here is an approach to articles you might find useful. User talk:Tomwsulcer has some interesting stuff on that page, and he is doing some very neat work. A kindred spirt. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Dorchester Bay

Just want to let you know I created the page Dorchester Bay (Boston Harbor). Dorchester Bay was taken by a page I moved, now known as Dorchester Bay (Nunavut). Please change any links you happen to find to disambiguate them. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Brattleboro, Vermont

Would you please help me at Brattleboro, Vermont? A user keeps adding Brian Akey to the list of residents; I removed him because his article says nothing of it, so the user began adding Brattleboro — without any sources whatsoever — to his article. I've issued a warning to the editor, but I just realised that I've hit 3RR, and I don't think this is significant enough to fall under the BLP exemption from 3RR. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to help, but I need to ask -- is it worth it? The real question is not whether Akey belongs in Brattleboro, Vermont, but whether Brian Akey belongs on Wikipedia. There's little evidence on Google that this person has any notability at all. My guess is that this is one of those frustrating articles where someone is promoting himself, but it will be a battle to do anything about it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection and reading WP:MUSICBIO (and in particular the footnote at the bottom), I ask, how about a {{prod}} on Brian Akey?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how effective a prod would be — if you're correct about self-promotion (and I'd not at all be surprised if you are), he's likely to remove it. Still, we could always go to AFD, so it couldn't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as the categories: without "Massachusetts" is probably better for consistency. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ Church names

I noticed your edit to Christ Church disambiguation page, adding "official names" for several MA churches that I think are named simply "Christ Church" in their NRHP listings. Thanks, i am sure that helps some readers. For example for "Old North Church", I am sure it is helpful to show both that and the official "Christ Church in the City of Boston", as long as both appear in the article.

I'm not sure what is the official name vs. what is the common name for these churches, but perhaps some of the articles actually should be renamed, e.g. move "Christ Church (Cambridge, Massachusetts)" to "Christ Church Cambridge"? If article names and lede texts are updated that way, then the disambiguation page should be updated. Note, for the corresponding NRHP list-articles, the NRHP name should be displayed, but while disambiguation page should always show the actual article name it does not always have to show a NRHP name. doncram (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. A while ago I moved Christ Church (Boston, Massachusetts) to Christ Church, Hyde Park (Hyde Park is a neighborhood of Boston) because I was concerned that there could be confusion since Old North Church is actually Christ Church [in the City of] Boston.

But "Christ Church Cambridge" would be problematic -- there is also Christ Episcopal Church and Cemetery (Cambridge, Maryland) (which I've just added to the dab page), so I think I like having the (city, state) in the title most of the time.

However, I'm not comfortable with the way this dab page is set up -- with the listings for Christ Church and the listings for Christ Episcopal Church on separate pages. In most cases, the average person is going to call the church "Christ Church" and not know that the legal name contains "Episcopal". Case in point:

• the Diocese of Massachusetts website calls out "Christ Church"
• the Wikipedia article is Christ Episcopal Church (Waltham, Massachusetts)
• it calls itself Christ Church Episcopal Waltham in one place and "Christ Church" everywhere else.
• the NRHP listing is "Christ Episcopal Church"

Seems to me that "Christ Church" and "Christ Episcopal Church" ought to be dabbed together under Christ Church so that the naive reader doesn't have to go through two lists. I'd just do it, but my instinct tells me there's a policy somewhere -- and I always find it easier to ask advice from an old hand than to sort through WP policy documentation. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's an explicit policy about having combo dab pages. (And I am not too eager to have an explicit policy created, as I am afraid the editors focusing mostly on dab page policy would be likely to come up with something that does not work well for NRHP dab pages. It's been a long-running battle at the relevant policy pages, to protect reasonable guidelines and prevent changes to arbitrary rules that work badly in many circumstances.) About combo dabs, I have often combined pages that would otherwise be small ones, like I would combine "ObscureLastName House" and "ObscureLastName Homestead" into one dab page with a redirect from the other. Also, I have often created duplicate entries on a big dab pages, duplicating those on a smaller dab page. For example if there are two places named exactly James LastName House, i create a separate dab page for readers looking for exactly "James LastName House", but I also include them both on the much bigger "LastName House" dab page. Here, there are many places named "Christ Episcopal Church" and some readers would be looking for exactly that, so I would keep the separate "Christ Episcopal Church" dab page for sure. It's a judgment call whether you also want to include a duplicate entry for each one of those in the "Christ Church" dab page too. I think I would choose not to, unless you know specifically that "Christ Church" is an alternative name for a given church whose main name is "Christ Episcopal Church". Dab pages aren't that important, anyhow, they just need to be serviceable enough for readers to find what they want (either find an article, or find out that there is no article yet for a given place). Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does help, thank you, particularly the thought that "they just need to be serviceable enough...." In my experience "Episcopal" is a part of the legal name of most corporations of Episcopal parishes, but most parishioners and others leave it out in ordinary talk. I suspect that the only difference between two lists is whether the article creator was thinking formally or informally; hence my thought to combine them. But, as you say, they can always be found with two looks and we have more interesting fish to fry. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Huron Islands Lighthouse

I'm sure your "Two cents" would be helpful. Merry Christmas. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

And Merry Christmas to your and yours, also. I'm not sure you'll like all I did (once I finish) -- I've removed and changed a lot of cites. I see no reason to cite a primary reference and a secondary reference for the same fact, or for citing multiple references for non-controversial facts -- surely the ARLHS number doesn't need two different cites, particularly since it's already called out by Rowlett. I also collect all of the infobox references at the bottom, just as Elkman does in the NRHP boxes -- note that the Light List and the CG History site cover all the facts in the infobox, except the ARLHS number, so I added Rowlett for that. I know you like to ref Pepper, but again, why ref a secondary source when a primary source has the fact?

I also am going to move it to Huron Island Light, which is the official name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer by training, I happen to like chain citations.

In editing articles, I think that part of what I like to do is give the reader lots of links and options, which they are free to use (or not and disregard) as they will. I like maximizing links and references, but recognize that there are 'different long splices for different ships.' I don't put them in "External links" as that draws somebody's ire (they call it a "linkfarm"). I also like that the Pepper databases give the reader a context for comparison with other lights. And the ARLHS websites/cites would seem to be primary sources on ARLHS, plus they have a lot more information than just the number, so I prefer them to Rowlett on that issue. I also like having a citation to Volume 7 of the lightlist. When you take a look at what you deleted from the infobox, you might want to revisit the question.

I am by nature a WP:Inclusionist, not a WP:Deletionist, although I recognize that there are also legitimate positions in between the two extremes.

I mention this to advocate and explain my view and approach, so that you don't think I'm just being arbitrary or Pig-headed.

But I know your predilections (I watch Tenants Harbor Light), so I know when I get you involved that we have different approaches. We both know that neither of us owns the article, and there is room for diversity. You pays your money and takes your chances. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

OK, I understand giving them multiple sources for some things. But it's different from being a lawyer -- in a brief, if you can cite two cases it's generally stronger than if you cite one. But even at law that isn't true if one of them is a local court and the other is a recent decision of the US Supreme Court. In citing a simple fact, if the Light List has it, then that should be it. On the fundamental facts of the lighthouse infobox,

• Light List, Volume VII, Great Lakes (PDF). Light List. United States Coast Guard.
• "Historic Light Station Information and Photography: Michigan". United States Coast Guard Historian's Office. Archived from the original on 2017-05-01.

(by the way, have you noted how easy using the two templates above makes citing the Coast Guard?)

cover almost everything, although occasionally you need Rowlett (in my area) or Pepper (in yours) for the current lens. I don't generally cite the ARLHS because I have found them unreliable, but I do include their light reference number. And I don't like cites on individual lines in the infoboxes because I think it clutters them and makes them hard to read. Again, Elkman should be a good example -- developed over time by the NRHP Project, it has a lot of thought and opinion in it and only one cite, at the end.

I haven't moved the article -- thought I'd let you react first, but I do think it should be moved. I think we've pretty well established that articles on operational lights should be at the Light List name and those of deactivated lights at the name in the CG History, ignoring the NRHP name except in the NRHP infobox and once in-line. . . . . Jim . . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For my part, wherever the article goes is fine. Make sure you update the Michigan list and the U.S. list, if necessary. The whole issue of naming lighthouse articles is boring and ultimately of no consequence. Like Endianism. You're right that all citations are not created equally. But as one deletes links/citations one dilutes some of the utility of the encyclopedia. Yes, I know it's 'not just a collection of links,' but links and sources are involved in its utility. It would be nice if those who are deleting them would first look at them, and then make a considered individual choice. But that's just my WP:inclusionist preference. As to the form issues, Michigan is unique because we have at least two unique good sources -- Terry Pepper Seeing the Light and Michigan Lighthouse Conservancy -- that are comprehensive and fairly reliable. These are are not available for most of the rest of the country. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Edit conflict, again -- But what I was writing goes right to your latest: On the Inclusionist/Deletionist question, first, that's a little off base. I have no thought at all of deleting the article. Although I do do page patrol from time to time and do hang {{prod}} on a few articles, I think any rational editor would agree that they deserved deletion (a two sentence article on a public grade school in California with no notable grads, architecture, or anything else, a self promoting piece on a high school rock musician who had never had a paid gig, a political diatribe on the evils of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin that was partially wrong).

I also am OK with your including a lot of facts -- the only one I took out was the sentence on the cruise line that ran tours by the island -- I'm OK with saying that there are commercial tour boats, but not with naming them unless they're notable in their own right.

What I object to is giving multiple citations for the same point -- unless it's really obscure or wierd, one cite should be enough. If you want to pass the cites around to multiple sources -- Pepper, Rowlett, lighthouse friends, ARLHS, Wobser, OK, but not on the same point.

You might. BTW, take a look at the refs in Wolf Trap Light -- it's a new method that just became available in September. You can gather any or all of your refs under the {{reflist}} template and then just cite them by name in the text. It makes the text a great deal more readable when it isn't cluttered with long refs. I used it just once in Wolf Trap, but it kept an eight line reference out of the main text. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Image rotation help, please?

I've uploaded File:Nuestra Senora de Luz Church.jpg without cropping off the border because it's quite badly tilted; could you rotate it please? Thanks, and have a merry Christmas! Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A small Christmas gift: . Thanks for all your help this year. Merry Christmas to you and yours. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Linear scale

Jim, I think the linear scale article is great. Nice examples and a good explanation of what's going on. I'm not entirely comfortable with linking to Google search results as a reference, though (for the "Do Not Scale Drawing" paragraph); do you know of a better source for that information? Overall it's a great article—much better and more detailed than what I had in mind when I suggested a stub. Thanks for your work. —Bkell (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the Google search, it gave me pause, but I couldn't find a drawing (five or ten minutes looking) that I could be pretty sure would remain posted a year from now. Ideas would be welcome?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure—this is the first time I've heard of that particular phrase. But surely there must be some text or reference that explains to architects- or engineers-in-training what that phrase means. —Bkell (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been forty years since I took Engineering Drawing 101, so I don't remember. I suspect it's one of those things whose meaning is obvious and those who read drawings see all the time. As I said, I could cite hundreds of drawings (see Google), but who knows how long some of them will be up -- besides, the point is not a single drawing, but widespread use, which the search certainly demonstrates. With that said, I share your unease -- would we be more comfortable with removing the Google link and just leaving "Do a web search on..." unlinked? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the fact that we're linking to Google that makes me uneasy; it's that we aren't really citing a particular source. It's as though we are asking the reader to do the research himself if he wants to verify what we say. If the meaning of the phrase is obvious, I would be happy just removing the note altogether, in accordance with Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. —Bkell (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Location map USA Louisiana

Thanks for the heads up - I made the map of Louisiana from Census sources and it is also used in Template:Geobox locator Louisiana. The coordinates seem to work there, so I copied them to Template:Location map USA Louisiana. This is the first I have edited the latter template; I see from the Template History and Talk Page that coordinates have been an issue before, but this is the first I have edited it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and glad it works - for some reason the locator map image is not showing up for me on the lighthouse page you linked. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no idea what the glitch is. IE and my computer are often weird. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparrow House

Aha. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry, I didn't check to see if this house had been discussed before. I guess I'm a little confused as to the criteria for listing a building. Is it restricted to the oldest structures in each state? Historical Perspective (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a new editor, so forgive me if I include a little orientation here that you may or may not want or need. Also forgive the words of one syllable which follow -- I sometimes carry being clear too far.

The "policy" on what buildings get on the list was discussed, in a very limited way, by three editors at Oldest buildings in the United States#What is eligible for this list?. It's also, now, after your addition of Sparrow House to the list, in the second paragraph of the main article. Although we set some store by history and precedent, as you'll see, it was a recent and very wishy-washy discussion -- absolutely nothing cast in stone. In fact, it looks like User:Swampyank agrees with my suggestion of 1650 as an exemption date, so we may change the policy. You're the historian, what do you think?

Note, BTW, that Sparrow House hadn't been discussed before. I added the note to the talk page after you added Sparrow House to the list.

A final educational note (I was confused by this at first -- maybe you're not). Communication on Wikipedia is free form. As A general rule, if the discussion is about a single article, it will take place on that article's talk page. So, discussion about changing the criteria for listing on Oldest buildings will take place on its talk page.

If it's between two editors -- "Do me a favor and take a look at this...", or "How do I..." it will take place on the users' talk pages. That's where it can get confusing. Some of us (including me) prefer to keep discussions in one place, so that if you leave a note on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page, as I am doing now. This means that either

• You have to add my talk page to your watchlist and keep an eye peeled for an answer (go to My preferences>Watchlist> and check "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" to make the addition happen automatically for all edits.)
• I can add the {{tl:talkback}} template to your talk page to alert you (as I will now, but don't generally as experienced editors will note the header at top of this page and act accordingly).

Some editors, including a couple who have many many conversations going on at once will put all their responses on the recipient's talk page and expect the other person to respond on theirs. I find this unwieldy, particularly for third parties, as you have to go back and forth between the two pages to read the thread, but it is easier to avoid dropping balls.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NRHP Style Guide

I see you have started revising some of my work on the NRHP style guide.. thanks for the help! I was beginning to wonder if I was going to be going at it alone haha. While it's not something major, I do have a small problem with something you added.. the reference to the Charles Adams-Woodbury Locke House article should be replaced with a more developed article IMO. I tried to only include links to at least decently-expanded articles in the guide so as to show off some of our "better" work. The only article I added as an example which I felt was under-developed was Rowan Oak, and I left an HTML comment saying we need a better one.. that's just the best one I could think of at the time. I'm sure there are many instances where coords are ambiguous, so it shouldn't be that hard to find a better article for that one.. but I was just going to bring it up for future reference.

Thanks for the help! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I was in the hospital briefly for minor surgery just after volunteering and I haven't done any real Wiki work -- just diddling around -- until today.

I understand completely about Charles Adams-Woodbury Locke House. I picked it because

1. we owned it for three years
2. I took the photo
3. and it fit the bill -- a house that has no distinguishing features from the aerial on Google.

I'll find something else that fits your bill and my #3 and maybe my #2. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PRR locomotives

I still disagree; I don't see it as being at all unlikely, given that Niagara just wrote a DYK article about one of these locomotives. Since each listed object is a single locomotive (and unless I'm missing something, we don't have evidence that these locomotives were listed as being representative of the classes), I don't think it any more reasonable to include the NRHP data on the class page than it would be to make our coverage of a house simply a part of an article about the neighborhood in which it's located. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of movable objects such as locomotives and ships that have been moved, we typically list them where they are. For example, DONALD B (towboat) is listed in Brown County, Ohio, but it's currently on the list for Switzerland County, Indiana because it's moored near Vevay, Indiana. Don't worry about moving the locomotive — I'll get it done. Thanks for the note. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do help on the C&O 2-6-6-2. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DD1

DD1 Electric Locomotive No. 36 turns out to not have been a mistake. It's a bit complicated, but I think I figured it out. The two halves of a DD1 were assigned two different numbers, but for "simplicification in train dispatching" each pair was assigned an "Electrified Zone Number". The pair in the PA Railroad Museum, 3936 & 3937, had an EZN of 36. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File:D&RGW 220.jpg

I have just nominated the above file for deletion on Commons. I recognised the reference on the source page as one of Otto Perry's photographs. The copyright has not expired and is held by Denver Public Library, who allow their images to be used for educational purposes. They are not free, so are unsuitable for Commons, but we can claim fair use for them, and upload them to en.wikipedia.org instead. Please feel free to do so, but the following resources are worth investigating first:

• Category:Otto Perry images
• {{Non-free Otto Perry image}}
• {{Non-free use rationale}}

Regards, Iain Bell (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I understood the issues -- it's a 1920 image -- I looked through all the images of the C-16 class to find it. Since Perry was in the business of selling pix and postcards, it was published immediately.... Why doesn't the 1923 rule work? 13:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I like the Santa Fe 3759 photo — great find! Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fun, one will either like it or think it's silly .... I'm recatting locomotives on commons and just ran across it... 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image help?

Would you be able to help me by rotating File:Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Celina.jpg? I've always been annoyed by its tilt. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's so tack sharp, I hate to fool with it, but I think it's OK. If you object to my removing the street light, I'll do another and leave it in.File:Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Celina 1.jpg. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No complaint about the missing streetlight; it's not as if I was trying to get it in the picture :-) I'm going to replace all instances of my original picture with your edited version. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another request — could you rotate File:South Union Mennonite Church near West Liberty.jpg and crop out the edges? I took this while riding at highway speed, so I couldn't zoom properly. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; that's exactly what I was wanting. I'll try to answer these questions. By the way, how do you know that it's an elm? Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was guessing that the shape was what led you to say that, but as I really don't know my trees very well, I don't know what to look for when the leaves are off. Thanks much for the image; it looks much better in the infobox at Liberty Township, Logan County, Ohio than the previous picture did. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your source for saying that the D&RGW 463 is currently in use? I'd like to identify a source to use on the county lists as a reference for the locomotive's moving from place to place, but as I don't understand several of the sources on that page, I'm having a hard time. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP address just left a comment on my talk that responded to this question. Was that you? If so, and if you're uncomfortable with having your IP address publicly available, you can have it oversighted. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a request for oversight. Would you be willing to leave me a similar response (while signed in!) after these edits are oversighted? Thanks for the clarification on the references. And as far as the archive — I archive at the end of every third month. Do you think that there are enough comments that the page is inconveniently large? I really don't want my normal schedule to make it hard for people to communicate, so I'll cut my archive time if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind on restoring the comment; I've deleted the revisions. Here's what you wrote:

No, the last one, 5, which I think I cited correctly:

"In 2009, it was moved to the railroad's shop at Chama, New Mexico where a major rebuild is underway.[5]" and reference 5 is [5]

• The first photo shows 463 in service in 2002, her last trip before breaking a side rod
• The second photo shows her at Chama, where she's been since 2002.
• the three links at the top (UPDATE FEB 11, 2009 463 IS IN THE SHOP, TEAR-DOWN HAS BEGUN) et seq, shows her being taken apart for a major rebuild
• the note at the bottom of each page shows that the rebuild is expected to be complete this year. That might need a grain of salt, particularly since the last update was a year ago.

Again, thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[unindent] Another request — could you crop File:Firstside from Mount Washington.jpg to the boundaries of the Firstside Historic District? I've added an image note to show the buildings in the district. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! What type of documentation do you want — an explanation of using the notes feature? Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And sorry if I'm sounding picky, but could you crop out some of the river and some of the buildings in the background? The district is exclusively the buildings on the street where the school bus is; buildings such as PPG Place (the dark glass buildings that look like castles) and the buildings at an equal or farther distance from the river aren't part of the district. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding a note is simple. Look under the image and you'll see a link for "Full resolution". Immediately below that is a box saying "Add a note" and a question mark next to that. Clicking the question mark will take you to a help page that explains the process. Once you select "Add a note", click and hold at a location; dragging the mouse pointer will create a rectangle with your first click as one of its corners. If you want to test it, there's a link in the help page to create an image note sandbox. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's basically it; the box was drawn quickly, since I didn't think it extremely important to be so careful to get every elevator shack in the box :-) Please do include somewhat of the river; the district's significance derives from its place as the last remaining group of Monongahela River warehouses in the city's downtown, so taking out the river entirely would remove a bit of the context. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect! I've used File:Conestoga Building in the Firstside Historic District.jpg (it's the tall building on the right side, with the elevator shack) to represent the district on the Pittsburgh list for several months, but this will be much better. Maybe I should write about it soon? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: D&RGW 168

I think I just got lucky. I saw that the To-Do list was updated, and it reminded me of two redirects of mine that I forgot to cover, and then I saw the D&RGW article you created. ----DanTD (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Retrotronics

An article that you have been involved in editing, Retrotronics, has been listed for deletion (not by me, but I noticed the nom failed to notify you). If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrotronics. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Thanks for giving me the links and details for using the bots. I have seen it used by others but I have not tried it before. Hopefully it will help me make changes more easily. Jllm06 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:File:Outdoor Art Club plaque.jpg

Thanks for the notice about the copyvio, I had no idea. Guess I'm learning the hard way too. OK to delete the file, I'd do it if I knew how. Bento00 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

Thanks for all your help with picking images. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was lucky with the brightness, glad you moticed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons User Categories

Thanks for the heads up - Wikipedia is so big and complex that there are always new things to learn. I like the idea, but it might take a while to put all 1828 files I've uploaded on Commons in categories ;-) Thanks again and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I know a few other users who do this; Mvincec (whom I know in real life), plus Altairisfar (whom you may have seen at WP:NRHP) and Ammodramus, whom I've somewhat been mentoring. Ammodramus, I mst say, is definitely quite helpful — s/he lives in rural Nebraska and has been contributing tons of pictures; we're to the point that the percentage of NRHP listings in south central Nebraska with images is higher than that of anywhere else in the state :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of people buried at sea

I have nominated List of people buried at sea, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people buried at sea. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd removal

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Travel_to_Monte_Cristo,_Washington_1916.jpg&curid=5164426&diff=35664953&oldid=30508072: why the removal of Commons:Category:Narrow gauge railways in the United States?

When you answer, could you drop a {{tb}} note on my en-wiki talk page, since I don't normally maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, just on Commons? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I can't document it, I don't think it's a narrow gauge. My reasoning is simple -- if it were narrow gauge, it would have to be three foot gauge, there was no track laid in the West between standard and three foot (ie, no 3'6", no meter, etc.) If it's three foot gauge, then the car's distance between wheels is three foot, which is extremely unlikely (a Ford Model T was 56"). Also, the passengers appear to be sitting three abreast, within the rails. That's not possible in three feet. Hence, it's standard gauge. Of course, if you can document that it's narrow, then I'm wrong, but it would take a pretty solid document. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I had gone by this, but I think you are correct. I suspect the remark here has it right. - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that your second ref is talking about a model?? I looked at half a dozen web sites -- lots of photos and history, but the word "gauge" doesn't appear on any of them. All the photos look like standard gauge equipment and there's one where a track gang is shown holding a rail gauge -- they'd have to be pretty short for it to be 3 foot gauge.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As I said, my first ref is the one I went by, but I think it is wrong. The second ref is a modeler, but he is talking about the historical railway. But, precisely what he says is that it should have been built as narrow gauge but wasn't. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Capitol panorama

Breast Cancer Awareness Month...October (when the photo was shot) is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I'm glad you liked how the panorama turned out. I felt that looking at the building at an angle helped break up somewhat the bent look caused by stiching photos taken by turning on a central axis. I've been meaning to go back sometime to get a panorama that extends further to left and right. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

Could you crop out some of the street and some of the trees on both sides of File:First Presbyterian Church, Napoleon.jpg? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay; I don't like it as well, but you seem to have a better idea of aesthetics in photographs, so I'll defer :-) I asked for this now because the article (and the photo) are now at DYK; I'm trying to get a hook combining this and St. Augustine's Catholic Church (Napoleon, Ohio). Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've used my photo of this church at User:Jameslwoodward/Architectural photography, so I guess you find it useful :-) It was a difficult picture to take — I was in a moving car heading toward the church, so it was interesting leaning out the window to take it. At least you know when the church stops and the background begins, unlike File:Henry County Sheriff's Residence and Jail.jpg that I took a minute later — I can't quite figure out when the sheriff's residence ends and the courthouse starts. Curious — have you considered moving the page to the help or Wikipedia namespaces? It looks quite useful, especially to me since I remember what I did when I took those photos. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very nice; the cropping is good, and the color contrast really helps the picture. Maybe I should get a photo manipulation program so that I wouldn't continually need to ask you for help :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest moving it to mainspace: rather, I meant moving it to the Wikipedia namespace, to approximate something such as Commons:Commons:How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons. This isn't the only Commons photography tutorial; I've seen one that's closer to this page, but I can't remember its name, so I've left a note at the Commons help desk. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And no complaints about using my picture as a negative example — I knew that I had done something wrong with it, so I'm happy to see it used to show what not to do. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at Commons

Your comment on my Commons talk page — are you referring to this edit? If so, feel free to do that whenever you upload a modified version of my photos, but don't do it when modifying most people's photos. I'm not sure exactly why, but apparently for some reason it's necessary to show the Wikipedia upload log for GFDL/CC licensing purposes. Since my photos are PD, you have no need to worry about that; as you can see at File:Butler County Courthouse, Butler.jpg, I don't include the original upload log when uploading other people's PD photos. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice and counsel

Sorry that I can't help you at the moment; I just got back from out of state, so I need to do some cleaning up. I'll be on this evening and do my best to help. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No rush at all -- tomorrow or whenever it's convenient would be great..... . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right in what you say: there's no way that an article should be in the schools in MA and the schools in N County, MA categories at the same time. It's one thing if it's an accident, of course, but continuing a practice that is so obviously at variance with our standards after being asked to stop is quite problematic, especially since Hmains is basically telling you "if you want it to be done, do the work yourself". As far as orphans — I strongly disagree with the idea that orphans shouldn't be tagged as such, since there's no disagreement that many of these articles fit the definition of "orphan". However, it's the Orphanage, not WP:NRHP, that should decide on orphan criteria, so WP:NRHP members who oppose having orphan tags on NRHP articles should bring up their concerns at the Orphanage, rather than deciding it at WT:NRHP. I'm not going to bother bringing up the subject at the Orphanage because it's not a big deal to me — I do my best to make sure that my articles aren't orphaned — but I don't think a decision at WT:NRHP is a good enough reason to say that these articles shouldn't be tagged. However, a decision at WT:NHRP is a good enough reason to say that the placement of these tags is controversial, so Hmains should definitely not be using AWB to do something opposed there. In conclusion — while I disagree with the decision made, I strongly oppose Hmains' actions, and I would support a request for the removal of AWB if it were brought up at ANI. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Having stumbled upon this conversation, I'll add my two cents. WP:O clearly states (and has stated for some time: "Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all, and it is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant." Accordingly, I think there is a solid basis for asking Hmains to stop slapping orphan tags on articles that have one or two incoming links. Because the orphan template at the top of a page is visible to all users and appears to disparage the article content, it should be used very sparingly. Also, putting the template on articles that have appropriate incoming links distracts the de-orphaning brigades from the serious problem of articles with no incoming links.

I'm not inclined to put much energy into criticizing Hmains' categorizing efforts because (1) on balance, his efforts are useful; (2) screwy categories have little effect on general users, since most Wikipedia users don't notice categories; and (3) experience indicates that he is largely impervious to criticism. Mostly for the last reason, I've also tried not to think about those annoying orphan templates. However, needless orphan templates do adversely affect the user experience. Now that I've re-read WP:O, I think the matter is worth pursuing... --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

James, in response to your question at my talk about ANI — I'm not inclined to start a thread at ANI; to quote Datheisen at WP:AN, "it's not hard to see that ANI is basically a drama festival consuming about 99% of total text." If something is started by someone else, I might participate, but I generally avoid ANI with great care. I suggested it in the first place because of a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions — "This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard." Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Hope and Ivyland Railroad

Re this page, NHRR seems to be the marking for the New Haven Railroad, not the New Hope and Ivyland Railroad. Please search the web using both NHRR and NHIR. I believe both this page and List of Pennsylvania railroads need to be changed. What do you think? Bento00 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:New Hope and Ivyland Railroad . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brant Point Light

Sorry about the Wiki commons category mistake, I see that you have a lot of material posted there. It's very nice.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Point Betsie Light

Jim, This article has enough pictures so that it might be better displayed as a gallery. What do you think? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Haven't seen you around in a while..... If rearranging the existing pix is what you meant, done -- if you meant pulling a lot more from Commons, that's against policy -- Wikipedia is not an image repository, but I move the commonscat to the left where it's more visible.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only meant the former. Thanks for doing that (although I was dismayed to lose the photo of the historical marker, which you claim violated copyright. I don't know about that, as I am not sure that the State of Michgian adopts copyrights for heir markers. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

I'm glad I read your mind on what you wanted -- as for the sign, feel free to put it back, I'm not jumping up and down over it, but be advised that the Commons policy on signs is that unless they are Federal or predate 1923 or otherwise are in the Public Domain, they're not allowed. The thinking is that the sign itself has a copyright and, therefore, the photo is a derivative work. It's a subject that comes up all the time at the NRHP Project. If you do put it back, note that {{image gallery}} takes a special setup of its own -- just follow the way the other two pix are listed.

BTW, if your concern about the sign is losing the information on it as a reference, it is perfectly legitimate to cite the sign itself, just as you might a book or other written work. See Fort Banks Mortar Battery, for example. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I know about the policy. I think the sign may be quoted anyway. It is just somehow better "evidence" and more interesting to have the picture. The more pernicious problem is statues (not even close up) of public buildings that include the statue in the scenery. Wikipedia has gone overboard on the copyright issue on that stuff (speaking as a lawyer), but I don't make the rules around here, and certainly don't run the encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

You can certainly quote the sign -- that's what I meant above. As I see it, the problem is the photo, not quoting it, or citing it.

I'm afraid I disagree on the subject of statues. As someone who has created works for hire and has works for sale (photographs), I am sensitive to copyright. If I were a sculptor, I would not want photographs of my sculpture circulating without my permission -- in part because they would represent lost revenue and in part because the photos, to my eye, might not represent the sculpture the way I would want to see it represented. If I were Calder, I would object to this because it cuts off the top and is an odd angle, but I would not object to this because the sculpture is not the principal subject of the photo (it's in Germany so it's OK anyway). It's clear from the Calder category on Commons that the rule is not enforced very hard....

BTW, feel free to weigh in on the discussion below.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse categories on Commons

I don't like to drop categories that other editors have assigned. I just try to group all the images of one lighthouse into a single category, and then take all the categories that have been assigned for each picture and assign them to the lighthouse category. Sometimes each picture has another object in in, or an uploader designation, that should stay with the picture and not be assigned to the whole category. There shouldn't be two categories for Lighthouses on the National Register, and Lighthouses in Rhode Island on the National Register. The more specific category should apply. I do think there should be categories for Lighthouses in Rhode Island, and Lighthouses in Rhode Island on the National Register, and it's okay for one lighthouse to be in both. Having all the lighthouses for a state in a single category makes sense, with a subcat for those lighthouses that on on the National Register.Mtsmallwood (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're miscommunicating a little. For one thing, I got what you were doing wrong in my first comment, so let's start over.

I think we agree that there are categories that may apply to one picture of a lighthouse, but not the rest -- for example, my user cat, or, as you say, something else in the photo that calls up another cat.

Then, you seem to agree that in those states, (Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey. Delaware, Florida, and Michigan, I think) where there is a

• Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in StateX.

that no lighthouses in those states should be in

• Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places.

But, if I read your comment above correctly, we don't agree that it's incorrect to put a lighthouse in both

• Category:Lighthouses in StateX
• Category:Lighthouses on the National Register of Historic Places in StateX

I don't understand why in the first case, you agree that the more specific category should apply, but not in the second, particularly since Commons:COM:OVERCAT is very clear on the subject. (I should add that the NRHP project has discussed this with respect to houses (but not lighthouses), and is also clear on the subject.) It reduces the size of the cats, which is good. Also it means that

• Category:Lighthouses in StateX

becomes, in effect,

• Category:Lighthouses NOT on the NRHP in StateX

because all the NRHP lights are in the child cat. That means that an editor can periodically glance at the parent cat and see what lighthouses are not in the NRHP category. This is an essential check on categorization, since many users will upload a photo of a lighthouse on the NRHP and just put it in Lighthouses in StateX. Periodically several of us will glance at these cats and check to see if anything is in the wrong place. That's much harder now in Maine, where you have done your thing on some, but not all of the lights.

I can do the changes very fast using AWB, but I'd like agreement first, as revert wars just waste time. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to overthink this or make a bigger issue than it is, but I think that Lighthouses in State X is a useful category in addition to Lighthouses on the National Register in State X. This is because (1) not all lighthouses in a given state will necessarily be on the National Register, (2) use of Lighthouses in State X allows a ready list of all the lighthouses in a particular state to be seen in one category (3) it's consistent with other countries where the lighthouses are broken down by country and then region, state, or province, for example, Great Britain, France and Germany, (4) it emphasizes the importance of the state of location as the primary factor in the category. Of course, there are reasons to emphasize the fact that a lighthouse is on the national register as the primary category, hence Lighthouses on the National Register in State X. But I think people looking for lighthouses on the national register will be looking to national register status as the important factor, which may be different than people looking for state as the primary factor. So both categories could be properly used on a single lighthouse IMHO.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've ranted on the subject of overcat before, so I'm a tough sell. While I don't think it's too much to have to look in two places to see all the lighthouses in a state, and has the convenience I mentioned above, I see your point -- for novice editors it may be better to have all the lights in one place. That would be problematic if they were not themselves mostly in categories, but OK, let's run with it.

I've fixed Category:LIghthouses with detached keeper's quarters and Category:LIghthouses with attached keeper's quarters. I'm not sure, however, that they are a good idea. These are global cats, so that if you carry them to their logical conclusion, all lighthouse images (about 12,000 lighthouses worldwide, eventually, in our dreams) will end up in one of them or their logical sister, Category:Lighthouses with no keeper's quarters. That's unwieldy and I'm not sure the distinction is worth the trouble. Also, what do you plan to do with the many lights that once had quarters but do no longer -- cases where the quarters have been razed, not simply now used for another purpose? Are these useful distinctions?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Attached and detached probably not good categories for reason you state. I started thinking about these issues also. Thought it was a good idea, but there are just too many lighthouses. Was trying to get at better categories for design, but that's not going to work. Somehow there should be a way to distinguish between, for example Portland Head and Minot's Ledge, whcih are two very different types of lighthouses. Also, there should be some category for lighthouses that have separate keepers quarters still intact. These buildings themselves are often substantial and of historical interest. Not sure how to carry out this categorization however.Mtsmallwood (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it was a bad idea, just not good without geographic qualifiers. That will be true of any cat we devise and it is true of all the Category:Lighthouses by material subcats -- if you had all the stone lights in one place, you might have several thousand....

I agree that it might be interesting to expand the sub cats of Category:Lighthouses in the United States by type. As you say, the problem is defining type. "Lighthouses with their feet wet" describes Minots, but is a little silly. Maybe "Lighthouses in the United States whose foundation is underwater"?

Also, I wonder about cats by height -- buildings have that. We might pick out all those whose focal height was over 50 meters. (I prefer focal height because you can get that from the relevant light lists -- tower height is much harder to get accurately.) .. Just some thoughts. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps thing to do is just a bit at a time, see how it turns out. The Wikipedia lighthouse articles typically have a lot of data, including focal plan, etc. I don't know if types should be always categorized by country however, as it may be useful to compare similar lighthouses in different parts of the world. For example, St. George Reef and Tillamook Rook have a lot of similarities to Fastnet Light, and they are very dissimilar from other lighthouses on the west coast, such as Point Vicente and Heceta Head. So "lighthouses on rocks barely above the water" would have have just three (Mile Rocks in San Francisco is another one) for the whole west coast. So a worldwide category for these type of lights might be appropriate, and would pick up Minot's Ledge, Eddystone, Bell Rock, etc. also. My guess is that would not exceed 100 or 200 structures at most.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania

I've uploaded about 30 photos from the museum, including at least 12 on the NRHP. See the commons category of same name. If you have any ideas on what to do with all these photos.... One question in particular on PRR Locomotive No. 5690, an electric switching locomotive, in the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, east of Strasburg, PA. Built Dec. 1934 by PRR's Juniata shops and Allis Chalmers Electric, retired 1971. According to informational sign in museum (by Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) the locomotive is on the National Register of Historic Places, but I can't confirm this. Do you have any idea on this? Smallbones (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a search using the Elkman tool on "Locomotive" a while ago and listed all of the results that did not have articles at the Trains project todo list and have been whittling away at it. Having pix for the RMoP locos will reinvigorate that. Particularly ones up to your usual high standard, thanks.

As you see, your orphan is not on that list. I checked again with the Elkman tool, searching both "locomotive" and "electric" in Pennsylvania, without finding it. Of course Elkman is a year out of date, but most of the RMoP locos were added a while ago. It's also not on National Register of Historic Places listings in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (I'm sure you checked both of those sources, but two sets of eyes never hurt.)

I also did a google search on "5690 locomotive pennsylvania" which I would expect would turn up an NRHP announcement in the Federal Register in the last year. Several relevant hits, but no mention of NRHP. Maybe the museum is wrong? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW on the 1737/3750 thing, I think you know the story. The loco now badged 3750 at RMoP is actually the loco that was nominated for the NRHP as 1737 and the nominators knew that it wasn't 1737 when the they did it. I, or someone else, should rewrite the article PRR 1737 to reflect this and show photos of both there.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Inland lighthouse help?

I've noticed that {{Lighthouses of Ohio}} is missing an inland lighthouse, which is NRHP-listed as "Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse". Is this within your area of interest, or are you concerned pretty much with just New England lighthouses? See National Register of Historic Places listings in Mercer County, Ohio and Grand Lake St. Marys if you want more information, or leave me a note at my talk. I live within relatively easy driving distance of this site, so I'm hoping to be able to photograph it sometime this spring. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. You can find a little information in the first paragraph of this page; from what I gather, it was perhaps privately operated when in use. I'll try to get over there when possible. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Russ Rowlett, Lighthouse Directory, Ohio lighthouses has information on three lighthouses on the lake, but nothing of that name. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Hey, Stan, it's a whole lot closer to your territory of interest than mine -- why don't you take it on?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I'll do it, but which one? See also, D'Entremont, Jeremy. (August, 2002) The Two Lights of Grand Lake St. Marys Lighthouse Digest. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Here's your photo. Sorry that it's obscured by trees; it's on private property, and the only ways to view it are (1) from the street, where I took this picture, or (2) by boat, and I don't have access to any boats. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on this, but probably not until the weekend. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Stan

Samuel J. F. Thayer suicide

I'm not challenging your wording, but the impression I got from the first ref was that he shot himself, didn't immediately die, and died shortly afterward from something besides the bullet wound itself -- hence my use of "attempted". I'm trying to chase down contemporary news stories to determine the details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... TA&HAC says, "wounded himself with a pistol shot, from the effects of which he died." My impression is that he shot himself and died of the wound, perhaps several days later. The L.A Times minces no words, using "suicide" in the subhead and the text.

Now that I look at both refs, I wonder if we shouldn't include the word "suicide". . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Depopulating categories

See my response to your comment at the CFD discussion on Category:Public history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Minot's Ledge Light

I added file on WikiCommons in Minot's Ledge Lighthouse category. Alvals (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've added it to Minot's Ledge Light. You might like to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Flashing lights. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I'll be on the ship during a week a year ago. It will be fantastic. I'll go to Tahiti by airplane. By the way, I put categories on my photos, an other great ship. I upload photos a day, and i put categories next day. CaptainHaddock (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

{{S-rel}}

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in the request; I'm really not much of a template coding person — all of the templates I've created have been simple ones such as those in Category:Massachusetts county navigational boxes, which have no conditions and which are simply copy/pastes of other county templates with the information changed. I'm adding an {{editprotected}} in hopes that a more adept admin will know what to do. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Zion Reformed

Hello, Jameslwoodward. You have new messages at Talk:Zion Reformed United Church of Christ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

TfDs: Our reference lists

Hello James,

Someone is systematically nominating the source lists for lighthouses for deletion. Discussion is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have mixed feelings about the templates. Although I originated some of them, I have been deleting them from articles as I doubt their usefulness -- the MA template includes only refs that should be in the article anyway. The US list has some that are local to the Great Lakes, some that are just coffee table books, some that, if useful to the specific article should be referenced anyway, and a few useful refs.

My thinking has been influenced a lot by Whitehorse1, in a long discussion here. I think I'll sit out the deletion discussion, as I suspect it will raise some hackles. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Orthodox church in Dushanbe.jpg

why you delete categories? this is not clear to me. Thanks IlshatS (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I deleted the two the categories, they were

• Category:Churches
• Category:Churches in Tajikistan
• Category:Tajikistan

This was over categorization -- as a general rule you don't have a category and also another category that is the first category's parent -- or grandparent, etc.

In this case, Category:Churches is a main category -- one that should have very few or zero images in it. If we did not have the overcat rule, it could have thousands of churches in it and would be very hard to use. All of the churches in the world should be in one of its sub-categories by location.

The same rule applies to Category:Tajikistan, even though it is much smaller.

So, I removed the two categories, because Category:Churches in Tajikistan is a sub-sub-subcategory of both. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Message on User talk:Donmike10 re. User talk:174.3.123.220

As acknowledged on my talk page, I see where you're coming from with my comment. It wasn't the intended meaning, but I get it.

But I struggle to find anything insulting about User:Donmike10's comments.

"I wanted to know the same thing. Donmike10 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)"

Merely asking why he's "changing otheruses4 to about".

"I think Jamie is an excellent name for him/her. Donmike10 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)"

I think it's pretty clear that this is a joke. In any case, it's a far cry from a personal attack in my opinion.

I have a very indirect connection to this, so sorry if it's none of my business. Just my 2¢ on the matter. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Personal attack message on the IP talk page

Thank you for you defence of me:-)

cheers174.3.123.220 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

White Spacing Template

No, I changed the example for the time being (see the edit summary). Here is the version with the big swath of white space. And it still uses the template in question [1].174.3.123.220 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Same thing -- there was an extra line space between {{about}} and {{Infobox nrhp}}. Take out the extra space and your swath disappears. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sailing

Jim: You might be interested in this project. RJ (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, no. I have a lot on my plate with the three projects of which I am already a member as well as work at Commons. Both the National Register of Historic Places and Lighthouses have thousands of articles to be written and illustrated that are of primary importance. Sailing may have a few hundred, but most of the low hanging fruit has been picked off. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cunningham - Main reason for use

Hi Jim, I have replied to your concerns in Talk:Cunningham (sailing). In summary your text makes a minority useage of the cunningham seem to be the 100% norm. Thanks, Boatman (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons VP question

Thanks for the note. I've replied — it appears that I accidentally unwatched my talk without knowing it :-( *embarrassed* Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Burial at sea

Nice edit, thanks. :) Springnuts (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Felixia Yeap

regarding the article of Felixia Yeap,the article should not be removed as the person in the article has gain much supportance outside.Person of article is currently one of top models in Malaysia and should gain the space in wikipedia for crowd references and the article should be considered notable.She is a well known model in Malaysia and the page is created due to public request.Do contact any Malaysian or google for the information needed.do note there isn't any self promo for the model.do mind and be fair.thank you. Dannychungsr (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

hi am so sorry for the 'hangon' tag i thought there was some problem that made the tag disappear...well now i know it's being removed on purpose... thank you for the help...much appreciate.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannychungsr (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

hi i would like to get advice from you for some editors who edited my article without leaving any note or stating any problem with the article....at least let me know what is the problem...don't just delete and keep quite.What should i do???i felt that some of the admins does not qualify to judge things outside their area,as in they know only things in their country and they'll just use it on others which i think it's not fair...I am new here PLEASE do not make assumption that everyone will think like you all do...and if we do we are the qualified admins...anyway thanks alot for all the info. Dannychungsr (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the hardest things to keep in mind on Wikipedia is that it is not your article. It is our article -- yours and mine and belonging to every editor who has made changes to it. It often irritates me when one of my colleagues makes changes to something I have written, but that's what this place is all about. If the changes are wrong, you may fix them, preferably with a reference, but as a newbie often it is better to put a note on the article's talk page -- "why did you do this; I think that is better?"

Some changes will simply be policy that's why I removed the flags from the page. I also added the convert template, which is generally the way to show both metric and imperial, and changed the words a little.

The edit summary is supposed to give you an idea what changes were made and why. Some of us are better at it than others. If you really don't understand, you can ask, either on the article's talk page, or the editor's.

I'm sorry to say, I also just hung a {{copyvio}} on the latest picture. We really won't stand for images that aren't correctly licensed. I know that it is sometimes difficult for a fan to get a good image to use here, but that's the way it is. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

hi Jameslwoodward...thank you for your useful reply...I was a bit frustrated for the editting which i think the information got worse....now i understand....one more thing....is it possible if i cann get your email address for the help for uploading new images....i was really confuse with the copyright images as i've include every detail i know for the image i've upload after receiving warnings and now i am blocked for being able to edit in commons file.....i chose the picture from google using the 'safeSearch' feature and i picked the 'use strict filtering' and those image that is labeled for reuse...from google image option.... please help me....is there anything i missed out when uploading? Dannychungsr (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Danny -- You can e-mail me -- there's a button on the left for it -- but better to just continue the discussion here. I think it will be very hard to find an image on the web of Felixia Yeap that is not subject to copyright. Your best bet is to either ask her to upload one for use on Commons or take one yourself if you have the opportunity. Flickr is not a good source and neither is Google, because the people providing images there often think that their scan is what counts, not the original photograph, or they simply don't tell the truth. If you find one that you think is all right, put a note here with its URL and I'll take a look. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Brosnan

I see you tagged the Timothy Brosnan BLP as coi and not notable, I was thinking to improve it or if you think ihe is not notable do you want to send it to AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran across it because of image issues on Commons. I think it's spam by a non-notable person -- the bulk of it was written by User:Creativehamedia, the name of the company he founded. I am spending most of my time on Commons, so I won't bother to AFD it. If you can find several good references that suggests he is more notable than millions of others, by all means improve it. As it stands, it's an AFD wating to happen. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yolanda Soares

Jim, I find it almost anectodical the degree of things you write in or remove from Wikipedia without serious investigation.

I am Alex Fan Moniz, AUTHOR of half of Yolanda Soares' most recent album Metamorphosis. I have raised your allusions to my name being involved in alleged hoaxes against this artist to the legal dept of the Swiss Authors Society where I am registered (www.suisa.ch)as your comments are totally unacceptable and inacurrate. Whatever issues this lady and her manager have with other people, I really don't wish to know. I can tell you however, that in spite of all the denials, Soares' manager very likely did PURCHASE a frontcover issue of AnR magazine in 2009 and also their unrecognised, copycat award from an obscure po box company in Melobourne named amongst other things AMMA and AnR. If you contact the real AMA Australia and A&R Australia, they will both confirm they never awarded this artist any prize and and never heard of either her or AMMA aka AnR. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (www.accc.gov.au) and other authorities, have been made aware of this scam. Why else should so much "heresay" come up if there was nothing questionable about these people's ethics? There is no smoke without fire. Up to you to either keep or REMOVE completely. I strongly suggest you remove these defamatory use of my name with immediate effect. As for Ms Soares, let's just say she will most certainly NEVER use any of my works again and I wish my lyrics authorship or authenticity not to be questioned here ever again.

With regard to the above anon IP complaint, please see Talk:Yolanda Soares#Complaint from anonymous IP address where your comments would be welcome. Fæ (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what this is about. I think my only involvements with Yolanda Soares was at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yolanda Soares 2008.jpg where I cleaned up a misformed closure of the deletion request. I expressed no opinion or even comment on the DR. I certainly made no comment whatever about this being a hoax. My name does not appear at all in the revision history of Yolanda Soares. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained at the Soares talk page, I'm quite inexperienced with implementing WP:NLT, so I don't want to block immediately. However, as you've likely seen, Fæ took the matter to WP:ANI, and at that page I've (1) explained why I don't want to block without further input, and (2) left a notice that I believe blocking to be appropriate. Tell me if/when you receive further harassment, and I'll do what I can to help. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jameslwoodward. You have new messages at Muhandes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I took your invitation

After I was done with correcting all occurances of the navcen website (all pages should now use {{cite uscgll}}) I decided to take your invitation.

Akko Light, first in Category:Lighthouses in Israel is up. I'll add the other two when I have time. Could you please add any formal data you have? Any feedback is of course welcome, it's my first lighthouse page. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And Stella Maris Light. --Muhandes (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice job at Acre. As you will see, I made a few minor changes which reflect my own style -- things like putting refs at the bottom of the infobox rather than noting each line. I question the assertion that the light first appeared on a marine chart in 1930, 18 years after it was built -- British charts were (and still are) updated by hand for changes between printings, so I would guess that it first appeared on a chart in 1912 as a hand correction and on the next edition of the chart sometime later, but not 18 years. I don't read Hebrew, though, but you might want to look at the reference again with that in mind. (BTW "chart" is the American and English for "marine map"). I also created a redirect from Acre Light -- redirects are almost free and are a good idea whenever there is an alternate name. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct about the chart. I read the paper incorrectly, as it states that between 1886-1930 the only change done was the addition of the lighthouse. This makes this quite irrelevant, so I removed the quote. Too bad, it was hard to find material about this lighthouse. --Muhandes (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also a nice job at Stella Maris -- but why that name? I give a lot of weight to local knowledge, but the NGA calls it "Har Karmel (Mount Carmel)" and Rowlett "Har Carmel (Mount Carmel, Stella Maris)". In any case, we'll need redirects at all the others.

For finding coords, I find the best way is to go to the location in the Light List and then look around for the shadow of a tower. You can use Geolocator to find the exact coords. Note that you generally want this form:

{{coord|32|49|41.25|N|34|58|0.56|E|region:IL|display=inline,title}}

to get them in both the infobox and the title.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that my wife grew up less than a km from the Stella Maris Lighthouse, so I can definitely say that's how the locals call it. I actually visited inside during my navy service (some 15 years ago), but I can't say I remember anything. I'll redirect all the rest of the names. As for the other lighthouses in Israel, I'm going to add the Jaffa one. Should any of the other be added? Any notability guideline on this? --Muhandes (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, local knowledge is king, "Stella Maris Light" it will be.

• Jaffa would be good.
• Also see Commons:Category:Lighthouses in Israel -- I see "Reading Lighthouse", but it's not in the NGA Light List or Rowlett by that name. I think it's in Rowlett as Tel Aviv (Tel Kudadi, Hayarkon, Auja) and looks notable.
• I have a certain affection for the Herzliya light, as we spent a couple of weeks at the marina in 1998, but it's marginal for notability. Generally the Lighthouse Project thinks that all lights are notable and deserve articles, except simple steel frameworks, simple poles, and the like. File:Island of the flies, Akko, Israel 01.jpg is one that would not qualify, I think.
• Ashdod appears to be a significant light -- a 138 feet (42 m) unusual tower.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And the funny thing is, the one I was thinking about was the island of flies one, not because of the light itself, but mainly because it is actually the ancient lighthouse of Akko which was destroyed in an earthquake. If I put my hands on a good history book with solid details I might add it as an history article, and mention the light as a sidenote. --Muhandes (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the light has a notable history, then you can certainly write an article on it and include the photo of the modern replacement. There are a number of similar cases in the USA, see for example, Deer Island Light. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another question if you may. I followed ARLHS in using "Akko Light" rather than "Akko Lighthouse". Is that correct? Is there a difference? --Muhandes (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! This is a debate on WP:EN. Generally, members of the Lighthouse Project use "Light", following both the American and British chart and light list usage. We occasionally have discussions with casual editors who would prefer to use "Lighthouse". My thinking is that while collectively they are lighthouses, specific structures are lights.

And, by the way, welcome as a member of the project. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can images from Klaus Hülse's collection be used freely? --Muhandes (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The issue is not any claim to copyright that Hulse may make, because a reproduction of 2D art does not have any copyright beyond that of the underlying art (see {{PD-art}}. The question is whether the underlying card is still in copyright, which, as you know, depends on who made it, where and when it was published, and whether (if that was in the USA) it had proper copyright notice and renewal. Point me at a specific image, and I'll take a guess... . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to includes this one in Jaffa Light, which I just created. Doesn't {{PD-Israel}} apply? Also, unrelated, I was thinking of using {{cite uscghist}} in the 530 articles or so in which it should be used. I got a semi-automated system to do it, just thought I'll ask you before diving in. --Muhandes (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-Israel}} applies, if it was first published in Israel. Since it's a postcard, that's a reasonable argument. Go ahead and post it to Commons. Someone might argue that we don't know where or when it was first published and, of course, in most other countries it's 70 years PMA. It's obviously more than fifty years old, but it could easily have been made in the 1920's by someone who lived beyond 1940. If it comes to a Deletion Request, my guess is it will pass, but you can't always tell.

As for {{cite uscghist}}, I'm surprised at the number -- there are only about 1,000 lighthouses in the USA, some of them aren't written yet, some already use the template, and some of the existing articles don't reference the site -- although generally they should as it is a primary reference. How did you locate them all? And, yes, of course, it's fine with me -- thank you for asking. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To locate them I searched for ""www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses". It's Tisha B'Av today and I'm fasting, so I had nothing better to do. --Muhandes (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to have a look on Jaffa Light and Reading Light, your edits have been most helpful so far. I also created List of lighthouses in Israel. While I'm at it, another question on image use. Are stamps PD? I'd love to use these: [2] [3] [4] --Muhandes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at Jaffa and Reading (I assume your local knowledge likes that name, but maybe we could have a few words of explanation -- I see the power station name, but why "Reading"? Also, remember that in English, a "reading light" is something else, albeit pronounced differently.)

As for stamps, the answer is a clear "NO", see [5], sorry, I agree they would be good and there's no reason that "fair use" would be appropriate.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Too bad about the stamps. As for the name, again, I'll have to use the locality argument. Note that the name of the commons list is commons:category:Reading Lighthouse. I'll add an explanation and a {{about}}. --Muhandes (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like your help in something more, if you may. I added Ashdod Light, and according to both Rowlett and NGA it is active. I also checked the Israeli Notice to Mariners, and didn't find anything there. However, both the stamps issue from November 2009 and a local news report in Hebrew from this month state that it is inactive. How can I further check it from online source? --Muhandes (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm done adding all the lighthouses in Israel on Rowlett's list. Thanks for the help! --Muhandes (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It goes both ways -- I wrote Navassa Island Light only because you added "Historic Light Station Information and Photography: West Indies / Virgin Islands". United States Coast Guard Historian's Office. Archived from the original on 2017-05-01. to the template and I thought it would interesting -- I had not known that the site went beyond the fifty states and PR. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref placement

Refs belong next to the first item they source. If they didn't source the item right there, they shouldn't be there. If they source several things, they should be referred to in EACH PLACE. - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Every line in a lighthouse infobox is a fact, which deserves a reference. If you have three or four refs which cover all the facts in the infobox, it's much cleaner to put them all at the bottom, and, by the way, that's the way most lighthouse infoboxes are set up. Your way might give us twenty or thirty refs in an infobox. There's no real reason to ref each fact individually because a reader isn't generally going to check them anyway -- they're not like facts in sentences. And, BTW, the method the Lighthouse Project uses is the same method Elkman uses for NRHP infoboxes. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. In that case, the infobox should have an entry for references. I expected this to work like other infoboxes I've used. - Denimadept (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

? The NRHP infobox doesn't have such a line -- the last line is for the NRHP Reference number, not explicitly for references. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. That's what I'm saying. In, for instance, {{Infobox bridge}}, I put in a reference for each applicable item, i.e. Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls). - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But in the NRHP case, the Elkman tool doesn't reference each line -- just adds the reference at the bottom. How can you say that a tool that creates most NRHP infoboxes is wrong -- or are we mis-communicating? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy, I was unaware of it. I've created them by hand, as I do other infoboxes. But a bot's existence doesn't mean it's necessarily correct. It can also be a matter of taste and style, in which case we're both right. But if a fact in an article needs a reference, I don't see how that same fact in an infobox is any different. - Denimadept (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've seen you around so much that I found it hard to understand our disagreement. Elkman tool is not a bot, but an off-Wiki program that creates NRHP infoboxes directly from the NRIS data. I think almost all of the active members of the NRHP project use it to create them as it saves time and increases accuracy. I think it is fair to say that it is correct within the context of the NRHP project, at least.

You're right, of course, about different styles, all of which can be correct -- looking at Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls), I probably would have used two infoboxes rather than combining the two bridges. Then, yes, given the variety of cites, I might have cited each line.

In a typical lighthouse article, though, there are facts in the infobox that are not repeated in the article. They often come from one of two tabular sources, a Light List and (in the USA) the Coast Guard historical site -- indeed, the layout of the lighthouse infobox follows the layout of the USCG site. I see little point in putting a ref or two on each line when the whole box is mostly a recap of two or three tabular sources.

Lighthouse infoboxes, though, are different from many others -- bridges for example -- in that there is a standard on line tabular reference that covers all of them (the light lists) and all of them in the USA (the USCG history site). So, maybe, they deserve different handling? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so if one ref is the source of all the data... hm. Interesting. Put a reference on the infobox as a whole? {{infobox whatever}}<ref>yadda yadda</ref>?

BTW, another example of the above "multiple bridge" situation is Tay Rail Bridge, which has been worked on by many people, including the author of one of the refs. In that case, the two bridges are strongly linked. In the case of the bridge in Bellows Falls, Vermont, the current bridge is not notable on its own, but I felt it needed to be mentioned. And another example is Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, which has yet another reason for that organization. - Denimadept (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, bridges aren't my thing, but I would use three infoboxes for the Triborough/RFK since they are three very different bridges linked only by name and function -- it's very like Doubling Point Range Lights which are two different lights, so they get two infoboxes on one page. The Tay Bridge, on the other hand, is mostly the same bridge, just different dates. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at it in the light of your comments, I'm not so sure -- see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2. What do you think? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Less duplicated information this way, taking less space. There are people out there who hate what infoboxes do to the layout of the article. I'm not one of them, but taking more space than needed is bad, so as long as the reduced use is clear, what's to dislike? - Denimadept (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your look. But I still think three would be better at RFK. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's never been formatted that way. When the infobox was added in 2006, it was like this. I've seen other articles with lists of infoboxes going down the right-hand side, and can't say I thought it was a good thing. I have to admit that it can screw up the layout if there's too much, IMHO. - Denimadept (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Shinnecock Hills Vandalism

I reverted your blanking vandalism on Shinnecock_Hills, New York this is accurate, relevant and sourced. If you don't like it that is not grounds to revise fact. Not only was it vandalism, you had the gall to accuse me of vandalism by adding useful, highly relevant, sourced and facutal information. I do not AGD as you did not show it in blanking soemthign you didnt like and claiming it was unsourced vandalism. If you have somethign to contribute please do so, but please do not engage in arbitary blanking. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinnecock_Hills%2C_New_York&action=historysubmit&diff=372887522&oldid=372825866 24.23.198.90 (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouse templates

Some things I've been playing with and I thought I'll ask for your thoughts.

• User:Muhandes/cite uscghist adds syntax checking to {{cite uscghist}}, using {{citation error}} when an inappropriate parameter is passed.
• User:Muhandes/cite uscgll simplifies {{cite uscgll}}, then adds the suggestions I made in Template talk:Cite uscgll to it, as well as uses {{citation error}}.
• User:Muhandes/cite ngall does the same with {{cite ngall}}

Finally, User:Muhandes/cite rowlett does the obvious. It's not 100% complete, but you can check the output in User:Muhandes/rowlett test and User:Muhandes/rowlett test2.

Your thoughts? --Muhandes (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What can I say -- what a lot of work you've done. All things I've thought of and decided I better things to do. Thank you very much. Minor comments below:

• cite uscghist Note, BTW, that I changed User:Muhandes/cite uscghist/doc so that it refs your subpage and therefore shows the error for CO.
• Also good changes at cite uscgll. Note that you need to change the doc page, see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 -- the named ref examples need to change "date" to "year" and in the text, too.
• And, the same at ngall, as well.
• As for Rowlett -- what a lot of work you've done.. I've thought often about doing Rowlett, but it seemed like more work than it was worth -- for completeness and fairness, you'd have to do the whole world -- but you seem to be well on the way toward that. I'm not sure I like using his abbreviations for places, but I don't have a better idea. I note that you don't exactly follow his page names, but your structure allows us to fix that if we find it upsetting. I think you should contact Rowlett -- he's very responsive -- tell him what you're doing and ask him exactly how he would like the ref to read -- with or without UNC-CH, for example.
• Also, on all of them, how about date accessed? I tried doing a subst of the date within the template -- see the template and the test in two ways, but it doesn't work. Do you know how to do it?

Thanks again, . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The naming convention I used for Rowlett is the one he uses in the index. I created the list automatically from the html source, so I might have missed some, I guess I'll have to check it again. I'll also contact him. As for date accessed, I don't know of a way to do it automatically, I don't think subst works in transclusions. For now I'm just going to passthrough the accessdate field, just like we do with the year field. --Muhandes (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I understand that they're just his names and I can't think of a better way because many of them are regions that don't have an official name, but I wish we could think of a better way. Oh, well, you can't have everything.... . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fort Banks, Again

Hi Jim--I just found your answer to my posting over on the Ft. Banks Mortar Battery page; I had been watching the Talk page of my re-write, where I asked you to answer me, thus the delay.

I have been unable to enter my correct email into My Preferences. I originally had a typo in it, and now apparently WP refuses to accept my edit. My addr is pgrig744@gmail.com. I'd be happy to see your photos--I remember seeing the plaques. By the way, I don't understand why posting a photo of a historical marker erected on public property would be a copyright violation, but I'll take your word for it.

I will go ahead and finish my edit and let you know (here) before swapping it in.

Could you just tell me, if you remember, the vantage points from which the two photos in your article were taken? I believe the one on the upper left of your article (where "Sanford Kellogg" is visible) was taken looking southerly, either from right next to Kennedy Rd. or from farther west in the DPW parking lot. The other, on the upper right of your page, looks like it looks westerly, down the driveway descending from Kennedy Rd. into the pit (Pit B of Sanford Kellogg).

Also, I'd like to change the title of the article to "Fort Banks (Massachusetts)." Is this possible? Pgrig (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll send you the photos in a minute. The copyright issue on historical plaques is simply that both the text and the illustrations (maps, photos, whatever, if any) are subject to copyright. Without an appropriate license from the body that owns the copyright (probably the group that put up the plaque) we can't use them. Exceptions are for very old plaques (pre 1923) or those posted by the Federal government, California, and one or two other states.

Locations. If you call up a Google Maps satellite image from the coords in the title of the article, then the entrance picture, on the left, is looking south. If you go north from the green arrow, you will see a black shadow between two sets of bushes -- that's the entrance ramp. If you drew a line from the green arrow through the middle of the ramp to the sidewalk, I was more or less on the sidewalk.

The second photo, on the right, was taken from a point to the east of the green arrow approximately at the border of the rubble -- north of the driveway, but on that side.

The name change is technically easy -- pull down "Move" from the edit line and follow instructions. Make sure you leave a redirect behind. The general rule is that places should have the name that is most used locally. Since the NRHP name is "Fort Banks Mortar Battery", that suggests that it is the appropriate name, but that's not a hard and fast rule. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

dual coordinates

What do you suggest to do when there are two coordinates, one in the light and one in the nhrp? e.g. Palmer Island Light. --Muhandes (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First, get the actual coords using Geolocator or a similar tool. While the new USCG Light List coords are usually pretty good, the NRHP coords are not -- they are based on an old coordinate system that doesn't translate well. Use the same, correct coords in both places.

Second, decide whether to list them in both infoboxes -- this is the editor's choice, but I generally do both. Make sure that only one of them enables display in the title.

• NRHP parameter is "coord_display = inline,title" (defaults to inline, title if it isn't explicitly set)
• lighthouse parameter is "coordinates_display = inline, title"

inline" = in the infobox, "title"= in the title bar of the article.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I might go and add some lighthouse infoboxes to existing articles, so this will become handy. I had some fun with geolocator, locating Mulan Tou Lighthouse and Baisha Men Lighthouse.--Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Once More, Into the Breech (Ft. Banks Move)

Pgrig (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Jim--

I believe that my re-draft and expansion of the Ft. Banks article is ready to leave my User space. I think you said just Move it, renaming it to Fort Banks (Massachusetts) in the process, but I'm not sure that's right. Could I ask you to do what is needed? You might also be able to look over what I wrote. As you'll see, I discovered a marvelous map of the "Ft. Banks Catacombs" and wrote that aspect into the article. I will finish up the linked article on the mortars soon, but I still wanted to leave a significant bit of mortar description in the Ft. Banks text. And yes, it's known in Winthrop as "Ft. Banks." Your image of Kellogg Pit B is better than any I took--nice work! I'll be going out there again soon to try and get good interior photos of the old tunnels.

Done. Nice piece. Well done. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling spelling/factual corrections "vandalism"

Take the time to actually see what the correction was before calling someone out. Just because a correction is minor (sizewise) doesn't mean it's not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.78.254 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Charles A. Shaw from Biddeford, Maine article

FYI I'm working on an article draft for Mr. Shaw, so it's coming down the pike. Thanks for your interest in our town. --Rdesroberts (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Light characteristic

An article that you have been involved in editing, Light characteristic, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lighthouses

Remember that time when you asked if I would like to write article on Israel's lighthouses? Well, Norah Head Light is my first article to make GA, and I wanted to thank you for introducing me to this area and for all the help at the beginning. Thanks! --Muhandes (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have yet to have anything achieve recognition, except DYK. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use image deletion

Hello Jim. Following your recent advice on Commons in relation to FOP in Luxembourg, I uploaded the image File:Kinneksbond.JPG to Wikipedia with Fair Use explanations. It was intended to illustrate the article Kinneksbond. I must say I was rather surprised to see that it had been deleted without explanation. Maybe the building is not considered artistic enough and the image should simply be uploaded on Commons anyway? I don't know whether you are in a position to see whether there was some mistake in the filing or why I was not advised it was up for deletion. It was by no means easy to sort out the procedure for Fair Use filing (not much guidance, I'm afraid) but I thought that in the end I had given all the necessary explanations. Together with User:Elekhh (see my talk page), I had been considering providing some advice on photos of Luxembourg architecture on Wikiproject Architecture but there seems to be little point in doing so if even Fair Use images are deleted without explanation. Sorry to keep pursuing this but I would like to avoid further confusion. And I have, by the way, discovered that many other images of modern buildings in Luxembourg have been deleted from Commons on the grounds that there is no FOP in Luxembourg. - Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the deletion by User:Explicit has now appeared on my log. I have also posted a message at User talk:Explicit. Perhaps I should not have bothered you but it may be a good thing for you to see what a complicated procedure we are dealing with. It's almost as if everything was being done to make it all as complex as possible. - Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You should, as you are doing, have a conversation with User:Explicit, to try to figure out the problem that he or she sees. I'm sorry for the complication -- certainly part of the problem is that both WP:EN and Commons were designed by committees, different committees, and they don't always do things the same way. Also, of course, documentation and indexes must be written by volunteers and they are not a mission that gets much support. One of the reasons that most of my efforts are an Commons is that it is a much smaller project than WP:EN and I have actually gotten to know most of the active players. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this so quickly, Jim. Personally, I believe there should be a very high level of cooperation and collaboration between Commons and the English Wikipedia. After all, Commons was set up in 2004 specifically to support Wikipedia and to avoid the need to reload the same file every time it needed to be used for a different language version of Wikipedia. And remember, over 54% of all accesses to Wikipedia are to the English version. By extension, most of the images on Commons are first and foremost for the English Wikipedia. However, if you try to use the Fair Use option on the EN Wikipedia, you are first sent to the Special:Upload (which seems pretty frightening). If you then choose to use the standard Wikipedia:Upload form, the closest option to a non-free image of a modern building surpisingly enough seems to be "a historically significant fair use image" which brings you to this where the options available are not at all suitable for the operation. If my image on Wikipedia has now been deleted, it is probably a result of the difficulty of following this procedure. If you have any influence at Wikipedia, I think you should draw this to the attention of those concerned. Otherwise anyone working in the area of modern architecture (or indeed architecture where the architect has not been dead for at least 71 years) will run into the same problems as I have. It's a pity to have to spend so much time and effort on addressing this problem rather than contributing to new content, but I think it is extremely important. - Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you should contact User:Carptrash, as he has done a lot of uploading concerning modern architecture and architectural sculpture. He probably would have some wise counsel and good advice. Just a suggestion. You can tell him I sent you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to say this has finally been sorted out and the image has been restored. I still think, nevertheless, that a lot more could be done to improve the userfriendliness of uploading Fair Use images on Wikipedia, especially when they are not specifically of paintings and similar art work. I have left a word with Carptrash as suggested but as far as I can see, he has not had to deal with the problem of Fair Use images on buildings as they are free in the United States anyway. - Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you overestimate the importance of WP:EN in the Commons scheme of things. While a majority of page loads may be WP:EN, I would be very surprised if anything like half of Commons images appear on WP:EN -- indeed, many of our images do not appear anywhere on WMF projects except Commons, but are there to potentially support other users. The upload process is not ideal in either place, but I'm the wrong one to target a WP:EN complaint to -- I have never uploaded an image there and therefore can't comment. I also don't have to understand Fair Use in any country other than the US, so this whole subject is outside my expertise. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding but during our discussion on Commons you wrote "I am familiar with WP:EN rules, and they do permit Fair Use." That's what encouraged me to embark on that track. When I saw you were also active on Wikipedia, I assumed you had some experience here too. It has been suggested I should post something at the Village Pump. Anyway, thanks for all your patience. Bit by bit I'll try to sort the whole thing out - particularly after seeing the last huge request for FOP deletions on your Commons talk page! - Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

First to tell you that I am sorry If I caused any problems to you or anyone else who might read this. I am contacting you regarding of the picture of Clive Campbell. I thought It was a great addition from the site I found. Can you please explain me what was that I did wrong? I just want to contribute wiki but it seems it is very difficult to post images here.

Can you be kind enough to answer me that question please. How can I post a normal picture? I put copyright and categories,everything, but it seems it is still not enough.

Thank you for your time.

I look forward you reading your answer.

Adnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdnanS (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a Wikimedia:Commons issue, so I have copied this question to my talk page there and replied there. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you or someone that can take care of my request just delete my page? I thought genealogy is something you can learn from, but apparently not. So, please delete it because I tried to look for that option, but couldn't find it. NeilsErikson (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Eastern most point in the US

If you look at a map of the international date line you will see that the line goes through the Aleutian Islands which are part of Alaska. The right side of the date line is "the west" and the left side of the line is "the east". Therefore the eastern most place in the US is the outermost islands of the Aleutians in Alaska. Issac Azmov noted this fact in his book "View from a Height". Udorn432 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the International Date Line does not define east and west, but merely what day it is.
• The International Date Line actually goes west of all of Alaska, including all of the Aleutian Islands.
• You are correct that some of the Aleutians lie west of longitude 180. The article Extreme points of the United States carefully distinguishes between Easternmost by direction of travel (Point Udall, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands) and Easternmost by longitude (Pochnoi Point).
• So, I don't understand your question or point? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarrytown Light

Thanks for adding the other images. While at first I thought, why do we need three pictures of the same lighthouse, when I added some other images that I thought more relevant I realized how I could use them.

I'm glad to see someone from WP:LHOUSE took an interest in it ... since I came to it from my NRHP work, it was a first for me as I had never written about a lighthouse for that project before before. I hope it meets expectations there ... I think I will post a note on the talk page that it's up for DYK. I also have a couple of ideas for some other lighthouse-related articles that we don't yet have.

I'm actually pretty happy with how it turned out ... I think I will send an email to the guy who does the tours (maybe he can let me in for some interior pics). Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Caiyad Phahad

Mate i am seriously trying hard to get things right but i dont know why you put a deletion on my page, please help me guide me and advise me instead of taking action, i am not an expert like you but i am trying my best to get things right, i need help please do no delete my page as i really worked hard for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically my comments on the deletion say it all. Wikipedia is not Facebook. We certainly allow users to have a User Page with information on it that is relevant to their work on Commons. We do not allow self promotion and we have little patience for someone who has nothing here but a fancy User Page.

If you really want to stay on Wikipedia, I suggest you blank your User page and do some useful work for a while. Edit articles on subjects that interest you. Write a new article or two. Add some images to Commons that don't have you in them. After all that, then start your user page with maybe one photo of yourself. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear James

Many thanks, will appreciate your patience and supervision to complete this article, i have deleted unnecessary pics and bold items, would request you to advise as what is to be done next so the page can go live

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comment above again. This is not Facebook. Even editors with tens of thousands of contributions on WP:EN do not have user pages as long as yours -- and you have precisely no contributions on WP:EN or Commons that are not promoting yourself. You should blank the whole thing, before it is blanked for you. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This spam is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad. Cunard (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited La bohème discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John McCarthy and Barry Banks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

La bohème discography: 1995

Thank you for adding the 1995 Nagano recording at La bohème discography. In keeping with the existing custom on that page, could you please reduce the cast to the six major roles, as shown in the table header? Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I spend 90& of my WMF time on Commons (75,000+ edits and Admin actions on Commons versus 6,000 on WP:EN) -- I just happened to come to La bohème discography and noticed that the CD I had in my hand was not included. Yours is the second message here telling me that I didn't get it right.

The first, from the bot, was well taken -- I should, indeed, have checked for DABs in the links. Mea culpa. Someone might rewrite the bot message as it probably won't be clear to a newbie and Dab Solver is a mystery.

Yours, however, I object to -- the table header lists the six major roles, but does not say, or even suggest, that the contents of that column should be those people in that order. If you actually want occasional editors to get it right, you have to provide much more clarity -- if I were actually a newbie, neither message would encourage me to come back with the next such disk.

If such a thing had happened on Commons, I would have fixed the problem myself and left a polite message suggesting that the next time the User added a disk, that he or she list only the six roles, in the correct order. And, yes, I do understand that it is easier to fix the problem with the disk in hand, but only a little -- Google turns up the necessary information on the first hit. I also suggest that you change the header to make it clearer or add a note above the table with instructions.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pass Manchac lighthouse

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pass_Manchac_Light and the related article. Rammer (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the repositioning. The problem wasn't ignorance of "policy" but rather my inability to get a syntax that would make it happen. I appreciate your expertise and think the arrangement is fine now. Rammer (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I've created all the HTML for my own web site by hand, I confess I don't really understand it well -- I just try until it works. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Windmill Point Light (Virginia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windmill Point Light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting List of RHPs in Boston

Due to a new system for National Register listing tables, the Boston list goes past the maximum number of templates, so it desperately needs to be split. You participated in a previous splitting discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts, where someone has just proposed a new method of splitting; would you please comment? Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Arbitration case filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Harassment_at_Wikimedia_Commons

Trinidad Head Light

Thank you for the edits and awesome help on that page. However, since the actual lighthouse no longer exists, but the replica does, I am curious about your last change.

The lighthouse originally stood where you have the pin point now. However, the replica lighthouse stands where the pin point used to be. For someone visiting the area from Wikipedia, I would think the replica that is available to the public, where the plaques are, the bell and the fresnel lens is, would be the important thing, rather than where the lighthouse used to be before it was torn down, which is a long hard hike to see a nice view but no structures.

I haven't changed anything. I am really confused which would be the best course of action. Perhaps the coordinates to the former location could be put in the text and the coordinates to the current location go in the article? Something like that perhaps? In any case, thank you again for your editing !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was working from was the 2009 Light List, but I just checked the 2012 Light List and the USCG thinks, as of January of this year, that there is a light, as described, at the location shown in the article. See http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=lightLists and click on District 11.

It is certainly possible that the lighthouse has been torn down since then, but I would be very surprised, as generally a lighthouse goes off the Light List long before it is torn down.

If you still think your information is correct, I will check the Local Notices to Mariners (which is a nuisance to actually use) to confirm that the light is no longer active. That is up to date every week. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is still a working light at the point [6] but it is automated. It is only open one weekend a year to the public otherwise they get to see what is in the photo on that page and he was using telephoto. The geographic location that has the historical plaque, marker, bell and the old Fresnel lens is in the replica lighthouse in the actual town of Trinidad. Maybe there is some way in the text to highlight that the working light is not the same as the memorial lighthouse with the fresnel lens, the bell and the historical marker? It's a really long slog from the parking lot for a glimpse of the roof pitch, when the light, bell & memorial are but a short walk for visitors. This photo shows both facilities on same page [7]. Thank you for your help with this. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. The subject article is about Trinidad Head Light, the 1871 building that is a working light at the location given in the Light List and which is an NRHP site. The article must concentrate on its subject. With care, you could add a paragraph assembling the facts on the memorial, but making very clear the difference between the two. The coordinates given in the infobox and the title must be those of the actual lighthouse.

Alternately, you could write a new article, perhaps titled Trinidad Memorial Lighthouse Replica, but it could not be in {{Lighthouses of California}} or any of the related categories such as Category:Lighthouses in California or any of its sub-categories. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I would like to carefully put it inside the existing page, as the memorial contains the fresnel lens and original bell as well as being where the National Register Plaque and etc. is located. And it is a memorial of the Trinidad Light, so I don't see it needs a separate page. I think perhaps information about the actual lit lighthouse being closed to public on all but one day and difficult to see from the trail might be useful as well. I will contact someone up there to get photos of the actual plaques on the building so I can read them, perhaps the way they are phrased will help. No one's going outside to look at anything til at least the weekend, we have full winter storm watches for the entire coast. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I spend most of my Wiki time on Commons, but feel free to ask for comments, thoughts, etc. as you go ahead. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Humboldt Bay Life-Saving Station

James, New article. The creator has asked for a DYK. Please take a look and add a few tweaks if you can. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that the plaque is in fact copyrighted (that it was created when it was is clear, that it is copyrighted doesn't necessarily follow), and I also think that "fair use" could justify its inclusion. We have a whole encyclopedia full of historical markers. Anyway, happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It was created in 1995, therefore it is automatically copyrighted -- only the USA has ever required special action for copyright to apply and only then on works first published before March 2, 1989. Fair use will not apply because while the plaque may have useful information on it, the plaque itself is not in any way essential to the article. You can cite the plaque without having an image of it here, see, for example, the second and third references at Fort Banks Mortar Battery. The fact that WP:EN has many copyvios does not mean that Commons will host this one. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What about public panorama? And without copyright markings on the plaque, who do I need to sign off on it? The Historical Society, The Lighthouse Society, the County, the anonymous artist at the bronze foundary? I'm totally confused on this one. We got the photo of the plaque at the request of a Wikipedia GLAM committee member. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation in one place -- please see my comments at the DR on Commons]. The only new question you raise here is panoramas -- generally things like plaques in a panorama will be de minimis and therefore not a problem. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Deacons

It doesn't affect the edit, but isn't it very common in fact for priests to be vested as deacons (which of course all are) for big occasions, there often not being enough un-ordained deacons to go round? Less so these days I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing across even one denomination in one country is dangerous and I'm about to generalize across many of both, but here goes: I have never seen a priest wear the left shoulder stole of a deacon and I don't think there is a reason why one would -- although a deacon normally reads the Gospel and says the dismissal, a priest can, and will, do both if no deacon is present.

I made the edit because I thought that saying that he was a priest dressed as a deacon confused the issue without a good reason. He may be a priest, a deacon, or simply a model for a vestment supplier, but the only thing that matters for the caption is how he is dressed. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#use of upload-assisting pic in NRHP lists

Could you comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National_Register of Historic Places#use of upload-assisting pic in NRHP lists?

This is regarding a key part of the upcoming WLM-US photo contest. Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As an active Admin on Commons, I am not at all in favor of these mass upload projects, but arguing against them would be like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. The fact is that even without such contests Commons gets around 8,000 new images every day, of which around 1,200 are problems. Our backlog of problems is high and increasing. I have even thought about suggesting that Commons embargo new images until we get under control, but that, too, is not politically possible. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Clark's Point Light

I have split this out as a separate article and noticed the material in your sandbox, from which I have taken the infobox. Be my guest in helping fill out the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your detective work in finding my sandbox from 2009. The split is at least three years overdue. Thanks for bringing it about.

As you see, it has been a while since I have done much on WP:EN -- almost all of my WMF time is spent as an Admin and Checkuser on Commons. I doubt that I will get back to lighthouse articles for a while -- Commons is in danger of being overwhelmed by around 8,000 new images every day, about a quarter of which are copyvios or other problems. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I hate to have to bring this up, but....

Looking at Cuttyhunk Light, I find the oldest version [8] appears to be copied from D'Entremont's history page for the light (2007 version [9]). Since it has your name on it I wanted to warn you first, but I don't see any way of not COPYVIO deleting it and starting over. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, it looks like that, which really surprised me because I don't do that sort of thing. Actually, I copied the material from the then current section of the article on Cuttyhunk, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cuttyhunk&oldid=300110257. I was much more naive then and obviously didn't check to see where it came from. I apologize for the naivete, but the plagiarism wasn't mine.

A rewrite appears to be in order. I'd volunteer, but Commons has an enormous backlog and I'm one of a very few Admins working away at it -- we're deleting about 2,400 files per day. So, please go at it yourself. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing there. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was me that missed something three years ago. I've deleted the copyvio from both pages. I'm really embarrassed to be a part, even inadvertently, of a plagiarism of Jeremy D'Entremont's work. Thanks again for asking first -- you would have been perfectly justified to simply blow it away. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 16:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I could use a little Commons help

Take a look at this discussion. I've also found this picture of one the Spectacle Island range lights from D'Entremont's site, and it's obviously very different from the towers in the picture in question. It seems clear to me that the picture shows the Broad Sound Channel Inner Range Lights; from what I can see the USCG list is (once again) just wrong. If you could look into this and rename the file to something more appropriate I would appreciate that. I do have a Commons account, but I cannot rename it myself. Thanks in advance. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it is, in fact, a pair of range lights on Spectacle Island, but your point seems to be correct. Good catch. I have moved it to File:Broad Sound Channel Inner Range Lights.JPG.

While I have you, could you please consider uploading PD files to Commons instead of WP:EN? I note, for example, File:Spectacle_Island_Chart_246_1909.png which really belongs on Commons, not WP:EN. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should. Is there some sort of redirect lingering to the moved image? It should be deleted if there is. Also, I have a copyright question. I have found this map from 1902; is it safe to disregard the "all rights reserved" claim and take this as PD due to age? Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy question first. The 1902 map is clearly PD as it was published in the USA before 1923. While some institutions, including, apparently, the State Library of Massachusetts, claim a new copyright because of their scan, Commons has adopted a policy based on Bridgeman v Corel -- any scan or reproduction of a PD work is also PD, despite any claims to the contrary.

As for your first question -- I'm not sure I understand. If File:XYZ.jpg appears on both Commons and WP:EN, then the WP:EN version will be shown on WP:EN. If the WP:EN version is deleted, then the Commons version will automatically be shown in its place -- no redirect is needed as the WP:EN software automatically goes to Commons if the file doesn't exist on WP:EN. By putting images on Commons you make them available throughout the WMF project and more likely to be seen by off-WMF users. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you put in [[File:Spectacle Island Range Lights MA.JPG]], what it will display is the moved picture, as you can see in this revision. Ideally it should be a red link. Thanks for the copyright answer: I thought that was the case, but having had two pictures I was given by someone else deleted because I couldn't produce a permission letter on the spot, I've gotten antsy about even bothering with anything other US government pictures. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a different issue. As a rule, when we move an image on Commons, we leave behind a redirect from the old name. That's true unless the file is unused on WMF and has been up only a very short time. It's done to ensure that off-WMF users can still find the file and its licensing, and so that the name doesn't have to be changed on all the WPs where it is used. The assumption is that the change of name should not change its use. That's true most of the time.

In this case, though, we've determined that it doesn't belong in the Spectacle_Island_Range_Lights article and you've removed it, which is what should happen.

I don't agree with "discontinued in 1913 after changes in the entrance channels to the harbor made them obsolete". The Spectacle Island Range pointed northwest, toward the city. As shown on the copy of chart 246 which you found, the range leads a ship down harbor from the city, in exactly same path as the current channel. The range would be a perfectly good leading light for leaving Boston today. I know that comment smells of OR, but I have around 600 hours operating Fintry in the harbor, so I know it pretty well. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm wondering about that too, but unfortunately that's what the USCG page and D'Entremont say, and so far they are the only sources I have been able to find. The only thing I can think of is that in the 1913 and later charts there is a new set of buoys in President Roads which mark out the channel past Spectacle Island; prior to 1903 the buoyage is, um, sketchy to nonexistent. I've been pondering a trip down to Archives to see if I can do any better, and especially to try to find a decent photo.

If you have a boat, how do you have any time for Wikipedia?? Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've sent a note to Jeremy and to Scott Price, the Deputy Historian at the USCG. He responded almost instantly a few weeks ago when I pointed out that the Romer Shoal Light was in New Jersey, not New York as http://www.uscg.mil/history/weblighthouses/LHny.asp then had it. It will be interesting to see if either of them has any ideas. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Advice regarding mass deletion

After noticing your deletion of XK8ER’s images on Commons, several others appear to derive from actual photography studios or corporate press releases, contradicting the Creative Commons license attributed to them:

File:Liners.jpg

File:Bones swiss bearings ceramics.jpg

File:Cuffs vert skating.jpg

There is an obvious resemblance between such images and those identifiable via straightforward Google searches, and my inclination is that a mass deletion request is necessary to remove the unauthorised content. Upon checking his other uploads to Commons, it seems highly improbable that he is the author of several hundred images and videos, particularly as the disparity between the formatting and resolution is significant. In response to Gunnex's deletion request, the editor mistakenly assumed that his uploads were permissible as the subjects or photographers responsible had provided the material directly via Facebook. If I apply this explanation broadly, it seems reasonable to conclude that his contributions to Commons originate exclusively via others on Facebook, who provided the content without proper attribution. Mephistophelian (contact) 18:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure why you are bringing this to me and why you are bringing it here on WP:EN, rather than on Commons. If you think that some or all of XK8ER's images are a problem, please tag them with a DR on Commons. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

With little experience in addressing potential copyright violations at Commons, it struck me that contacting the administrator responsible for deleting similar files on a previous occasion was appropriate. I misjudged... Mephistophelian (contact) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC).

Sorry if I came across a little snarky above -- generally on Commons, admins leave DR nominations to others -- we have plenty to do to keep ahead of the flood of problems we're seeing -- we delete around 2,000 images every day. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Mephistophelian (contact) 00:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC).

You were quoted

I quoted a comment you left on my talk page at the NRHP board. Thundersnow 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

segnalate edit war

Hello, i don't know an administrator, can you do for me? [10] thank you --93.50.115.250 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record: The IP 93.50.115.250 belongs to the User:Pava who has a record of edit-warring, insulting, vandalism, sockpuppeteering etc.--FAEP (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you saying? and what does it matter? you have to take responsibility for the actions do not move the conversation to something else putting a bad light on other users to believe they spend on the safe side, we're not stupid (@Jameslwoodward: excuse the invasion, I will not answer further, I entrust to your administrator authority, there is no need to add things you probably already know) --93.50.115.250 (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have warned the IP to stop his vandalism.--FAEP (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of you: You are not doing yourself any favors by taking a Commons issue here. Please keep it on Commons, and when your blocks expire, discuss the changes before edit warring. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

KoH is entirely right. I'm not an Admin here and won't mediate WP:EN disputes. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/WLM-US 2013 discussion

Would definitely be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Trinidad Head Light

An old photo of this lighthouse just popped up on a local history blog, I thought you might like to see the photo! 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 April 2013‎

Thanks. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trinidad_Head_Light_1884.jpg. When you see a good photo, please just upload it yourself. It's not hard and I'd be happy to help.

And don't forget to sign your posts -- I didn't realize it was you, Ellin, until I looked at the history to add the {{Unsigned2}}. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad on the failing to sign the post I have no excuse except my usual forgetfulness! I have no idea if that photo is fair game to upload or not, but if it is, I'd love to know the permissions for it. I think it would make an excellent addition to the entry about the light. I have read those permissions pages so many times and I'm still confused. But I know of your interest in lighthouses and thought you might like to see it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear enough -- I did upload it, see the link above. US copyright is really complicated, but there are several important dates -- anything published in the US before 1923 is fair game and anything created in the US is fair game 120 years after creation, so the magic date is now 1892. Therefore an 1884 image is fair game even if never published before. I find http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PD-US_table.svg a helpful quick summary. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Precision of light list coordinates

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#USCG light list coordinates for discussion, if you want to put your oar in (to mix a metaphor). Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 18:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Panamax

Please review the recent history of Panamax and consider removing your accusation of vandalism from my talk page. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rsrikanth05. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Panamax have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a problem in the way the watchlist handles things -- I was looking at the net of three edits, the last of which was TwoTwoHello's. The only change after the three edits was the addition of an irrelevant web page link, probably intended as advertising. I assumed that my change would take it back to the version shown on the left, but it removed only TwoTwoHello's change, the last of the three. I'm not exactly a novice here (close to 150,000 total contributions to WMF projects, mostly Commons) and I've never had this problem before. I won't make the mistake twice.

I have now removed the offending web page link by hand and have apologized to TwoTwoHello for my mistake. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee Doc, I'm really sorry about this. This isn't the first time it has happened with me. I'm really really sorry. I'm striking out my warning. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouses

Do you have any resources on Lake Erie lighthouses? I'm sorry to pester you, but I've posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses, and the low level of recent activity there makes me fear that I won't get any help unless I ask someone directly. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pester? Don't be silly. A polite request from a long time colleague is a far cry from "pester". Helping each other is what we're here for, isn't it?

I have only the usual suspects -- the Light List, the USCG Historical Lighthouse website, and Rowlett. There are, of course, other general sources besides Rowlett, but he's by far the most reliable. If you have a specific problem, feel free to ask. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 10:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:GURPS Bio-Tech Second Edition.jpg

Hi - I left you a note on Commons. Thanks for checking out this request - it looks like the file was deleted again? I am not sure how to move a file from Commons to en-wiki. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Archie Kao Photo Swap

Hi - I was wondering if you were the user responsible for swapping back the photo of Archie Kao and adding the caption "Kao at London Expo in October 2006"? Would be great to talk with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrighter (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 January 2014‎

• As shown in the article's history, it was purely a proforma act, arising from Kao's attempt to have the image deleted from Commons. I know nothing about Kao and did it only to conform to Commons and WP:EN policy that the subject of an article cannot control what images we save and use. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• If I am able to upload another Commons approved picture and upload it, can I ensure that it stays there according to WP:EN policy? Does the policy also state that the most recent Commons-approved picture be used? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.199.8 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:EN editors are free to pick whatever image they wish, or none. If you are related in some way to the subject, it is a violation of policy for you to do anything to change the article except for correcting serious mistakes. The choice of picture is not up to the article's subject or his representatives. See WP:COI. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please (again).

I am using a picture of the Beatles album Abbey Road to illustrate the Savile Row Tailoring article. The suits were made by Nutters of Savile Row. I have provided a fair use rationale- is this good enough in your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beatles_-_Abbey_Road.jpg

Any of your thoughts would be most welcome. Richard Nowell (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You got lucky here. As I note at the top, I don't see WP:EN very often -- messages are better left on my Commons talk page. I am by no means expert on WP:EN fair use, but it seems problematic to me -- it's clear from your previous questions that you have no trouble getting licensed images of bespoke tailoring, so it should not be necessary to use one that is not licensed, but, on the other hand, as your rationale says, a particular tailor made three of the four suits, so may it is OK. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Image with watermark

Why did you keep File:Tamara Jaber.jpg when it includes a watermark, seemingly in contravention of WP:WATERMARK? WWGB (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:EN. The image is hosted on Commons and it was on Commons that I closed the DR. There are several image related issues for which Commons policy and WP:EN policy are different and this is one of them. While the presence of the watermark means that the image should probably not be used on WP:EN, Commons says, "the uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited."

see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Watermarks#Discouraged_watermarks

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo discussion

They're a bit overlong, so I hate to ask, but I was wondering if you might want to weigh in on the two discussions at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14. I note that you opined on the two identical photos at Commons just a day or so ago.[11][12] Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Gräupl

When you create an AfD request, please insert {{subst:afd2}} with some parameters on the nomination page and list the nomination on the daily log page. It's also appropriate to notify the author with {{subst:afd-notice}}. You can automate these steps by enabling Twinkle at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets.

Also: de:Diskussion:Edwin Gräupl has an OTRS ticket of some kind. Does the ticket affect us or only German Wikipedia? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had followed all the instructions at {{AFD}}, but, as you know, I am much more familiar with procedures on Commons than here. As for the OTRS ticket, I think it is a different person, but in any event it is a malformed attempt at licensing material that is not relevant here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:COI?

This is my first time to create an article. Can't I create one for my teacher? In fact, much of the contents are from his resume and his personal website. Sorry to bother you. I haven't expected creating an article in Wikipedia to be so complicated. And the picture of Leung Tsang has been deleted. And the picture has long been used by leung Tsang and his students. I really do not know who is the photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joestc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Joestc (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Joestc (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Luise Kaish COI notification

Hello Jim,

I'm writing about 2 articles that you recently flagged. I've done my best to stick to all of the advice posed in Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide". And beyond that, as I am connected to a non-profit foundation, I feel that my role falls under one these guidelines for "Practices not regarded as COI" :

Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concern. Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest.

I hope that you can help by letting me know how best to resolve the COI label you've affixed to these articles, as I don't feel that it is merited. Thank you for your time.

--Sarahcmccollum (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. In the Commons UnDR you said, "I work for the Kaish family and am reaching out on behalf of Morton Kaish and Melissa Kaish". In the Summary at the guide you cite, there are nine points. You are in violation of the first three of them:

• Be transparent about your conflict of interest. -- Your talk pages are blank. Transparency requires that you say who you are if there is even a hint of a problem.
• Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. As noted above, you say that you work for the family of the two artists.
• Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. You have edited the articles directly, not done this.

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits.

Now you say you work for a foundation. If the foundation is truly educational and completely independent of the Kaish family, then it might be OK. If, on the other hand, it is one of the several foundations involving the Kaishes that Google turns up, then it is clearly not OK. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

__________

Hello again, Jim.

Thank you very much for your quick reply and for your help in navigating through this issue. I have added a disclosure on my talk pages--following reading your comments. I was doing the best I could (and knew how to do) when I first embarked on writing and editing. I would have placed a disclosure there earlier if I had known that was an issue or a common practice. I'm doing the best I can--there are a lot of layers to read and digest in terms of usage.

I thought that since I had gone through the process by creating a userspace draft and then requesting that it be reviewed through Wikipedia:Feedback or Articles for creation, that it was OK--since I was not just putting the page up myself, but requesting that others review, provide feedback or critique if needed and approve.

In reading about this further, I see on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard that "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits."

In light of this, I'm hoping that you will reconsider and remove the notification on the page.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Sarah --Sarahcmccollum (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply saying again here and on your talk page that you are employed by a foundation tells the community nothing about potential COI. Is your employer a foundation directly related to the Kaish family or not? Answering that question is the essence of the required transparency. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 20:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

COI for Eric Daimler

Hi Jim,

I posted this earlier: At Commons:Undeletion requests today, the following was posted: "I was given this picture [of Eric Daimler] from the person the article is about with permission to use it. I am his assistant and writing the article for him.--Rfshearer"

I misspoke when I wrote that. I am no longer affiliated with Eric Daimler. I don't work with him any longer. I wrote this article for Presidential Innovation Fellows by the request of someone else and Eric happened happened to be one of those given that honor. If I still need to make a note about my affiliation with him, I can do that.Rfshearer (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's always better to be transparent, so, yes, I would suggest that you put a note on User:Rfshearer that describes your past and present relationship with Daimler and any others you write about. Drop a note here when you've done that and I will probably remove the {{COI}} tag from the article. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I described my working relationship with Mr. Daimler here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rfshearer. If I need to add anything else, let me know. If it's okay, please remove the COI. Rfshearer (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I'm on the fence about whether Daimler is notable by WP:EN standards or not, so I did not comment there except to remove the COI. If pressed, I would probably say he's not -- I know many more notable entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are not in WP. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Revolvy

Just an FYI in response to your edit at Aqeel Solangi: Revolvy is a Wikipedia mirror. It yanks content from us, not the other way around. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13, that may be, but Revolvy claims copyright, so Commons policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note also that I started the Commons DR not because of the Revolvy version of the image, but because the image appears to be a copyright violation. That fact also requires that the actual photographer send a free license. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the Commons discussion; I haven't seen the photo, so I can't comment on the photo itself. I'm commenting on the fact that you removed a large amount of text from that article stating it was a copyright violation from the Revolvy article. Except under the Revolvy article, it says "Content from Wikipedia", so they took it from us in the first place. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Aha -- sorry for the confusion. However, I'm not sure you have your facts rights. If Revolvy is, in fact, a mirror, then it is a copyright violation for it to claim copyright on WP material. Mirrors do not generally make that kind of mistake.

Of course you are perfectly free to revert my edits. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen plenty of unattributed copies from Wikipedia - clear cut cases of copied from here - that people then claimed copyright over. Unlike with images, writing text is the key aspect of Wikipedia so one does need to be more sceptical of copyvio claims on text than on images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jameslwoodward. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Havn

The article Havn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, pure original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, I would, in fact, be happy to see Havn deleted. Although I am an Admin, Bureaucrat, and Checkuser on Commons, here I am just an ordinary User. If you will look at the article history you will see that it was an inappropriate redirect (similar to redirecting Harbor to New York Harbor). Since that was both wrong and a nuisance, I changed it. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Malevolent Film

Hi James. I'm Lawrence Lee Wallace executive producer of the film Malevolent. This is my first time editing anything on Wikipedia so I'm afraid I am not clear on the rules for it. I did not create the page but I was trying to add our poster for it. Is this not possible?

Lawrence Lee Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llw777 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding the poster, once it is properly licensed on Commons, would, I think, be OK. However, the edits you have made to Malevolent (film) go well beyond adding the poster, hence the {{COI}} tag. As I suggested at Commons, you really should read WP:COI. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jameslwoodward. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of Interest tag on Karen Oliveto page

Hello Jim!

I am User:TenorTwelve and I noticed you put a Conflict of Interest tag on the page for Karen Oliveto. To address this, I have made a series of nine edits to put citations on all of the information that was posted by User:BabylonKid . Note: the beginning shows the edits she made; the second part shows the citations I added that address all of them. You will understand this better if you read it under the "editing" section rather than as it looks as presented as I moved that information here from the History page. That is why the formatting is messy (I also haven't done a project quite like this before, so I may be missing some formatting cues.

Information added by User:BabylonKid included the following:

She was born on Good Friday (April 4, 1958) and raised in West Babylon, which is on the South Shore of Long Island. 
Her PhD is in Religion and Society. Her dissertation topic was: "Movements of Reform, Movements of Resistance: Homosexuality and The United Methodist Church. A Case Study

, who is a deaconess in The United Methodist Church. Adjunct Professor of United Methodist Studies at Pacific School of Religion, 2005-2016 | honorific_prefix = Bishop

File:KOliveto-126highrez.jpg

Bishop Karen P. Oliveto

She great up in the Babylon United Methodist Church (NY) and had her call to ministry at the age of 11. She preached her first sermon at 16 and began working as a student pastor when she was 18.

She has served parish and campus ministries in rural and urban settings in both NY and California. In 2004, she performed the first legal same-gender marriage held in a United Methodist Church during SF’s “Winter of Love”. She has served as the associate dean of academic affairs at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, where she also taught United Methodist History/Doctrine/Polity and Evangelism as adjunct professor for 12 years. She was the senior pastor of the 12,000 member Glide Memorial UMC for 8 years, becoming the first woman to lead one of the UMC’s top 100 largest membership churches.

The two met in 1992 when they were volunteers at a Junior High Church Camp. They began dating in 1999 and were married in 2014.

| honorific_prefix = Bishop | birth_date = April 4, 1958 | birth_place = Long Island, NY

spouse         = Robin Ridenour

| children = | parents = Capitalization of Bishop, Ministry (in Ordained Ministry), and The in The United Methodist Church | birth_date = {|1958}} | birth_place = Long Island, New York, US | spouse =

Robin Ridenour

​

(m. 2014)​

| alma_mater =

• Drew University
• Pacific School of Religion

is an American Methodist minister who is the first openly lesbian bishop 

Decapitalization of Bishop and Ministry Change of dash from 6-3 to 6—3 Change from Karen Oliveto (born April 4, 1958) is an American Methodist minister who is the first openly lesbian bishop to be to Karen Oliveto (born April 4, 1958) is the first openly lesbian bishop to be elected in the United Methodist Church. Recapitalization of Ministry and Bishop Capitalization of The in The United Methodist Church (Undid revision 816004191 by CommonsDelinker | image = KOliveto-126highrez.jpg | image =

File:KOliveto-126.jpg

---

Those were all of the edits Karen Oliveto made in violation of Conflict of Interest policies as BabylonKid. To remedy this, I decided to find citations for all of the edits she made.

They are the following: Originally from Long Island, NY. She was born on Good Friday (April 4, 1958) and raised in West Babylon, which is on the South Shore of Long Island. She grew up in the Babylon United Methodist Church (NY) and had her call to ministry at the age of 11. She preached her first sermon at 16 and began working as a student pastor when she was 18.

She preached her first sermon at 16 and began working as a student pastor when she was 18.

Citation for rural/urban, NY/CA, Dean at Pacific, 12000 Glide 8 years, 1st woman in top 100 membership) She was the senior pastor of the 12,000 member Glide Memorial UMC for 8 years, becoming the first woman to lead one of the UMC’s top 100 largest membership churches.

Added three citations regarding the first legal same-sex marriage performed by a United Methodist Church Minister: The first verifies that this happened; the second from a Reconciling Ministries Network archive declares it the first in the denomination in italics; the third does not mention Oliveto, but verifies the naming of "Winter of Love" in context of San Francisco in 2004 regarding same-sex marriage

She has served parish and campus ministries in rural and urban settings in both NY and California. In 2004, she performed the first legal same-gender marriage held in a United Methodist Church during SF’s “Winter of Love”.

Deleted "in 1992" because in my research, I did not find a source that said 1992. I did find one that they met and later dated in 1999, but since I could not find this, I deleted it

Added citation Married to Robin Ridenour, who is a deaconess in The United Methodist Church. The two met when they were volunteers at a Junior High Church Camp. They began dating in 1999 and were married in 2014.

I found the archived citations with this information. I also added a citation Oliveto is a graduate of Pacific School of Religion (MDiv, 1983) and Drew University, where she received a Ph.D. in Religion and Society in 2002 as well as a BA (cum laude) Psychology, 1980 as well as a MPhil, 1991 Her PhD is in Religion and Society. Her dissertation topic was: "Movements of Reform, Movements of Resistance: Homosexuality and The United Methodist Church. A Case Study"

I also added some information as I was researching Adding citations and information to cover all of these Associate Dean of Academic Affairs/Director of Contextual Education, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, CA 2004-2008 Adjunct Professor of United Methodist Studies at Pacific School of Religion, 2004-2016 Adjunct Professor, DMin program at Drew University, teaching "Prophetic Leadership in Congregation and Community" 2012 Adjunct Professor of Practical Theology, Brite Divinity School (TX), teaching "Evangelism in Methodist History and Practice", 2015 3 citations for this and to fix links that were archived One of these citations addressed the part about United Methodist Studies and I also corrected conflicting information from 2005 to 2004 Citing that West Babylon is on the South Shore of Long Island Originally from Long Island, NY. She was born on Good Friday (April 4, 1958) and raised in West Babylon, which is on the South Shore of Long Island.

Citation for urban, rural, campus, parish, NY, CA She has served parish and campus ministries in rural and urban settings in both NY and California.

The picture has already been deleted by the Commons and the box on the side has changed and does not reflect her edits. I think the issues with capitalization don't matter much for COI

---

I am wondering if you or I can take down the Conflict of Interest tag on the page for Karen Oliveto as I have put citations throughout the article for the edits in question. In one instance, I deleted something because I could find no citable source for it. Does this address the issues at hand or are there any additional issues that need to be addressed?

Thank you, I appreciate your time and your service to Wikipedia. I thank you in advance for your prompt reply Thank you,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)