User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive5

'''This is an archive. Please do not edit it.'''

Douglas Bush
I know that in your original entry you did not list Aharon Lichtenstein (who is a renowned Talmudic Scholar) as a prominent student of Douglas Bush.

I know very little about Douglas Bush but a lot about Aharon Lichtenstein, and I was wondering if, within English Literatue, Lichtenstein should in fact be considered a prominent student of Bush's or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bush

Tahnks GZee 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey Chick Bowen, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks a lot for deleting my page. Couldn't you have waited a while? From: tanjo3 22:30, 28 October, 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It had already been deleted more than once.  If you'd like to contest the deletion, the proper thing to do is to post at deletion review.  Chick Bowen 02:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi chick, how come that you are an admin again? And since then? I´m just a little curious. Greetings 195.93.60.65 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings to you, whoever you may be. Chick Bowen 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maxima
That was an acceptable image. It was from a media site that released to the public for non-commercial use. I guess you didn't realize that. Rarelibra 14:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-commercial use only is not an acceptable license, I'm afraid. Please see speedy deletion criterion I3 and this email from Jimbo Wales.  Chick Bowen 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

UNITO
Hello,

In fact, the image I am trying to upload has a GPL license. I just made a mistake the first time I uploaded it, now I got into this legal trap. Moreover, the second time I uploaded it, the image was actually different, this time with a public domain status, but I guess you didn't notice it.

I hope you understand and we can solve this issue, otherwise there will be missing content in that page just because of a minor technical error.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs).

2
The image is a Logo that belongs to the CUS Torino (www.custorino.it). According to legal standards in the US and Wikipedia's policies themselves, a Logo is subject to fair use (just check the drop-down list in the upload section).

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs).

3
Thank you for the clarification. The image is now tagged. Please let me know of anything else.

best regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitomaster (talk • contribs).

Thanks...
...for fixing the featured picture description on the main page. Cribananda 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure--learned something new. Chick Bowen 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for doing that, I appreciate it. However, I think it needs one more tweak as "rotation around the Earth" isn't correct, the Moon should get a definite article and a link to tidal locking would really help to inform those who are curious. If you could maybe update that, that'd be great. I'll expand that article like you mentioned. Thanks again! --Rajah 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I neglected to mention my proposed change is on Main Page/Errors. Thanks! --Rajah 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently I missed some drama over this. Now the sentence is gone altogether--it does some like it would have been a bit long with all the info you wanted to add.  There are obviously scientific issues here beyond what I understand so I'll have to let other take care of it.  Chick Bowen 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jingle Networks
I've marked the page Jingle Networks as spam for speedy deletion. The user has argued about the worthiness of this page and now I'm not sure if it's a worthy page or not. Can it be checked on? -WarthogDemon 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved discussion to AfD. Please comment at Articles for deletion/Jingle Networks.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Irony
I deleted it. Please be aware of our policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only conclude then, that if Wikipedia were to have a mission statement, it would, as its first and most crucial point, would be this:


 * All content is to be pointless.


 * Cheers mate. -- Chris 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be far more tolerant of you if I thought you were funny. Chick Bowen 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the first time it's happened today, and certainly not over his entire existence here. He archives his talk page (without linking to said archive), apparently avoiding much of the flak. If you don't mind, I've gone ahead an test4'd him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. What happens next is up to him.  If he continues to escalate his provocations, a block and probably a community ban is inevitable.  He has some good contributions and if he'll figure out what this project is about and stick to those, there's no reason not to keep him around.  Chick Bowen 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this whole experience has been super ironic.
 * Sorry for the disruptions though -- won't happen again, I am quite sure.

Chris 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification please
I noticed that you have twice deleted the entry I created for the John Paul II Media Institute in Halifax, NS, Canada yesterday.

Can you provide me with some reason as to why the entries were deleted outright without any notice to the creator of the page?

Care was taken to attribute the works of all copyrighted material to their owners, and the article provided external links to corroborating internet resources.

The creation of this entry was an assignment for the students of the institute itself which is due next week on Wednesday.

Some justification for the deletion of the article would be appreciated, particularly since no effort was made on your part to contact the sources included the article that provide the legitimacy of the information it contained.

With thanks, paulwwozney.
 * As a general rule, we discourage people from writing articles about organizations they are involved with. The result is inevitably borderline from the point of view of our neutrality and verifiability policies.  In this case, in my opinion it did not make sense to have an article about something that's just getting going--if it is successful, there will be plenty of coverage of it in reliable sources, and we can create an article.  However, if you'd like to dispute the deletion of it you may do so at Deletion review.  Chick Bowen 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern about neutrality in this case, however, you have plenty of articles on Wikipedia (if not most) who have editors who do not have an optimal level of "editorial distance"- pages about WWII battles whose contributors include war veterans who fought in them, pages about lobby groups and corporations whose entries are largely edited by their employees or corporate brass. To exclude an entry on the mere possibility of this basis may seem editorially permissible according to policy, however, it seems woefully out of step with the reality reflected in much of Wikipedia's content.

The information provided in the article provided links to external sources that verified the facts it contained. While I totally understand the burden of providing facts is on the writer and not the reader, it is fairly clear that you didn't follow the links to the corroborating resources in the article. If writers provide sources for verification and they are not observed by readers who delete rather than check them through, how can that be a standard for deletion?

I'm also curious about your assertion that because something is new or in its formative stages and hasn't received "plenty of coverage" from reliable sources as a reason for exclusion from Wikipedia. Must something be "successful" or longstanding and verified by traditional journalistic or scholarly sources to be included in Wikipedia? There are a number of Wiki entries on websites or phenomena that have existed for a much shorter time than JP2MI and are corroborated solely by myspace pages and blogs that find their way onto this resource. I appreciate your opinion, however, the decision to delete this entry seems to have been based more on that opinion than evaluation of policy, especially in light of many content areas on Wikipedia.

I do plan to appeal the deletion. Thanks for your prompt reply to my questions, and for the links to the deletion review page. With thanks, paulwwozney.

John Paul II Media Institute on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Paul II Media Institute. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulwwozney (talk • contribs).

Havelock
Hello Chick Bowen, Talking about Homer and an oral form of Philosophy; are you familiar with Iman Wilkens' Where Troy Once Stood, which also concerns Homer in this respect? Regards, Antiphus 08:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't familiar with that book, no. How incredibly bizarre.  Could have saved Schliemann a lot of trouble, I guess.  Chick Bowen 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article got undressed quite a bit lately, here's a somewhat larger version:, Antiphus 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to send my kudos after reading the Havelock page after seeing it as the featured page. The article is some of the best work I've seen on Wikipedia. lionelag 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words--I'm delighted it's getting so many readers. Chick Bowen 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to delete my comments on another person's talk page.
That person is a friend of mine in real life and my comment was left in jest. Whether it was 'productive' or not was not up to you, who had not considered perhaps it was constructive in creating a friendly environment on wikipedia. To me, sir, you are a cop, a troll and void of humor.Miserlou 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Remove personal attacks. Naturally I had no way to know he was a friend of yours.  Chick Bowen 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Betty Blythe
Why don't you (or Chick Bowen) just remove the image? It doesn't bother me, really. Kedar 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am Chick Bowen.  In any case, thanks for being obliging; it's deleted.  Chick Bowen 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a life Chick Bowen, I am out of here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kedar63 (talk • contribs).

Falcon Studios
I would like to courteously invite you to relook at this article. Falcon has been widely regarded among the gay population as a leading producer of gay pornography for quite some time. Although currently, many of their competitors are producing content that is at least as good as Falcon's, certainly their powerful presence throughout the 80s and 90s warrants them an article. It can be very difficult when writing an article about a company that is at least as popular as Falcon to write it without making it sound like an advertisement; if upon further review, you still feel it is blatant advertisement, please restore it to my user page so that I can make the proper adjustments to it before restoring it. -Todd ( Talk - Contribs ) 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:JoshuaZ/Archive004 for a lengthy discussion of this issue. Since two admins have concurred on this article, your best bet may be to list it at WP:DRV if you'd like to pursue the issue.  Thanks for being polite about this.  Chick Bowen 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pardoner's Tale
I don't agree with your reason for not speeding this article. It may be a "standard name" for something else (which is why it exists as a redirect), but the actual article is not under this name.

Where as The Pardoner's Tale (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) should really be named as "The Pardoner's Tale" as per Disambiguation, Naming conventions, and Naming conventions (television). Our existing guildlines say to not disambiguate unless there's another article of the same name, which isn't the case here.

Let's just say, if "The Pardoner's Tale" had been created as an article for the L&O episode before someone came and created it as a redirect to The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, would anyone (and would there be any guildlines supporting them) come and move the article to a disambiguated form and turn it into a redirect for The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale?

For those reasons, i think you should reconsider this speedy request. If you still do not agree, then do you know where i can take this to? (I'd assume AfD would be inappropriate, but i don't know of a place here to deal with cases like this). --`/aksha 06:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Columbo
You deleted this article without knowledge, right or even proposing something. No wonder these people above do not take you seriously. By definition of law you CANNOT libel someone who is serving 300 years for murdering her mother, brother and father. And the case was one of the most notorious of the 1970s. People like you give Wikipedia the laughable reputation it has. Return the article forthwith. ---ColScott---
 * The article must cite reliable sources to be included. It's that simple.  Provide them and I'll undelete gladly.  Chick Bowen 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Flintstone, I'll bite. The Newspaper okay with you? Columbo, DeLuca guilty  Jay Branegan; Jane Fritsch Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); Jul 2, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1985) pg. W1 AND Miss Columbo offered sex, cash for slayings--witness Jay Branegan Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file); Jun 3, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1985) pg. 3

Send me your email and I will send you the PDFs you can have them read to you.

Then there is MOM DAD MIKE AND PATTI THE TRUE STORY OF THE COLUMBO MURDERS by Bonnie Remsberg. Bantam Books 1992

and LOVE'S BLOOD by Clark Howard ST Martin's Press 1993

Of course BOTH books are written up in detail at AMAZON.

but being a wikifool you may just want ONLINE sources, lol.

  

1- Reliable sources- check 2- Notoriety- check 3- complete inability to be libelled because no reputation exists to be damaged after triple murder conviction of own family. Check

Of course there is always the option of not deleting or editing or even meddling in something you know NOTHING about. Try it it works for most people not on a power trip. Now undelete the article. --ColScott--

User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 moved
As suggested I moved User:Moe Epsilon/Semi2 to Template:Sprotect2 so others can use this on articles now :) semper fi — Moe  17:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks.  Chick Bowen 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I answered your message and rang rings around you so now undelete. Col Scott

Re: Translation request
Hi Chick Bowen. Not at all. It's already done :) . I formatted it so as to make it clear that it was a translation of your comment, but feel free to alter it in any way that you feel might make it better.  Cheers,  Redux 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jason Lee
FUCK YOU!!! The article on Jason Lee was ALL FACT1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.51.99 (talk • contribs).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't work (yes I know I'm talking to a machine). My interest in Serbia lies mostly in removing images I've deleted, my interest in malls in deleting the articles themselves.  How ejaculation got on there I really don't want to know. Chick Bowen 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Images on talk pages
Thanks for the tip. Do you mean that images cannot be used on talk pages? I haven't seen this restriction. The reason I've added inTalk:List of Greek words with English derivatives is to help some users to type Greek text conveniently.--Odysses  (&#9756;) 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know. I guess the image should be deleted. Can I use this one instead in the talk page?.--Odysses (&#9756;) 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Odysses (&#9756;) 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Noahlaws
Um, have you read his latest responses on his talk page? I'm aware he's already blocked, but if this guy is serious, he's not going to listen to logic and if he starts putting that POVscreed into researched pages, he's going right back to AIV. Is there something to be done about this, besides waiting for him to edit war? --Elar a girl  Talk 14:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I've posted at WP:AN to get more people into it.  Chick Bowen 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Image:Heart of darkness cover.jpg"
I'm not sure what speedy criterion you deleted it under and I'm not sure I think your actions were helpful considering the discussion I'd initiated, and I just want to register that frustration. You just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more, but there's no value in going any further with this, and you just chipped away at my faith in Wikipedia one little bit more. Anyway, see you around and happy editing. Steve block Talk
 * You're right to be frustrated. Though I do not think such use of book covers is fair use, I acted too quickly and I apologize.  Chick Bowen 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin talk same-sex marriage
Hi Chick Bowen: I just noticed that you and a few admins had a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive147 that took place 16-17 November 2006. I would have liked to respond to the comments there at the time, but the page has already been archived, even though the question of editing the article is not over. So I am copying the following response to you, that I had wanted to put in. Best wishes, IZAK 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

Hi folks I just noticed your comments here and I wanted to respond in my own "defense" to set the record "straight" (good pun, no? ;-}) So here goes: IZAK 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If an article deals with same-sex marriage, then as long as the comment/s on a talk page (yet!) deals with that topic it is connected to it, even though it may be phrased in a way that may not always please everyone... because according to the Bible it is a shame on South Africa and any other place that makes same-sex marriage "legal" since the Bible condemns that kind of behavior. What if a law was passed "allowing" theft, or murder, or adultery? Would that make them "legal" too? This is not about WP:SOAP, this is about understanding why the majority of religious leaders and people are opposed to such things, and that can, must and will be part of articles like this. What can I do, I didn't write the Bible! Honest!
 * At no point did I re-insert my comment 3 times into the talk pae within 24 hours, and to say that it violates the 3RR is false. I did it over a few days, so there could not have been any application of the 3RR in this case under any circumstance.
 * תועבה can be translated in a few ways, I was using only one from the JPS version. Indeed, I actually prefer one translation given by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who said that the word means "mistaken act" תוע-בהbut regardless of how it translated into other languages, the Hebrew Bible clearly condemns this act.
 * The list of "abominations" in the Bible is long, and homosexuality is most definitely one of the abominations, so we can't argue it away with other comparisons that are not to the point.
 * I subsequently expanded the implications of what I had written on the talk page, but it was not written in "religious" terms, but that addition to the article was deleted because an editor there said it was "all made up".
 * At that point, after someone threatened to block me, instead of practicing what they preached and engaging me in a serious dialogue on the issues and not as a distraction about what I was doing, I took the entire matter to Mediation Cabal where it has remained this past week. See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage in South Africa, where you can read the series of events and when they took place. Please feel free to add your comments there as well, I'd love to hear from you.
 * Finally, when the dust settles I will go back to work on the article and provide many more quotes and references, so that the article can reflect all parties views in South Africa, and not just those of the ANC-South African Communist Party-dominated government, parliament, and courts. There are always at least two sides to every story, right? That is the essence of NPOV. IZAK 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers
There's a bit of a head on it, mind. Don't know what you drink, but the apology was appreciated and I raise a glass to you. Looking forward to the next time our paths cross. :) Steve block Talk 13:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Brown's gas
Good call. Though I hope someone writes a useful debunking article soon. Rklawton 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Christmas sandwich
The only reason that you have stated for your decision was that "the person who expanded it didn't actually argue for keeping it". Was there any other reason that you had? Uncle G 14:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course. Most votes were for delete, and given that the only keep votes were based on your rewrite, and you hadn't expressed an opinion, it seemed hard to imagine a consensus for keep.  If you think I was wrong, that's fine--you know what to do.  Chick Bowen 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Andrew wiles2.jpg
Please check out that I have now added more information about the public domain status of this photo. SureFire 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The copyright notice saying public domain is here in the bottom right hand corner of that page. SureFire 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded at WP:PUI. Chick Bowen 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Joyce images
Constantine P. Curran appears to have lived 1883 - 1972. He got a BA in 1902 and an MA in 1906, and was awarded a honorary Ph.D. (DLitt) in 1949 by the National University of Ireland.. You also wrote at WP:FAR that he published a book in 1968, which is consistent with the above birth and death years. Therefore, Image:JamesJoyce1904.jpg is certainly not PD in the European Union. As you said, we'd need to show that it was published pre-1923 for it to be PD in the U.S. I have not found any such indication; I suspect as a personal shot, it was published only much later.

In any case, it appears to be next to impossible to find provably PD images of Joyce. Most of the photographers or artists died only relatively recently: Augustus John in 1961, Henri Martinie (French photographer) in 1963 or 1965, Sean O'Sullivan in 1965, George Harris Healey in 1971, Curran in 1973, Berenice Abbott in 1991, Gisele Freund in 2000, and so on.

The Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University has a huge collection of digital images of Joyce online. Possible candidates for PD images might be:
 * this pencil drawing by Marcel Maurel, active 1920 - 1933, so maybe he died before 1936. This would at least make the image PD outside the U.S. Within the U.S., the image is probably still under copyright as it appeared on the cover of Time on January 9 1934.
 * Got confused about his period of activity (there was a cyclist with the same name...) I think it's unlikely he died before 1936, and anyway, he seems to have lived in New York City. Assuming the Time cover was the first publication, the drawing would be a U.S. work... He's mentioned on May 25, 1931 as an "able young French artist and gallery-keeper of No. 689 Madison Avenue, Manhattan". Thus this drawing is most likely not PD, neither in the U.S. nor elsewhere. Lupo 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and, both by Alex Ehrenzweig, a photographer in Zürich active in the 1910s. I have, however, been unable to determine his death date. Switzerland is and has long been a 70years p.m.a. country, so if Ehrenzweig died before 1926, this image would be PD in Switzerland and in the U.S.; if he died 1926-1936, it'd be only PD in Switzerland and other 70y p.m.a. countries, but not in the U.S. Unless it was published before 1923, but it looks like a private studio portrait Joyce had made for his own uses; he appears to have given away copies to personal acquaintances, but in all likelihood it was not offered for sale to the general public or otherwise published. So it would be an unpublished work. (Strictly speaking, it was certainly published at some point, but as with all such personal photos, that probably occurred only much later, probably in a book about Joyce. There is this strange rule in U.S. copyright law that unpublished works first published between 1978 and 2003 are copyrighted until at least 2047...)
 * There's also this drawing by someone who signed as "césare", but I have no idea whatsoever who that might be or when he died.
 * I've found only one image that is PD-US: the "revolutionary" image (also at ) by C. Ruf, Zürich, (the studio's address was Bahnhofstrasse 40) was published prior to Autumn 1921 in Paris on page two of Silvia Beach's subscription order form for Ulysses! I think this publication would make the image PD in the U.S. (pre-1923). (I wonder whether "C. Ruf" was "Carl Ruf", even though that was a German photographer based in Karlsruhe, it's possible that he had a studio in Zurich. Or that he visited Zurich to take that picture of Joyce. But I haven't found his death date either; he was active from the early 1880s on.)

The "unknown street photographer" image from ca. 1930 is unclear. We don't know when it was first published. In 70years p.m.a. countries, copyright on anonymous works usually expires 70 years after the publication, or 70 years after the creation if the work was not published in that time. In the U.S., I do not know whether anonymous works created and published before 1978 were even copyrighted: how did one register an anonymous copyright? Chapter 3 of 17 USC is silent on this issue. If published after 1978, it'd be copyrighted until 95 years since publication or 120 years since creation, whichever expires first (17 USC 302), and at least until the end of 2047 if published before 2003.

The cover of Dubliners (from ) should be PD-US, as it was published in 1914. The UK copyright on the typographical arrangement has long expired. The same holds for Chamber Music (1907) and the first edition of Ulysses (1922), but not for the later editions!

HTH, Lupo 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nabokov
Hi Chick, I've replied on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 20:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright on Irish coins and bank notes
You wrote:
 * You don't happen to know, off the top of your head, whether Irish currency is PD, do you? Chick Bowen 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know. But it's easy to look up. The UNESCO has a collection of about 100 copyright laws from around the world... According to the Irish Copyright Law of 2000, Chapter 24: Copyright: Legal Tender; §200, Irish coins and bank notes are copyrighted, even if issued before that provision became effective (§200(3)); i.e. older coins and bank notes are retroactively placed under copyright. The copyright on legal tender is perpetual, i.e. does not expire at all. (Copied from my talk page.) Lupo 07:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you might find this explanation of the copyright status of Joyce's work useful, even if it only briefly touches upon the question of images of Joyce. But it confirms our interpretation that the pre-1923 editions of his works, including the Paris edition of Ulysses from 1922, are PD-US. Their reasoning also backs my understanding that the "revolutionary" image would be PD-US, too. (This extlk, BTW, has been at WP:PD for quite a while.) Lupo 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And a final note: the revolutionary image would be PD-US only. In other countries that follow the 70years p.m.a. rule, it would be PD only if that Mr. Ruf died more than 70 years ago. The image should therefore not be uploaded to the commons (unless we could indeed show that C. Ruf died before 1936)! Upload locally, and explain on the image description page why it should not be moved to the commons. (The commons applies PD-US exclusively to U.S. images, but this is a Swiss or German photograph.) Lupo 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And a very final note: "C. Ruf" really appears to have been "Carl Ruf". See (click on both "Ruf, C." and "Ruf, Carl": it seems to be the same entry). Ruf appears to have had several studios throughout Switzerland and southern Germany. Which, of course, raises the question whether he personally was the photographer, and if not, whether his employee in Zurich or the studio held the rights... But all this is only of concern if we want to show that the image was PD outside of the U.S., too. Lupo 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg
Hi Chick Bowen. I would like to get Dwight D. Eisenhower back to "good article" status. One of the problems the article has is the copyright status of the above image, which you uploaded in May. I have been trying to determine the status and found this record on the Library of Congress (LOC) website. Based on my reading at the LOC's Prints and Photographs Reading Room, the record indicates that the image was copyrighted on March 18, 1946. A registration number is provided under the "Notes" section, but it does not yield search results at the copyright.gov website. However, based on the duration information on the LOC website, the image would be in the public domain unless the copyright was renewed. Since I cannot ascertain renewal status, I'm unsure whether the copyright tag on the image is appropriate. I'm somewhat of a novice at image copyrights and compatiblity with Wikipedia's requirements. Can you revisit this and let me know what you think? Thanks! Regards, Accurizer 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember uploading that photograph. My feeling at the time was that the burden of proof is on us to show that something is public domain, not on the LOC to show that it isn't.  Thus, if we don't know the copyright status of something, we have to assume it's under copyright.  I still feel this way--there's no way we can declare the image PD unless we have positive evidence that it is.  As for the fair use rationale, it's sketchy but it was the best I can do.  The image is only borderline acceptable by our standards.  Sorry I can't be of more help, and good luck.  Chick Bowen 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'm learning a lot about image copyrights! I copied the above thread to Image talk:Churchill and Eisenhower.jpg and will update my progress there. Regards, Accurizer 20:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

book cover project
Phew! I was hoping I changed the cover correctly and left the appropriate comments. I was waiting for some kind of sign that I did the right or wrong things before trying to change another cover. QueenStupid 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm pretty sure I understand, but let me just make sure: Anything created before 1900 is PD worldwide? QueenStupid 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think about Anne of Green Gables? I know you said before 1909 was probably PD, but I just want to see what you think, unless you I should just ask Lupo? Published 1908 by a Canadian author. QueenStupid 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I went ahead and completed the replacement on Washington Square (novel), which Queen Stupid left unfinished. I also left a note on Queen's user page that I don't need to be notified whenever a fair-use image is replaced. I'll see the replacement on my watchlist. Anyway, while I certainly applaud any effort to replace fair-use images with free-use ones, I have to wonder a little about the bad book cover project. I'm not a copyright lawyer and I don't play one on Wikipedia user pages, but...


 * Are these photos of old book covers really free? I know the book covers themselves are out of copyright, but the photographs of the covers are fairly recent and may well still be copyrighted. After all, just because I take a picture of a 2,000-year-old sequoia redwood doesn't mean I give up copyright to the non-2,000-year-old photo. I know this is a fine point of copyright law, but shouldn't we get some legal advice on whether these images are really free before we start claiming free use? For instance, the image I uploaded of the Washington Square cover comes from New York University, and I'm sure the photo was taken quite recently. I didn't put it on Commons because I'm frankly unsure of its copyright status. I'm going to put a note on the Washington Square image file saying so.


 * It's no terrible harm. We can always use the book-cover fair-use rationale for photos of first edition covers, just as it's now used for photos of more recent editions. But I wonder if a free-use claim can be supported for recent photographs of book covers, however old the covers are. Plus, I don't mind giving Penguin some free advertising. They do a great job of keeping classic literature in print (smile). Casey Abell 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PWU
Well, common sense says that it's OK to make the edit, paranoia says don't. WP runs on a bit of both! But PWU was the only article on the whole of WP with an undated tag of that kind, so as the change was non-substantive I went ahead. However it does leave the situation with these Office actions as very unsatisfactory, even if understandable to some extent. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17 6 December 2006 (GMT).
 * Yes, taken in that spirit. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:36 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Matthew Brettingham
What happened there? Anyway, one more thing to keep track of, here. Sandy (Talk) 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano has been feeling justifiably unappreciated lately. In this case, I think he overdid it--he cannot unilaterally defeature an article, even though he wrote it.  Chick Bowen 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yikes, I didn't realize that was the story. I only noticed it because of the issue with the new template installed at Featured articles, which created more work.  Sandy (Talk) 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would have noticed this (any FA being added or deleted outside of FAC or FAR), but I was at the theatre last night. I do take a night out now and then :-)  I'm not sure how to help with Giano, since I think he views me as the "enemy" because of my work at FAR. I sure did appreciate your helpful input on Joyce.  Sandy (Talk) 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I thought that was a well-run FAR, even if it got a little hairy at times. The article improved over the course of it, which is what matters.  It's never easy being The Voice of Sanity, and you do it well.  As for Giano, lord knows--I admire him enormously, I think he's one of our smartest and hardest-working editors, but I try to stay off his talk page.  Chick Bowen 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. It can't be easy having one's excellent work scrutinized, when it was up to standards a few months or years ago.  Sandy (Talk) 23:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Joyce
Chick: this is a reply to your question to me in my talk page. The biographical information that I added to the Stephen Joyce article comes from a New Yorker article that is already cited as a source. It's called "The Injustice Collector", from the June 19 2006 issue. As for the name of Stephen's father (and James's son), he was named Giorgio at birth (he was born in Trieste in 1905) but he was often called "George" by English speakers. This is confirmed by Ellmann's biography of Joyce as well as James Joyce A-Z by Fargnoli & Gillespie, Oxford University Press.

I've read dozens of books about Joyce's life and work, and they tend to use "George" and "Giorgio" interchangeably. The New Yorker article used "Giorgio" so I suppose that was foremost in my mind. Ahkond 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: book covers again
Thanks for letting me know! I'd be glad to help out after I finish with my finals. QueenStupid 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LakeEffect
Why did you tag this image for speedy delete? It is a perfectly usable image, taken from a NASA satellite and residing on one of NASA's primary servers, antwrp. There should be no issues of copyright, and the image itself is quite an effective one. As best I can remember (and I can't go back and check now) it was properly tagged. Denni  talk 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it for speedy deletion--it was tagged for speedy deletion by Titoxd. I removed it from WP:POTD, by consensus of the administrators available last night.  Please see WP:AN for a thorough discussion of the issue.  Chick Bowen 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back so quickly. I read the discussion and must regretfully agree that if this is in fact not a free-use image it should probably be deleted. Too bad - it's a great shot. Denni  talk 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a great shot. I don't know whether a fair use claim would be possible, which is why I commented it out of the various articles it was in rather than removing it altogether.  It would have to be reuploaded here rather than commons, of course, for that.  Chick Bowen 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)