User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2009/August

University of Florida commendations
These two barnstars make the old Dirtlawyer misty-eyed about his college days. . ..


 * You're doing a great job! Keep up the good work NorwalkJames (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir! Glad to do my part for the alma mater.


 * I was about to award these UF-related barnstars but I see you already have them. Continued great job! Zeng8r (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: University of Florida "orphan" articles
I don't think of myself being particularly adept with layouts, templates, etc., but I suppose I get by pretty well. Post the articles you need help with here and I'll see if I can help you; I'd be glad to help. (I'm part of WikiProject University of Florida as well, by the way).--Porsche997SBS (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir. Now that I know you're available, I will dial you up for layout and info box help when needed.  Always a pleasure to make the acquaintance of another Gator.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Digital campus photos for revamped UF articles
I'll see if I can get some shots this weekend. For the auditorium, do you want the interior or the exterior? I'm not sure if it is possible to get the interior (I doubt it is open to just anyone), but I'll see what I can do, as interior shots would be nice to have. --WillMcC (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir. I was looking for blue sky exterior shots, from a nice angled perspective.  Interiors might be nice, too, if you can get access.  There is an existing exterior shot on the UF main article page, but it has a horrible sun reflection on the west side windows.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Florida archival materials release
Generaly we look to get a release along the lines of this one. Actualy getting such a release can be quite a trick mind although universities tend to be better than some. Good luck.©Geni 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Geni. I have three things going for me.  One, we are only asking for the release of about two dozen post-1923 photos (primarily, former university presidents and the like).  Two, the University Historian (actually, a full-time paid position) wants to help improve the quality of the primary University of Florida Wiki articles.  Three, one of my '97 law school classmates is the university's deputy general counsel.  That sounds like a trifecta.  Afterall, it's not like we're asking them to release the Area 51 photos or anything that has any commercial value.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Florida article footnotes
Wikipedia and the legal word don't line up, I'm afraid - WP hates id. and ibid. You can use WP:REFNAME instead if you want to cite something multiple times. Ironholds (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, sometimes we learn by doing, and I've been made painfully aware of some of Wikipedia's more idiosyncratic citation formats. As you may have discovered, my rewritten articles tend to generate a few footnotes.  I am still waiting on additional historical reference materials that our university historian is shipping to me.  Once I have layered in those additional references into my UF history and bio articles, I planned to make the final version of the footnotes Wiki compliant.


 * Any interest in helping with those Wiki footnote citation formats when I'm ready to proceed in a couple of weeks? You can check out the Andrew Sledd article for evidence of my recent handiwork. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, certainly. No need to copy the discussion across each time you reply, by the way - I have this page on my watchlist, so I'm notified when something changes. I'll amend the id. stuff in that article now actually, since I have a few minutes. I also found a couple of sources that might be useful - Andrew Sledd, Southern Methodists, and the Negro: A Case History, Andrew Sledd Replies and The University of Florida, a Science article that mentions him. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeedy - as you say, shouldn't be a problem getting the release. I've finished the id tweaks on the Sledd article, by the way - I'll try and work the journal articles I found in as well. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ironholds, do we say "indeedy?" LOL  Thank you for your footnote clean-up on the Andrew Sledd article.  I hope you had as much fun reading about Sledd as I did writing the article.  One of those rare surprises in academiasomeone who actually deserves to be remembered.  Given my own Virginia-Georgia-Florida family connections and ties to the universities involved, I felt like I was exhuming a family member.  Hopefully, someone will actually read it.  The University Historian is supposed to read it and comment on it next week.  That should put the Goodhousekeeping Seal on it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a very interesting read - a pity we don't know more about his early life, I can see it becoming a good article with a bit of effort. And yes, in line with the decision in Hyde v Chaffinch the word "indeedy" is an acceptable part of legal talk - see paragraph five of Hale's judgment, beginning at marker D "this quote is completely false..". :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good legal factoidI will save the case for future humor during CLE lectures. I am supposed to get access to Emory University's special collection library this weekend; Emory has a manuscript biography of Sledd that was written by one of his former theology students in the 1950s.  The UF University Historian is also sending me a copy of a manuscript history written by Dr. James Farr (see Sledd footnote) in 1935, and covering the university's early history from 1901-1918.  That should provide some additional material to layer into the article.  I originally intended to do a 4 or 5-paragraph down-and-dirty bio, but when I started reading about Sledd, I recognized that the subject material probably rated something of a higher quality.  My secret goal has been to get the article to GA/FA status.  I have some project editors taking color digital photos of Sledd-relevant landmarks in Gainesville this weekend, and hopefully we can use a couple of those to enhance the layout.


 * I am working my way through the University of Florida's other major presidents, too, starting with Albert A. Murphree (the guy whose statue photo touched off yesterday's controversy). The articles on James M. Farr, John J. Tigert, and Robert Q. Marston are also now fairly presentable.  Murphree and Farr are only going to be interesting to Florida alumni; because Tigert and Marston were truly national personages in their day, those articles could be expanded to interest wider audiences.  The others are works in various stages of progress.  My plan was to make the university president articles presentable, and then to use the knowledge base for a complete rewrite of the primary university article and separate university history.  If I can finish that in the next two months, I will have accomplished my WikiGoals and can take a WikiVacation.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds brilliant. I have some sources for the main article, and I'd love to work on that. Give me a poke when you start working on the UF article itself and I'll chip in. I'm currently a bit backlogged - I got Lord Mansfield and Lord Denning to GA, another judge to FA and I stupidly decided to rewrite the article on Edward Coke as well. Very gruelling, but totally worth it when finished. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You're a gentleman and a scholar.  Never expected to get help from the other side of the pond on my little old University of Florida history project.  I will be sure to dial you in when I'm ready.  Bang-up job on the Sledd footnotesit would have taken me an entire day to figure out the Wiki cross-cites and do what you did.  Must work on your interior spacing, thoughand I can't follow the longer paragraphs for editing (especially the ones that are heavily footnoted).  I've become near-sighted in the pursuit of my profession.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever - send me an email with the built in Wikipedia email function, I'll ping you back with a pdf of the file attached. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

JSTOR article
You've got mail.

I have ironhold's talkpage watchlisted so I took the liberty of grabbing the article you were looking for. If you reply to the email I sent you through the wikipedia email system, I can attach a copy of the PDF. As a cool aside, if you look at Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR, you can ask any of us for articles like these should ironholds not be on. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Protonk, you have access to JSTOR? Outstanding.  Thank you for letting me in this little WikiSecret.  I am saving this information for future reference.  I am still learning how to reference and access the hidden Wiki reference pages . . . is there a good overview of Wiki resources (and maybe a site map) posted somewhere?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question. I think I've seen one somewhere. I'll poke around a bit. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some stabs at an answer:


 * Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers.
 * Public domain resources
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange

I know somewhere there is a master 'gouge' for wikipedians. I'll find it again someday. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for volunteering your assistance and providing this information. Very kind of you.  I will try to put it to good use.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Statue publicly displayed since 1946 in public domain
I don't know.

Personally, I guess I'd upload it to Commons, then have the one here deleted (NowCommons should work for that). On Commons you can use commons:Template:PD-US-no notice, along with whatever other license the actual photograph is released under.

-- Powers T 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LtPowers, I appreciate your advice.


 * There is also a minor issue with the original photograph release that was used two years ago. The contributing photographer, who gave his unconditional release by electronic signature, is apparently no longer active on Wikipedia.  Mr. Hammersoft, in his zeal to enforce Wiki copyright policy, apparently deleted the original electronic permission box.  I have restored it, based on the editing history, but there is nothing that ties it to the original giver of the unconditional release.  I am unclear on these procedures.  Is the old permission valid for upload to Commons?  I am not the releasing photographer; may I upload the photo?  If so, how do I handle the unconditional release issue?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you link the image for me; I had been under the impression that you had uploaded it originally. Powers T 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the photo location link: File:MurphreeStatue.jpg‎. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the history of the file's description page shows the original uploader's release of the photograph into the public domain: . Even once the file is deleted, that history can be accessed by administrators if a question arises as to the file's licensing.  Thus, we should be in the clear.  Just to make sure everything is as kosher as possible, I'm going to use a tool called CommonsHelper (described at Moving images to the Commons) to perform the move; this will keep as much of the file's history as possible.  Then once it's on Commons, I'll tag it with the proper copyright tag.  Powers T 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are The Man. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, both in finding the public domain rationale, and in physically getting the photo where it needs to go. I assume that all existing uses of the photo on Wikipedia will automatically link to the new WikiCommons location, correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once the local copy is deleted, the reference will "fall through" to the Commons copy, yes. Powers T 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jan Dowling

 * I added Jan Dowling as requested. Feel free to tweak the article as you see fit. NorwalkJames (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir, for creating the new article. I'm getting ready to take a 2 or 3-day WikiBreak, but I will fill in some more biographical facts for Dowling when I return.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Etyork.jpg
If you're referring to File:Etyork.jpg, it was deleted by User:Drilnoth on August 20, after User:Rockfang marked it on August 12 as not having evidence that the claim of a GFDL license was correct. After looking at the image and its history, I have to agree with this. Further, no evidence has been provided that the image is a work of the Florida government. --Carnildo (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carnildo, what if any notices were posted regarding these issues? Where were the notices posted?  Both of the article and associated discussion pages were on my watch list, and a simple review of their history indicates that no notices were ever posted.  Is this consistent with Wiki protocols?  What notice is required?  This apparently high-handed behavior is very disheartening to those of us who are working hard to improve Wiki articles within our projects.  Editors are forced to spend time trying to undo something that could have been easily cured instead of working to improve content.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notices were posted in the standard locations: on the image description page and on the talkpage of the uploader. For permission, license, and sourcing problems, it is not standard practice to post on the article's talkpage, because usually only the uploader can fix these issues. --Carnildo (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. Now that I can actually see the previously deleted image page, I see that the University of Florida archive was apparently not the source of this photo; the Auburn University archive was (the subject held important positions at both universities).  Given that the uploader is apparently no longer an active editor, we may have to seek a replacement photo from the UF archives.  In any event, please let the discussion of the Florida government document copyright law play out.  We have numerous other photos within our project which are covered by the Florida government documents copyright law, and it is important that we understand how to properly document the covered photos.  We have a good level of cooperation with our university archivist, and should be able to bring the other copyright notices into Wiki protocol compliance.  Thanks for your help in this matterwe want to be good Wiki citizens.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Gamaliel (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Florida Government Copyright format
EX: File:Marco Rubio.jpg

NorwalkJames (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

License/permission issues: "File:Bernie Machen in 2008.jpg"
DrilnothAs the shepherd for the university president articles within WikiProject University of Florida, I monitor those pages and noticed your flagging of this image for 7-day deletion. I have contacted the photographer and uploader (same person) by telephone to alert him to the issue. He is a University of Florida undergraduate (see name identified in the permission template on the image page), and has uploaded a number of his university-related photographs to Wikipedia. He has confirmed that they are his original works. He will be contacting you directly to resolve any issues you may have regarding the form of copyright permission/release. I would be grateful if you would take the time to explain your issue and how he may correct it in accordance with Wiki copyright protocols. He's the sort of image uploader we want to keephe's good with a digital camera and he's willing to release his uploaded images unconditionally. We should help him all we can. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay; see, I couldn't tell that "Harrison Diamond / The Independent Florida Alligator" was Nikonmadness. Since you say that they are one and the same, I'll assume good faith and remove the deletion tag. Thank you for the clarification on this point. There's not need for him to contact me or anything. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Drilnoth, I appreciate your "good faith" offer to remove the tag. However, if you can't make the connection as an experienced Wiki copyright cop, other Wiki copyright enforcers are likely to draw the same conclusion as you. Why don't we just flag it as "contested" (or other appropriate Wiki copyright template) for the time being. When Nikonmadness contacts you, please tell him exactly how you would like it presented. He has the potential to be a very significant photograph contributor to our project, and we might as well help him do things the right way. Nikonmadness and you can create the proper pattern for others on our project to follow. Thank you, once again, for your assistance in this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but since you provided the connection I think that it will make sense to most everyone now. The problem was that it hadn't associated "Harrison Diamond" with "Nikonmadness"; now it does. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, what's the proper way to do it? Sign it with your real name and Wiki user name? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just "I (User:Username) created this work entirely myself" is usually good. The real name isn't required and can cause confusion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Drilnoth. I will relay this to Nikonmadness by outside e-mail, and I will include this thread to make it easy on him. I will also save this thread to my talk page archive to share with others in the future. I would like to standardize our license/permission/fair use/public domain language within our UF project so we don't have to spend so darn much time dealing with image issues. I was recruited to write key articles, not to be a Wikilawyer. I get enough of that at my day job. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse
Hello ! As an active member of the Wiki team I've enjoyed many of your entries, in particular those related to Florida lacrosse. Therefore, I thought you may appreciate an invitation to what I hope will be a joint success story with a related (in a lot of ways) new wiki site called Fanbase.com. This is not a promotion or spam on my part. But really a request to an knowledgable wiki user to join another active wiki community where your specific insight in the area of sports and lacrosse would be appreciated. I've spent the last month doing a lot of updating on the site, which was in beta mode, and which officially launched on Aug 24. I think it ties in real nicely to what I've been trying to accomplish in Wikipedia, namely documenting sports and more specifically lacrosse history.

So please feel free to browse the site -- http://www.fanbase.com/NCAA-D-I-Mens-Lacrosse -- and join in the fun!

You'll note that all sports are included, not just lacrosse.

BTW, I plan on bringing up the subject of Fanbase.com and how to tie this site into Wikipedia, with the WikiProject Lacrosse team. But I thought, as a seemingly die-hard Florida fan, I might begin with you. Thanks !! --10stone5 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I can only hope this request doesn't conflict with any Wikipedia TOS.