User talk:Elcobbola/Archive9

Typewriter
Hi Elcobbola, I just noticed the Sholes and Glidden typewriter article you created and wrote much of, and I must say it's awesome work; I'm thrilled! I got interested in this topic and had been planning to do something like this for a long time (I created the James O. Clephane article which arose out of idle curiosity, and later expanded the Sholes article a bit) — it's delightful to find someone who has done so great a job of it. :-) Thanks for your efforts. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC) PS: Just out of curiosity: I've started to suspect that the name "Christopher Sholes" is of recent origin, and that all old (at least contemporary to his time) sources use either "C. Latham Sholes" or "Christopher Latham Sholes" (just as it's "George Bernard Shaw" or "Bernard Shaw", but never "George Shaw"). Did you find "Christopher [L.] Sholes" in the sources you consulted?
 * Thank you for the kind words. While I was wiki-linking the article, I went to the Clephane article expecting a (frankly) worthless stub like the Soule and Glidden articles, but was pleasantly surprised to see a nice article.  The Beeching (1974) and Bliven (1954) sources are probably the most authoritative (almost all post-1974 sources reference one or both of them).  Both of these sources use his full name (Christopher Latham Sholes) at the first occurrence, and simply "Sholes" thereafter.  Older sources--e.g. Melville (1923) and Iles (1912)--do this as well.  I think you're correct, however, about publications contemporary to his time.  The 1868 patent, for example, refers to him as "C. Latham Sholes", as does a 1872 Scientific American article.  But I never see "Christopher L. Sholes".  I chose to abbreviated the middle name to keep it consistent with the other names in the article (for which the sources more commonly use just the middle initial), but it seems I should expand to the full middle name at the first occurrence.  Эlcobbola  talk 04:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw you added an image to the Clephane article, great. :-) (It actually started when I read a passage in The Design of Everyday Things about him destroying many typewriters, and started Googling his name — finding results in obscure sources was fun, and I felt there was enough mention to create an article. If it were written ideally, the main part would have been the mechanical typesetting section, and I was in fact planning to do it and work on Ottmar Mergenthaler next, but finding sources is more fun than writing... I lost patience and abandoned it. I'll return to them sometime.)
 * I've taken the liberty of moving the Sholes article. BTW, it would be great if you could add the information in the QWERTY keyboard section to the QWERTY article, since the history you present makes things a lot clearer. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That book does sound interesting; all the copies are checked out at my library, so it appears I'll have to wait. :) I don't write about people, so I'm not familiar with MOS naming conventions, but the move certainly seems reasonable to me.
 * The QWERTY article is a real mess. Even the lead is blatantly wrong; for example, "The QWERTY design was patented by Christopher Sholes in 1874" sources to a 1878 patent (!) - and it actually wasn't ever patented; that particular patent is for mechanical design/function and QWERTY merely happens to appear on an illustration.  But I digress.  I might work on it in time, but for now I hope to get Sholes and Glidden to FA status and then perhaps write about some of the lesser-known manufacturers  (Oliver Typewriter Company, sort of the betamax of typewriters, was great fun).  I also greatly enjoy obscure topics/sources, so QWERTY is a little too "mainstream" (even the Sholes and Glidden is almost too well-known; I couldn't believe there wasn't an article).  Эlcobbola  talk 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bump: Could you address or decline the issues I raised as a result of your responses on the Typewriter's FAC?  I'd like to dump the text into the Talk: page, but just want to make sure you've seen them first. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've indeed seen the follow-up, so you may relocate it at your discretion if my acknowledgment is all that's needed. I'm amiable to implementing the suggestions, but need clarification as to the precise form they should take:
 * Regarding Campbell-Kelly 2005: should the cite simply be " ", or is an alternative format, use of punctuation, etc. required?
 * You've missed your comma seperator [Names] [Year], [location in text identifier (ie p. pp. §)] [location in text].  so " "
 * Regarding Hoke 1979: should the revised reference read: Hoke, Donald (1979). "The Woman and the Typewriter: A Case Study in Technological Innovation and Social Change". Business and Economic History (Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum) Series: 2 8?  Эlcobbola  talk 00:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest Series 2, 8 per your style, you're punctuation light, and its a unique case in this article. The comma seems necessary to reset the reader's interpretation "(Series 2 8), what?" plus it kinda matches your short cites. :)  Great work in research and citations! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've made the changes.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for the great article.  I fixed a couple of full-stops too. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

NRHP photos question/proposals
I've opened the discussion on NRHP photos at Media_copyright_questions and hope that you'll comment there. Smallbones (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented there.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Nikita Khrushchev/archive1
Do you think you could look at the discussion here about Russian images and give your opinion? And if you have a chance do an image check for the article? I've watchlisted this page. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Эlcobbola  talk 16:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded as well, could you check back and give a final thumbs up and your opinion based on the current state of the Khrushchev grave (image provided there). Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly and The Family Stone
Ugh. I don't know what to do with this mess. See Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2 and my removal of the images. But all of those images have a Fair Use rationale entered on their image pages. Since Fuchs says those aren't valid, does someone have to go back and remove all of those from the image pages? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Fuchs hit the nail on the head (I don't even see that File:Sly-autumnrecords.jpg is supported).  But, no, the rationales don't need to be altered as they're shared with other articles (i.e. the individual album pages).  Removing the Sly and The Family Stone wiki-link would be good housekeeping, but I'm not aware of anything that would require that.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Any ideas where to locate new images for this article?  It looks like it could be headed for a FAR save, unless Ealdgyth finds big problems in the sourcing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's usually quite easy to find relevant images that will be purely decorative (e.g. a cityscape, etc.) So as long as you're only looking for something to provide some visual relief and differentiation from the prose, I'd be happy to dig around later today (I have to catch a flight in less than 2 hours, so I'm on my way out now).  Эlcobbola  talk 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ec; no hurry, because it will be at FAR for at least another week. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Both"
Hi, I didn't notice you had edited the article while I was still editing. :-) Hope it didn't cause any edit conflicts. Minor point: I think something like the "both" is needed in: "The Sholes and Glidden typewriter has its origin in a printing machine designed [...] to assist in printing page numbers in books, and serial numbers on tickets and other items. [...] Carlos S. Glidden [...] suggested that it might be adapted to print alphabetical and numerical characters." I found this confusing when I read it (was it printing something other than alphabetical and numerical characters earlier?); it might be better to clarify what the change was, with something like "to print alphabetical as well as numerical characters" or "in addition to" or "to print alphabetical characters as well". (Actually, I think "to print letters as well as numbers" would be best, but I just noticed someone complained about it at the peer review.) Anyway, it's a minor point so feel free to ignore it, Shreevatsa (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, no conflict. :) My understanding has been that, when talking about two things, "both" is implied by context and, therefore, unnecessary (i.e. something that could run afoul of FA criterion 1A.  If I recall correctly, I picked it up from either one of Tony1's writing exercises or a comment I'd seen at an FAC, but I may be wrong).  In this case, though, I think you're right that something more is needed to make it clear that an addition was made.  "In addition to" sounds good to me.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon trying rephrase, it seems "in addition to" gets a bit clumsy. Alternatively, does this phrasing work?  Эlcobbola  talk 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me (too). Thanks for the link to User:Tony1's page; a lot there to learn! I guess the problem with "both" is that it carries with it some emphasis (that's its purpose), but there is a tendency to gratuitously overuse it for every commonplace list of two items. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Neville Chamberlain
Can you take another look at the images? I think I've addressed all your concerns. Hopefully once you are satisfied of that you will strike your oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Query - BB-35 USS Texas
Hi Jacobst, I have a quick question about File:USS Texas BB-35.jpg, which you uploaded back in 2006. I'm just curious whether you indeed took the photograph, or got it from, say, Flickr or a naval site. I ask because the image has since been transferred to the Commons and the script generated the boilerplate message that you were the uploader, which isn't necessarily analogous to "author", so I just wanted to double check so I can correct (i.e. specify) the verbiage accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 03:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in my photograph of BB-35. Yes, I did take the photograph during a brief visit to the Houston/San Jacinto Park area in 2006. Jacobst (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for getting back to me.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Simplonpass.jpg
I can't find this image at the source - can you? I really want to use it. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see it. I thought perhaps it was another Bergsee, but the Monte Leone's Turm is visible and that's indeed Simplon (this is Valais canton, yes?).   I'll try putzing around a bit more, but I'm not hopeful.  I haven't looked at that special license, but perhaps you could find an alternative here?  And why are you in Switzerland while supposedly rambling through Germany and Italy. ;)  Эlcobbola  talk 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it is going to have to be deleted! Hopefully I can fix the color contrast on one of those other images. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
We attempt to keep the queue to a manageable length by asking people to review one nomination for each nomination that they make. If you get a chance come by and review a couple nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Mayall image use and FAC
Please come back and follow up on your comments and responses at: Featured_article_candidates/Nicholas_Mayall/archive1. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Updated again, hopefully I've addressed your concerns this time. Thanks.  WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another update. WilliamKF (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the image reviews you've been doing at FAC - it is greatly appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Union Avenue Historic Commercial District
OK, I am prepared to withdraw my nomination for FA article status. I would ask in return for you to post your opinion on what should be added to the article  (sources, more pictures, etc.), I would like to be able to review  specific areas that in your opinion that I can improve on. There is a vast quantity of sources that can be added although some might be  slightly redundant to whatever they are citing. (Example four or five seperate sources giving a single sentence reference). Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not a pre-defined  or required number of sources that need to be used ("vast quantity of  sources that can be added").  If the article is to be featured, it needs  to be comprehensive ("neglects no major facts or details and places the  subject in context"); however many sources are needed to achieve that  is the correct number.  I'm certainly not an expert in this topic area  (and, indeed, have not been to Colorado in over a decade), so I was  merely commenting on an example of a content area that was lacking per  the information already available in the article.  That said, I'm not  sure to what degree I can help with content.  If you'd like comments on  the more technical aspects (e.g. reference formatting, grammar, prose  quality, etc.), that is something I'm more competently able to provide.  Эlcobbola  talk  18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be wonderful. I live in Pueblo and started learning about some crazy stuff, I never knew about. I am  trying to cover little blurbs on individual building notabilities and  expanded on present tables. If you wouldn't mind take a look and see if  this a start to more comprehensive ness. Unfortunately I haqve to List  almost 69 seperate places and not all has the interesting history like  say the Union Depot or Memorial Auditoriam. Most have been added due to  age and architechture only so Some don't have details. Hell In A Bucket  (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have significantly reqorked and expanded the article. It is not yet FA worthy  yet but I am trying to make sure that each of the sect5ions work with  each other. Can you take a look and tell me if you think I've explained  why the events for Obama is relevant. I have tried to highlite things  that have made the individual buildings stand out as much as possible.  Please don't take any sources out though until we discuss on talk page.  I've spent 10-15  hours researching and rewriting so I don't want to have ot redo  anything. Hell In A Bucket  (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The rally is indeed better tied into the district itself, but the termination of  Galli and the reasons/speculations therefor don't seem at all relevant  to the district.  That information seems better suited to the main  Pueblo article.  This article is about the district itself; the  information is tangential unless there is to be discussion of how the  government type would affect the district.  Why would I remove sources?  Эlcobbola  talk  15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am currently waiting for the NHRP papers in the mail so I will ocntinue improving thanks for the advice. Hell In A Bucket  (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: NCVP
Problem likely solved. BT (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please check this problem? Your ignorance is unnecessary. BT (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this is a grammatical error; "ignorance" is not the noun form of the verb "to  ignore".  I have no obligation or intention to participate in a  discussion in which I've been attacked.  I'm happy to re-engage when  attacks have been stricken and WP:AGFC  has been read and understood.  Эlcobbola  talk  13:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How have I attacked you, just because I disagreed with what you said? That isn't ment to be an attack. I  replaced the two "problematic" images you stated a while ago with images  I created and gave references for them like the others I created, so  the problem is most likely over. BT (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am sorry for saying "ignorance" to you, but I find ignoring is  unintelligent. Ignoring someone does not solve problems..... BT (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read critically.  I've not said you've attacked me.  My reason for  disengaging has been made perfectly clear, and it has nothing to do with  disagreement.  Whereas I've reacted to your inquires here, you appear  not to have engaged what I've said.  Who's ignoring whom? (That's  rhetorical; I've no intention of entertaining an answer.)  Эlcobbola  talk  13:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you have not said I've attacked you, but you said you have been attacked during the FAC discussion. I  don't understand who attacked you. And I thought you were ignoring me  because you did not responed to my first comment: Problem likely solved - is the problem  fixed or not. I said that to see if you could look into the article to  see if I have solved the third problem you stated while nobody has been  adding comments to the FAC discussion. Yet, you said you would be happy  to re-engage  when attacks have been stricken and WP:AGFC  has been read and understood. Nobody has edited the FAC page for the  Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province since December 5 and I replaced  the images you stated that are problematic. BT (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The attack is "man, you do make wikipedia suck!, supplemented by "please stop inventing problems" and "I also suggest that he/she assumes good  faith and not presume the license is inappropriate".  I don't participate in uncivil  and obtuse environments.  Period.  I'll tell you yet again: I'm happy to  evaluate the changes when that nonsense has been stricken and WP:AGFC  read and understood.  Further, I've ignored nothing:
 * 3. Dezember 2009, 07:08 Uhr: Clearly indicated I was unwatching when  incivility began with note to ping me when respondents were ready to be  mature.
 * 3. Dezember 2009, 22:45 Uhr: You ping me.
 * 5. Dezember 2009, 09:39 Uhr: My first edit after the ping.
 * Per your ping, I looked at the FAC first thing on 5. Dezember - ca. 08:00 Uhr  (before the above edit).  This  was the version at the time.  Any idea why I wouldn't have responded?   The condition of my re-engagement was mature behaviour, yet an attack had been  added since the time I unwatched.  Further, you'll note the top of this  page clearly says "I seldom edit on weekends"; I volunteer my time to  participate here.  I've no obligation to respond immediately.  Эlcobbola  talk  19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, I guess it is mostly because I did not see your comment on Awadewit's talk page. And I don't  expect an immediate reponse from you anyway. All what I want is you to  re-engage  with the FAC. It took lots of work to get the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article where it is right now,  especially since it has been largely one user doing the  changing/expanding of the article. BT (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Qyd, the one that offended you, has not even participated in the NCVP article. He only showed up because I  asked him if he could add more information about the source of File:Northwest-relief.jpg and he is the uploader of that  image. But since I removed all images in the article that are  derivatives of that image, why should he still be complaining about it?  The FAC page is not even the proper place to argue over stuff like that  in the first place, so I made a comment on the FAC to stop. BT (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've reverted the nominator changes to your commentary on the FAC and left a cautionary note that only the reviewers are to strike comments. I don't blame you for not wanting to engage in that FAC anymore; I wish  there was some magic wand I could wave that would suddenly make editors  aware of the importance of following image licensing guidelines. I, for one, appreciate all the work you do; I've learned a great deal about  images from your reviews and I know the images I've uploaded now have  much, much better descriptions than they otherwise would have. Karanacs (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've just seen that.  Unhappy that a nominator would not only strike, but move to  talk under the guise of clearance.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Carptrash
FYI, see this edit, and thanks for explaining to this confused editor. Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for following-up.   I've updated  the image summary to make provenance clear.  Эlcobbola  talk  15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Heywood
I see you are doing the occasional image review. My skills in image selection have grown somewhat since the days that I used to run to you  for help regularly -  I even do the odd image review myself, now. If you can spare a moment, maybe you could test my new-found confidence by looking at the images on Peter Heywood,  which is now on peer review here,  and letting me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.  I've commented there.  Эlcobbola  talk  23:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Four Award
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakatoa (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9. December 2009

Merry Christmas, Elcobbola!
May you have a wonderful Christmas and know that your work on image licensing at  FAC, maligned though it may be, is greatly appreciated at least by me. Be sure you have the best food and drink you can possibly ingest, with no ill side effects. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely at a loss for images
I wrote the article for the  voice of god Roy Orbison  and wrote to whoever keeps his website, asking for GFDL images. No reply. Now I'm at a loss as to what to use for images in this article, and the lack of is keeping me from nominating for GA or higher.

I can probably employ a good fair use rationale for some record sleeves  showing how he was marketed early in his career: no picture, then him  with his sunglasses in black. I can probably swing a fair use rationale for that awful movie he was in. But other than that I don't know what else to do. I'm asking for ideas.

Am I able to use images of him as a youth, family pictures and such, with a pre 1977 tag? Any ideas on how to use images from the 1980s? There is a fairly famous image of him celebrating his birthday while on tour with the Beatles. It certainly does show a historical image and reflects a portion of the article that addresses the tour.

Thanks for anything you can tell me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have very fond memories of cruising about (ok, speeding) in a Saab convertible  listening to the Traveling Wilburys.  Orbison, et al always remind me of  that scarlet Swede, and how much I miss the late 80s. :)


 * This seems a difficult article to illustrate.  For use of "free" pictures from before  1977, it will depend on obtaining support for the publication date (not  mere creation, of course) and the absence of a copyright notice.  After  1977, it would be supporting publication date and  lack of registration within 5 years (i.e. a royal pain).  Short of  obtaining permission, obtaining verifiably free images probably won't be  possible.  I couldn't find any images amongst the "usual [archive]  suspects".  The official Orbison page has user-contributed  images (i.e. people are out there who have images they're willing to  share), but there doesn't appear to be a way to identify or contact  those people.  As for non-free, I supposed I'd first need to ask what aspects you  feel can't be understood without a visualization?  Эlcobbola  talk  18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

John Diefenbaker at PR, can you do image check?
Hi, could you possibly do an image check for John  Diefenbaker, which I  intend to bring to FAC in about 2 weeks? The PR page is here. It relies heavily on images from the Library and Archives Canada, which are free to use as long as you give credit. Many thanks as always for your hard work.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if not today, I'll try to get to it in the next couple of days.  Эlcobbola  talk  15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR favor
Happy New Year, Ec! Music of Minnesota is progressing nicely at FAR, looking like a potential keep; would you have time to do an image review  there? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To you, as well!  I've commented at the FAR.  Эlcobbola  talk  17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Slow poke :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hopeless, what can I say. :)  Эlcobbola  talk  17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My coffee has been slow to kick in this morning as well; oh, well, adds to my infamous edit count :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright question - Texas before annexation
Hi Elcobbola, I hope you can help me. I am writing an article on an early newspaper in Texas. I've found a lot of scans of the newspaper from 1835-1845,  but I'm not sure how to properly mark them as PD. The newspaper began publishing in 1835, when Texas was part of Mexico. On March 2, 1836 Texas declared independence, officially becoming the Republic of Texas  (Mexico didn't recognize this but several other countries did; Mexico  finally renounced claims to Texas after the Mexican-American War). In 1845, Texas was annexed into the US. I am confident that anything published post-annexation  is PD because it was published in the US before 1923 :)  I'm less sure  of how to tag the images from before 1845.  I know who the publishers  were during this time period, and they all died over 70 years ago.  I  don't know whether they were the only authors, but I'd assume any others  had also died over 70 years ago.  I'd appreciate any guidance you can  give as to how to handle these.  Thanks! Karanacs  (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Works first published outside the United States before 1923, like those published  therein, are public domain in the US  unless the country became party to the Berne Convention after  1.1.1996.  Mexico and the US became parties in 1967 and 1989,  respectively, so the only wrinkle could be Republic of Texas.   (Did it  exist long enough to develop IP laws? Did it adopt Mexican laws?)  I'm  not aware of a guideline or policy that provides guidance on the  selection of jurisdiction when national boundaries/allegiances have  changed.  Somewhat analogous issues have come up in deletion  discussions, however.  For example, photographs taken at Auschwitz have  had debate regarding whether Polish (Oświęcim being in Poland, before  and after it was annexed) or German (the sovereign from 1940-1945) copyright  applied.  Those images had the issue of the legality of Germany's  sovereignty and, thus, the decision was to use Polish law (I disagree  because of other considerations, but that's a long tangential  discussion).  This would seem to support Mexican jurisdiction (Mexico  hadn't released its claims).


 * My thought would also be to treat the Republic of Texas as Mexico.  That being the case, the images would be  PD in the US and you'd be ok to use/upload the images to Wikipedia.   Commons, on the other hand, requires the media be PD in both the US and  country of origin (which may or may not be Mexico).  If you want to go  the Commons route, I'll need to do more thinking and research.   Currently, Mexican copyright duration is 100 years after the death of  the author (not 70, like most), but that duration and/or the statute  itself may not have existed at the time, so it might depend on how  retroactivity/restoration, if any, functions and that's not something I  know offhand.  Эlcobbola  talk  19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that helps clear up a few things for me.  I know very little about the laws of the Republic of  Texas, but I am skeptical that there would have been any consideration  for IP law -  if there was, it likely would have followed whatever the US laws  were.   I'm unwilling to do any extra research on that or ask anyone  else to do the same.  For now, I think I'll upload them to en.wikipedia  as PD-US  because they were published before 1923.  Thanks again! Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews at FAC
Ec, ZScout370 has done a boatload of image reviews at FAC, but I'm unaware of his experience in  this area. Would you have time for a random spotcheck? See here and here.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "known image reviewer" is eerily similar to "known felon", "known deviant", etc.  I'd be happy to look, but the  Russians are in town again, so I won't be able to get to it until Monday  evening or, more likely, Tuesday.  Is that too late?  Эlcobbola  talk  04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're a scoundrel! Karanacs promotes on Tuesday, so if there's any chance you can check just one or  two before then and weigh in, it would help. The FAC page is running  above 50 noms, and I don't want to close almost a dozen until I'm sure  the image reviews are up to snuff. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done one (and only one -  Featured  article candidates/Halley's Comet/archive1); if it was indeed reviewed, it  was superficial at best.  There are several problems, and even issues of  missing image summary (File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -18- - Adoration of  the Magi.jpg) and mis-attribution of  authorship (i.e. basic stuff, not relevant to knowledge of copyright).  Эlcobbola  talk  15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for carving out time for this: you're a dear.  I've left a note for Karanacs.  Would you have  time to check SlimVirgin's (below), which from her description, seems to  be a special case?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again, you are a gem.  Music of  Minnesota is causing  me to pull my hair out, btw :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, although I'll probably just be able to do one more for now; I  find myself frustrated with Music of Minnesota, although I suspect for a  different reason.  The article is something I would vote to delist on  comprehensiveness/research grounds if I were state-side.  I know of  four or five books (at least) on the topic that apparently haven't been  considered.  There are gaps in information and superficial (apparently  my word of the day) and inadequate coverage of others, but I don't  currently have the ability to read that material to be specific with my  "delist" (i.e. oppose) and I wouldn't have time to follow through.  Эlcobbola  talk  16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn. That's troubling :-(  Thx again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah FAC image review
Hi Elcobbola, would you be willing to review the images at the FAC for Muhammad al-Durrah incident? The reason I'm asking you is that I see you wrote the Signpost article on how to review for non-free images, and  this article contains seven non-frees that I regard as crucial, and  another three non-frees  that I see as very important. Ideally, the reviewer will be someone who knows a lot about fair-use images, but also someone who is willing to read the  article to see why the fair-use might be justified. The article is, essentially, about these images.

They have received two reviews already: one from Zscout who felt they were fine, but he didn't spend long reviewing  them, and a second from David Fuchs, who feels they are not fine and  suggests that many of the crucial ones (as I see them) be removed. I'd very much appreciate a third opinion. It's an important topic in the history of the Israel-Palestine dispute&mdash;the images caused an  escalation of the Second Intifada. People have died because them, and more probably will in future. This year is the 10th anniversary of the incident, which is why I'm trying to  get it to FA status so I can nominate it for the main page on September  30.

If you're willing, the image section of the FAC page is here, and the section where I list which ones I see as crucial is here. Hoping you can help. SlimVirgin  TALK   contribs 01:23, 19 January 2010  (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to look at it, but if the complexities are such that I'd need  to read the article in depth to understand the media, it may be several  days before I'm able to do so.  As Sandy watches this page and even  referenced the article above, I hope she'll chime in with what sort of  time frame is sought.  It seems this has been around a while.  Эlcobbola  talk  16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't get to it before Karanacs goes through today, then you've got til Saturday (or maybe even Sunday)  when I pr/ar.  Likely Sunday, as I have surgery on Friday.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Elcobbola and Sandy, that would be fine with me, and I'll abide by whatever you  suggest. It's not that a very detailed reading of the article is  needed&mdash;just enough of a reading for you to see what the images  communicate. It would be incredibly helpful to have that input.  SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 20:20, 19 January 2010  (UTC)

Al-Durrah rationales
Okay, that's helpful, thanks. I'll start to expand them. SlimVirgin  TALK   contribs 16:44, 21 January 2010  (UTC)


 * I've expanded the rationales. I had no idea what to write, so I just  explained why they matter to the story and the article&mdash;within  the meaning of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As  subjects of commentary," per the acceptable use section of Fair_use. If that doesn't cover images like  this, I can't see what it would cover, because these images constitute  the story. And they have no monetary value; France 2 has explicitly said  it will take no money for them.         SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 17:20, 21 January 2010  (UTC)


 * Update. I've removed another five non-free images from the article, so we're down to the basics now:


 * the two diagrams, giving the  cameraman's view of the scene on the day, and the opposing view;
 * the article's lead image from the  France 2 footage&mdash;this image is the most iconic of them all,  and is neutral, with the father neither waving nor shouting in either  direction, though he's looking toward the Israeli one;
 * the moment of fire, when the camera  goes out of focus, a controversial and much-discussed frame;
 * the final frame broadcast by France 2,  where the boy is declared dead, also a controversial and much-discussed frame.

SlimVirgin  TALK   contribs 05:30, 22 January 2010  (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update.  I suspect issues, if any, will be more technical in  nature now.  I might get lucky and find time this evening, otherwise  I'll (finally) comment late tomorrow.  I apologize for my tardiness.  Эlcobbola  talk  13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would also like to plead for this image of the boy in the morgue,  now removed, if you'd consider it when you're looking at the others. It  was taken by a named pathologist in Gaza, who released it to  journalists to show the boy is dead. It worries me that we have an  article questioning that the boy died, but we do not use an image that  appears to show he did. I don't look forward to trying to track down the  Palestinian pathologist, then explaining the idea of the Creative  Commons and why he should care about it, so fair use is probably the  only way I can use it.  SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 20:18, 22 January 2010  (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this image review isn't going to happen, so I'm going to ask Sandy if we can proceed without it.   SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 00:36, 25 January 2010  (UTC)

Look, I've done everything you asked
But your "oppose" could still scupper Halley's Comet's FAC. I'd appreciate it very much if you removed it.  Serendi pod ous   16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cuban image rights?
What do you know about image rights for Cuba? Specifically, this image, which is being used in an article written by some of jbmurrary's students. I can help them with a better image and a source, but I think images will probably have been  taken in Cuba before 1980. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Article 47 (Articulo 47) of Law 14 (Ley 14 - Ley del Derecho de Autor) is "El  período de vigencia del derecho de autor sobre una obra creada por un  procedimiento análogo al de la fotografía, o sobre una obra de las artes  aplicadas, se extiende a veinticinco años a partir de la utilización de  la obra."  So photographs have a duration of 25 years after first "use"  (utilización).  Utilización seems a strange choice, as it's neither  creation nor publication.  I assume it's functionally equivalent to the  latter, but my Spanish--to  say nothing of my (non-existent) knowledge of Cuban law--is not  sufficient to understand nuances in legal writing.  Maybe Sandy or JB  would have an insight?  In any case, publication would seem to be  "utilización", so you'd just need determine status in the US (note, it  addition to considerations of compliance with US formalities, it would  need to be have been PD in Cuba before it joined the Berne Convention - February 20,  1997, so that would mean use before February 20, 1972).  Эlcobbola  talk  13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very informative. I see....


 * What?


 * Carpentier died in 1980 and there seem to be quite a few images taken of him in the  1940s and 1950s. I don't know what to look for here. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, as a starting point, just find a publication in which an image of  Carpentier was used from before February 20, 1972.  Then we can go from  there.  Эlcobbola  talk  13:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Several here, one here, this one  says it's PD, but I don't know how accurate it is. Anything we can use  from these? --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * utilización will be publication, but probably extends to uses that the layman  wouldn't call publication (displays in museums and art galleries, that  kind of thing). I have some of his books from Cuba - I don't think  there are any usable pictures of him in them, though I'll check. I have  some pictures of his house in Havana if they are any use.  Yomangani talk 14:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hi, no worries, it was probably unfair of me to ask you anyway, as I know these reviews can be a  nuisance. I removed most of the images in the end (I was left with three frames from the France 2 footage and two diagrams). I'm going to try to get some of the others released under a free licence, though I'm  not looking forward to trying to explain the Creative Commons  Attribution licence to a Palestinian pathologist in Gaza. Especially not writing as SlimVirgin. :) SlimVirgin   TALK   contribs 20:18, 28 January 2010  (UTC)

File:Plan Bodham Castle.svg
Hi, can you help me out with the status of the above image? It's been redrawn from a plan in a copyrighted book, so I'm not sure whether it's  free use or not. Awadewit recommended that I ask your opinion as a plan doesn't really involve artistic  effort. Hope you can help, Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Facts and data (e.g. the shape of the Iberian peninsula, the dimensions of castle's  curtain wall, etc.) are not eligible for copyright protection.   Compilations of mere data, therefore, are also not eligible for  copyright protection provided that they are devoid of "expressive"  content/contributions by the author (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service).  This is all well and good for  things like phone books, but maps are difficult because, although  they're indeed compilations of some underlying  geographical/dimensional/etc data, the visual manifestation usually  involves the addition of original authorship (e.g. choice of colors,  textures and other ornamentation) and, with it, eligibility for  copyright.


 * That said, the question is to what extent this derivative has copied the original authorship from the Thackray version, assuming the Thackray version had originality in the first  place.  I'm obviously not able to see the original, but the derivative  does indeed seem to lack any "expression" needed to pass the threshold  of creativity.  Whether courts would agree with me, I don't know.  For  what little it's forth, tagging such diagrams as free is common practice  on Wikipedia.  Эlcobbola  talk  15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. There are some conflicting  opinions  on this, so to save trouble I'll stick to the safe option and add a  fair use rationale. Nev1 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)