User talk:Jessemonroy650/Archive (001)

archive (001)

Fraser Gold Rush map thing
Hi; I'd love to find/scan a map. I have a vintage one which would be public-domain/scannable but the book layout splits the map on the binding; I'll have to find an unbound original. Ideally the map would show some of the major "bars" and trails, rather than the modern one; but yeah, at least a location map. this article was written as a near-stub and I haven't been back to it in a while; I was waiting until I got my butt to work on the Fraser Canyon War, David Spintlum and related bio articles, but I haven't found my focus for that yet.Skookum1 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Redwood City map
Hi there, this is about Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg, the map that you uploaded for the article on Redwood City, California. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain. Dr Zak 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The image is from the City of Redwood City part of a 1969 environmental impact report. Also, it appears I have misread the copyrights [Wikipedia:Copyright#U.S._government_photographs]. I have also mislabeled the copyright.


 * I'm correcting it now and the correction should clear any questions. If any questions remain, then I would consider it appropriate to remove the image until the matter is settled. I'm adding details to the image so you might consider it. If you feel inappropriate, then we should find a way to deal with this as the image (I believe) is fair use.


 * On the other matter concerning MSG, I'm not in the mood for a fight. I will let the matter sit until Monday or Tuesday.


 * --meatclerk 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The information the map was drawn from is public, however, the artwork itself is eminently copyrightable. Fair use wouldn't pull because we are using the whole of the map - as a map. May I point you to WikiProject Maps. Dr Zak 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... My poor choice of words - quoting "fair use" is not the same as fair use. In any case, I believe the artwork is in the PD and the new tag { { PD-ineligible } } is more appropriate.


 * In any case, per 'Possibly Unfree Unimages': "Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed." So, let's let it rest and I'll be back on it in a few days... possible Thursday. In the meantime I will investigate your suggestion.


 * --meatclerk 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Jessemonroy,

I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
Jesse, I agree that there is much stale material on Talk:Monosodium_glutamate. However, to have an easily accessed paper trail on talk pages old discussions are not deleted but archived. How this is done is at Archiving. Keenan refers to this convention in his edit summary here. Dr Zak 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would rather delete, but if you and he, along with the wiki policy prefer this. I really don't have any issues with it. I'll await his response before moving. Thanks --meatclerk 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions belong on the talk page
I didn't delete any of your Jay Ryan material ... just moved it to the talk page - which is where it belongs. The article page should be reserved for the actual article --- or disambiguation, which is what I was pointing out in my last edit. Since you seem to be in the middle of editing this, I'll wait a little while before my next edit ... but the discussion really does belong on the talk page. Thanks for your understaning and patience. Brian 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Sure, I'm happy to leave this alone for a few days. I was just trying to help by getting the discussion to the discussion / talk page :-) Nice work that you're doing! Brian 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Jay Ryan
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. SynergeticMaggot 03:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jay Ryan
Talking to yourself on the article page is not the way to proceed. WP is not for your notes. Take your notes on your own computer, may I suggest Notepad or Wordpad, then write the article when you are prepared. &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't stop screwing around, putting random notes on an article page, keep blanking the talk page, etc., I'll consider what you are doing intentional vandalism and bring it to the attention of the admins. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE!!! &mdash;Hanuman Das 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
I noticed you've been changing a number of cleanup-date tags to other sorts of tags, particularly redlinks. Although this can be productive at times, tossing severely troubled articles that have at long last reached the end of the cleanup by month queue, where they're just going to get ignored for another long while, is counterproductive. Moreover, I don't think you're recategorizations have always been addressing all the issues with the article (this article, for example, where I first noticed your edits, needs substantially more than generalization and redlink removal). Accordingly, I'm going to revert some of these recategorizations. --RobthTalk 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the reason I reverted: You're quite right that a year on the cleanup queue is bad, but the good news is that, by the time an article has spent a year there, it's finally about to get some attention; moving it to another cleanup category just means its going to sit for longer. If you're looking to retag articles to get them attention faster, the front end of the cleanup queue (articles tagged in the past few months) is the place to go; moving those articles there into a smaller category will probably get them attention in months rather than years; at the end of the queue, (i.e. the cleanup from June '05 category), the articles are going to get attention this month.  You're right that cleanup queue is overloaded, and articles that can be shifted elsewhere should, but not all articles can be shifted, and in any event, the right place to shift them from is the newly-tagged articles pool.  It looks like you've only reverted a few articles, and those were special cases; let me know what you think as far as the rest. --RobthTalk 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good to work the oldest tags first if and only if you're going to make the necessary content changes to the articles. Retagging  an article in the June '05 cleanup category just delays the time when it's going to get attention.  Remember that the goal of all cleanup tags is to get someone to fix the article as soon as possible.  When an article has just recently been cleanup-date tagged (I'd include anything tagged in 2006 in the "recently" category), sorting it into an appropriate specific cleanup category will probably get it attention sooner than leaving it in the cleanup-date category will.  Therefore, sorting those articles is good.  When an article has reached the end of the cleanup-date queue, on the other hand, it's going to get attention soon, so the best thing to do is to leave it in its cleanup-date category.  With articles in the oldest couple of cleanup-date categories, I either prod it, rewrite it myself, or leave it alone.  No point shuffling categories around if it isn't going to make the cleanup go faster. The important thing to remember about working on the cleanup queue is that the point isn't to get the articles off the queue; it's to get them cleaned up. And ultimately, the best way to do that is to rewrite them yourself. An article that gets retagged hasn't been "resolved"--it will only be "resolved" when someone actually cleans up the article; retagging just changes what line the article is waiting in.
 * As far as how many articles to deal with in a day; I would say to do however many you have time for. Some articles are going to take hours to clean up, which can slow the process down.  This is what my contributions looked like during the period when I was most active on cleanup queue; some days I'd do a bunch of shorter articles, other days I'd spend almost all my editing time working on one big article.  The most important thing, in my opinion, is to make sure that every article you remove an old cleanup-date tag from is cleaned up, and can be considered a good article.
 * So basically, my point about cleanup queue is this: the best solution is always to fix the article yourself, either by rewriting it or, if appropriate, redirecting, prodding, or transwikiing it. After that, the best thing to do is whatever will get someone else to fix the article the fastest.  If the article just recently got cleanup-date tagged, sorting it into another appropriate category is the best solution.  If it has been cleanup-date tagged for a while, leave it be.  Someone will come along and fix it sooner if it stays in the cleanup date category. --RobthTalk 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see what you're saying about the value of retagging articles, and it reflects how Wikipedia's cleanup system should work. Unfortunately, the massive pileup of articles in the cleanup-date categories reflects a larger problem with our cleanup system in general; there simply aren't enough people doing it.  When you said, "Basically, if you can identify the problem, an expert will show up. Wikipedia has many, many groups organized to work in specific areas and specific problems, hence all the special tags", you were describing the way I wish the cleanup system worked.  Unfortunately, the groups devoted to keeping each of those special categories clear don't exist.  All of the categories are being served by the same sort of group that serves the cleanup-date queue--a few overworked people just trying to keep the backlog from getting too large.  Similarly, your statement that "If I organize new information, someone will come along and do the work" is a description of how things should work; unfortunately, there simply aren't enough people doing the grunt work.  (Interestingly, a while ago I wrote up a proposal intended to address this issue, but it went nowhere.)  Ultimately, the people who are going to have to do the work are guys like you and me; non-specialists with a little bit of time to spend working on this area of the project.  The best thing we can do is to go about doing the necessary work ourselves.  It's slow, but I have yet to see another alternative. --RobthTalk 22:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gartner
Well, someone should edit the Gartner article. Its awful :-) I don't agree with Prodding or AfDing a bad article about a notable subject. it should generally be improved rather than deleted. I'll lend a hand when I get a free moment to do the necessary research. if you have time to do that before I get to it, you'd be doing Wikipedia a huge favor. Best, Gwernol 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities
How about moving all the junk on to the talkpage instead of AfD? Just the same, I'm reverting the page to cleanup-date|June 2005. Someone else will run into it in a few days and PROD again. Best to let it go, or move unfinished work. I'll support, if you move to unfinished. meatclerk 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "move unfinished work" or "move to unfinished". I haven't read through the article lately. I was in discussion with someone on the talk page, glanced at the article, and noticed the proposal to delete it. Again, from when I've looked at it before, the thing's been a mess, but it's a valid topic, and clearly from the talk page there is someone talking about working on it seriously, so deletion would be out of line. If you feel that things in the article are "junk" and should be moved to talk, then please feel free to do so, at least as far as I'm concerned. - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Datamonitor
I've listed Datamonitor Here. Thanks for your help. Brian 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball