User talk:Jim Evans

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- evrik 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Images
Thanks for your image contributions to Wikipedia. Some things to keep in mind:


 * 1. It is not necessary to place multiple images of the same subject in an article (as in the multiple Moody Mansion photos you inserted in the WL Moody article). Nor it is necessary to place every image of the subject in the article.  Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that dictates how photos should be used in articles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSIMAGES#Images)


 * 2. Photos should not be haphazardly or sandwiched in an article just for the sake of including them in an article. If you feel the photo should be included, but you cannot find somewhere to place it without disrupting text flow, you may want to place it in a photo gallery.  Although galleries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_galleries#Image_galleries) are typically frowned upon, they do serve purposes in some instances.

Please see also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images

Thanks again for your contributions, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 20:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your links and comments. I've been contributing to Wikipedia off and on for several years but I struggle with the arcane syntax.  Also, the rules and mechanics of images continue to surprise me.  So, as I understand it multiple images showing different views/aspects of a thing (say a building) are not desirable on in the same article.  Is that correct?


 * I just recently figured out how to ask questions and still do it wrong sometimes. But, I've had this question for some time now:
 * Is it encouraged to replace a poorer image with a better one? This isn't the best illustration, it was quickly at hand.  Compare this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stewart_building_galveston.jpg versus http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Stewart_Building,_Galveston.jpg  It is used in in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Galveston,_Texas.

Curiosity re you and "i_am_jim"
I am curious why you so often pipe your name in file "Author" fields to "i_am_jim" (eg )? I wonder if the Changing username process might be of interest to you... Thanks for all the fine photos btw. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have often thought of changing my user name.  I chose it years ago when I first began & before I understood Wikipedia.  However, after reading the rules you linked to, the first letter must be uppercase and I use "i_am_jim" many places on the web and would not like to change it to "I_am_jim".
 * Yes, a little frustrating for you perhaps; I understand. Thanks, and good luck.. Batternut (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Geocaching, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  21:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you send me an email?
If so, I cannot find it. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

+== Request for Help == I would like to appeal the deletion of my picture and text on the basis of copyright violation. I find Wikipedia a bewildering array of arcane syntax and jargon. And when I tried for maybe 4 hours to figure how and where to make my appeal I found multiple appeal routes and none seemed to fit my problem or used so much jargon I was unable to understand them. Not only are there several routes but each appears to have a special minuet one must adhere to. You can't just explain your issue and link to your discussion with the deleting editor.
 * You should first ask the deleting administrator directly, on their user talk page. If you find the result of that discussion unsatisfactory, you can then appeal to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2019

Is there supposed to be an individual responsible for each page on Wikipedia? If so, how do I determine who that is? If not and I have questions about an individual page, who do I ask?
 * Articles do not have officially designated editors that are 'responsible' for them; the community as a whole is responsible for the entire project. Individual editors may choose on their own to monitor an article. This is sometimes possible to judge using the article's edit history(though that is imperfect as someone can be monitoring an article without editing it frequently or at all). The best way to make an inquiry about an article is to post to its article talk page. Editors that monitor the article will see such edits.  You can also make a talk page comment a formal Request for Comment if you desire the input of anyone interested(not just those following the article) but that is not required.  If you do not get a reply to an inquiry but would still like additional comment or explanation, you could post to the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons deletion discussion
Rater than post a lengthy reply there which doesn't really contribute to what that's trying to determine, I thought I'd post a few things here hopefully to help give you a bit of an understanding of the questions being posed, the purpose of the discussion etc.

First off no one is suggesting taking the photograph was an illegal act. That's not the purpose of the discussion or the question it will be trying to decide, it's solely about the overall copyright status of the image and if it meets the requirements of commons to be a freely reusable image for any purpose.

As such you aren't being called upon to defend yourself or the image. Assuming you believe the image is freely usable, the discussion will focus on the pertinent points in determining if that is the case. Given the opening statement I do not think anyone is challenging if you took the photo or where you took it, so that's probably not as important as providing details of the email communications with the state.

The person raising the deletion discussion is concerned the image is a derivative work, this is not unusual taking a photograph of something subject to copyright creates a derivative work. The creative elements of the photo (lighting, framing etc.) are likely to belong to the photographer, but the copyright of the underlying item stays unchanged and remains subject to the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder of that item. What this practically means is that the photographer can't just republish/relicense the image in whole because of the elements "owned" by the other party, likewise that other party cannot say it's a photo of my work and I own it and I can use that photo as I please, since the copyright to the creative elements of taking the photo remain with the photographer. i.e. you may be perfectly entitled to take the photo and have a copy of the photo with no sense of illegality, what you can't do however is gain any of those other exclusive rights the other copyright holder has. e.g. the right to produce more copies of the photo.

To give a more concrete example, let's say I go into a park with a copy of the current fiction best seller. I photograph each page. I cannot now just say these were photos taken legally in a public place, and therefore I am free to license those images as public domain (say), or to start producing printouts which I'll bind together and sell etc. Hopefully it would be readily apparent if that were the case, it would just be a complete end run around the rights of the author the book and would significantly reduce the value to the publisher since anyone could start publishing the work...

On a different matter, you've pointed to the article in wikipedia about the subject of taking photos, this is distinct from the copyright status resulting which can be very complicated to valuate. There are a few things to be careful of here (a) anyone can edit pages in wikipedia, so relying on that could be a bit hit and miss, going to the underlying sources is usually a better idea. Whatever the wikipedia article wouldn't be legal advice. (b) Wikipedia policy and the law aren't necessarily going to be the same thing, wikipedia has a goal of being a free encyclopaedia, with free meaning like free speech rather than no cost. Images wikipedia may freely be able to use because of wikipedia's legal jurisdiction, charitable status etc. but may not be freely usable by others for any purpose - so wikipedia's policies are designed to promote the free part and may exclude such items. (c) To make things more complicated some wikipedia projects (not all) may allow images under the fair use doctrine, this is a bigger subject again and I doubt the image here would qualify, the important thing for this discussion is that commons doesn't allow for that - it is solely dedicated to free use.

To avoid confusion with the many editors "talking" to you, I only edit the project as an "anonymous" user signing with my ip address, so I'm not anyone else having forgotten to sign in etc.--81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Should have added the argument about other historical markers being on commons is likely to not hold much weight. There are two reasons for this (1) I took a look at a couple of other items and saw things like this. In this case the image is also tagged for the underlying historical marker as being PD due to the time it was published and the applicable US law at the time. i.e. "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1977 without a copyright notice.", this wouldn't seem to be applicable to your image since it's dated 1994, so it's quite possible that apparently similar images will be treated differently due to differences like when they were originally published, or where etc. (2) There may well be image amoungst the other which are indeed similar to yours, that however is not going to be a consideration as to if this can be kept. Those items may well be investigated at some point, but wikipedia is a volunteer effort, items get added all the time and aren't subject to review before initial publication, also no one is obliged to review, discuss etc. every item immediately. Each item has to stand on it's own merits. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I find this very confusing. No one told me the discussion of my appeal would be on my talk page.  And the author above says my picture is dated 1994. This cannot be my picture since the picture in question is dated 2012, so is the discussion above directed at my appeal? foobar (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Also, a reference is made to a Pennsylvania marker.  Pennsylvania does claim copyright on their markers.  Texas does not. foobar (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my intent is not to confuse but to give you some additional help. This is your user talk page and a general page for other editors to communicate with you, this is all this is some additional points for you to consider with the intent of trying to help you understand the processes better. The comments I've posted above are not part of any formal process on wikipedia, you will need to comment on the discussion DRV page or the commons deletion page to be engaged in those process. This was just intended to give you some additional more detailed insight into those processes. You are free to ignore what I've said above completely and it will not make any direct difference to the DRV or the commons deletion discussion. I said your image relates to 1994, because if you look at the image in the bottom right hand corner of the marker it says 1994, I believe that is indicating the marker (or at least the text from it) was produced in 1994. The reference to the other marker was because you've said in a fairly broad manner look all these other markers exist on wikipedia, I was merely demonstrating how that's not going to hold much weight since each individual image needs to be looked at in it's own light. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your review of the reasons the marker is in question. I'm sorry if I said something that left you with the wrong impression.  As I'm not familiar with all the processes here I was just confused.  Also,I see now you were referring to the erection date of the marker not the date of the picture. foobar (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Followup to the deletion of my photograph
Mr. ip address, if you are still watching this page I have a question. Since the deletion request on commons has been closed I have no place to ask this question. They have now deleted my photograph. But the other 20+ thousand on commons were not addressed. Surely it is not the intent to simply delete MY photograph and leave all the others. If it is illegal for Wikipedia to display mine it is just as illegal to display many/most of the remaining ones. Few markers I have see bear no text. Usually the purpose of the marker is to explain the history associated with it. I found these in less than 3 minutes, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CCC_Texas_historical_marker,_Palo_Duro_Canyon.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Historical+markers+texas&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:Oliver-Eakle_historical_marker,_Amarillo_texas.jpg  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Historical+markers+texas&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:Texas_historical_marker_for_Wild_Horse_Lake,_Amarillo,_Texas.jpg  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Jesse_James_Hideout,_Archer_City,_Texas_Historical_Marker_(8406449248).jpg  foobar (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * James Evans is a very common name. I am none of the people on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Evans Wiki name (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, are you willing to mention that on your userpage after rename? &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wiki name (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Image size
Thanks for sharing your photos! There's no need to make your photos smaller (eg. 200px). Just leave them as thumbnails and they will automatically size to 220px. For upright images, add "upright" to the thumbnail descriptions. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of time capsules, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WBEN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance
I was looking through users that have edited Beaumont, Texas and I came across your name. I'm trying to find people to help me vote to keep the article Universal Coin & Bullion. See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_Coin_%26_Bullion If you feel it is Keep could you comment with a Keep and explain why you believe it is a keep? If you believe it is to be deleted then don't comment at all because currently it may get deleted anyway due to there being enough delete comments and I wanted to at least give it a chance before it is deleted.--Excel23 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Excel23 You likely found my name because I posted a picture. I have relatives in Beaumont, but I rarely edit text.  In this case I don't have enough knowledge to comment one way or the other.  Wiki name (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your Wiki name signature
If you go to the Signature section of the Preferences page of your account, what do you see? You can edit the text box there and click the box at the bottom of the page. For more details, see. --Lambiam 10:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- Jim Evans (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)