User talk:Justinc/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. Justinc 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * List of images
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 14:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Empty category
You should list Category:Varietals on Categories for deletion if you haven't already done so. Rmhermen 22:09, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sherry
Hi. I hadn't noticed that. I agree with you and can't see any reason to merge them all to one, though can see his reasoning. The fact that fino and oloroso are made using different methods is sufficiently important, I'd have said, but I'll leave it to someone else to decide. Smb1001 16:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Portuguese wines
Thanks, Justin. I've added my favourite wines for now. I'll add more later. If you are a native English speaker please correct the article to become a more natural and native English. -Pedro 00:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goldfinger and Fleming
Hi Justin,

I noticed that you extended one of the opening sentences on Ernö Goldfinger to read;
 * His name was also the inspiration for the name of James Bond's opponent in the 1959 book Goldfinger (and the 1964 film of the same name), allegedly because Ian Fleming was opposed to the demolition of Victorian houses to build 2 Willow Road.

but then reverted it.

The story I heard was the Fleming and Goldfinger were neighbours in Hampstead and they had a dispute over a building Goldfinger wanted to put at the bottom of his garden, leading to Fleming writing Goldfinger in as an arch villain in his next book. I'm sure there is truth to these stories, but it would be good to get a solid reference (also it probably shouldn't be in the lead section of the Goldfinger article. -- Solipsist 19:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in here, but this piqued my interest, so I did some searching. There's evidence for and against


 * for:
 * Fleming based Goldfinger on the architect Channel4 Heritage Ministry
 * Goldfinger considered it a clear allusion to him, and didn't like it. Sunday Times
 * Fleming didn't like Goldfinger's architecture Independent
 * Goldfinger built something near Fleming's home, which he didn't like BBC myhamstead


 * against (well, against the idea that Fleming meant ill by it):
 * Fleming played golf with Goldfinger's wife's cousin, and used the name affectionately Camden New Journal


 * Personally, I'd be inclined to write it up the way the last article does (saying that it's alleged, but not necessarily so). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think alleged is better. I would move it out of the lead section too. I am sure I once saw more reliable sources. Pevsner mentions that there was significant controversy, but doesnt really say much (in particular it is ambiguous whether Victorian houses were demolished - the view in the revised Pevsner is that the house fits better with Georgian Hampstead which has the strong implication that it was Victorian before which is what I remember. These stories are hard to verify though - have come across several similar cases. Justinc 21:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caps
Actually, Champagne, France is a place name, and is therefore capitalized, but the drink champagne is not a place name, even if it is named after a place, and is therefore not automatically capitalized, any more than roman candles gets capitalized. (That is, unless you really mean "A candle from Rome.") Or is this just a difference between American and British English? --Bletch 22:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

French pronunciation
Hi Thanks for the article on Hulot - that's my favorite movie (Mr. H's Holiday). I sort of vaguely got your point on the "difficulty" of pronunciation causing the change of title, but I removed the remark mainly as excess verbiage (in my opinion). Hope you do not mind. I had not noticed that the one "H" is silent but the other is not, but I do not think that's the reason for the different title; it is just to make it look more familiar to U.S. folks, who live farther from France and are less likely to recognise "Monsieur." Think about what Americans do to "chaise longue," which becomes "shays lounge" and "lingerie," originally to be pronounced sort of like "lann zherr ee" with the "nn" nasalised, but, in the U.S. spoken as "lawn zherr ay" (perhaps also mangled in England)

Peter

A few English improvements:For- I think you misinterpreted my remark about pronounciation. Its not that French is hard to pronounce, it is that "Mounsieur Hulot" is French, and so has a silent H, but holiday is English so it has a spoken H, which makes it hard. I think thats why the US release didnt have that..... Read- I think you misinterpreted my remark about pronunciation. It's not that French is hard to pronounce, it is that "Monsieur Hulot" is French, and so has a silent H, but holiday is English so it has a spoken H, which makes it hard. I think that's why the US release didn't have that.......

Welcome to our beer project
Welcome to the WikiProject on Beer! We're just starting out, so there's alot to be done. – ClockworkSoul 12:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been working on Wine and many of the same issues come up, particularly classification etc, so I thought I migth as well join in.... Justinc 12:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ita
I see you had already taken Ita out of Category:Brands of beer. I had a question on one of the categories pages about how to make it appear under the proper name in that category. Was waiting on an answer. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Per your comment on my page --- understand what you are doing with Brands of beer; I would say that St. Ides is fairly important in the USA; it is a "cultural" icon of sorts, and mentioned in several pop songs. Still trying to figure out how to keep the information on a single page.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Trying to solve the naming problem, I moved the Ita page to Saint Ides, and added it once again to the Brands of beer category. The beer is usually written St. Ides, but Saint Ides only expands the contraction, and makes the article fit better into both the saints and the beer category.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wine stubs
Hey, great to see someone else making use of the wine-stub!! Keep up the good work. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cristal
Hi Justin, thanks for helping out with the Cristal stub and other articles that I am working on. May I ask why you removed Category:Brands of beer though? King Dedede 19:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is basically a wine article now - the otehrs are just redirects, so it shouldnt be in cat.Justinc 10:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories
Fellow Beeropedian, I noticed that you put articles such as Reinheitsgebot and Maß in both Beer and German beer categories... shouldn't they just go into the German beer category? Perhaps I don't understand how subcategories work fully. --Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 22:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, and I felt very guilty as I did it. The problem is that they are important general beer things, and also specifically German beer things. I also put some of the types of beer under Belgium and Germany because they are important local styles in both. I know it is a wicked thing to do. Can we leave them there until the categories are sorted out a bit (after all it is ok if the categories are not direct subcats of each other, which maybe they shouldnt be)? Justinc 22:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * k, I won't delete them --Sean &kappa;. &#x21D4; 00:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mildly Redirecting
Salve, Justinc! I see the mild page you refer to was set up as a redirect by my friend User:Deb, who is in Wales. Not being a beer drinker, I can't vouch for any of the information in the article but I did check the SOED and it lists under mild the meaning "mild beer" and under the combination forms "mild beer" is defined as "not strongly flavored with hops (opp. bitter)." I think you are safe in redirecting mild to mild beer but if someone should come up with other senses of mild (e.g., also in the SOED definition is mentioned a metallurgy term, "mild steel") the redirect is easily undone. Please let me know if this answers your question. PedanticallySpeaking 15:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Badger
Hi Justin, thanks for looking at the Badger Brewery article, you're right about Hall & Woodhouse of course, and I should have double-checked that they didn't have an article already. As I understand it though, Badger make the beers and H&W operate the managed / tenanted operation as well as acting as a kind of holding company for both sides of the operation.

The question I think is should we list individual breweries if they are part of a larger operation? For example, both Bank's and Marstons are owned by Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries. All three are notable in themselves so my vote would be for yes, which would mean H&W and Badger remaining separate.

Having said all of that I'm still learning how things work round here so feel free to ignore all/any of the above! PubLife 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine to have entries for Bank's and Marstons as they (a) have a history under the original names, and (b) are still brewed under those names. The thing about Hall and Woodhouse is that it is not a brewery in this sense, just a holding company, and holding companies are not in general that interesting (at least as far as beer is concerned - Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries is listed on the LSE so I think thats why it was created, as this is a notability criterion for some people). So its a bit marginal. I would be inclined to make Hall and Woodhouse a redirect to Badger, which is what people are more likely to look for and recognise as thats what the beer is called. Either that or make it a really small corp-stub pointing at Badger and King and Barnes and mentioning the pub holdings. I dont really mind which. Justinc 11:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of this, but would you mind doing it? - not that confident as yet! PubLife 11:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ok I will do it after lunch... Justinc 11:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM
For your Yoghurt vote to count you need to move it to Talk:Yoghurt and remove it from WP:RM (as is true with all WP:RM votes. But before you move it please consider that in this case the Primary Author http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=484796 used Yogurt in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Brahma
Justin, this comes from AmBev site:


 * 1999 — Companhia Antarctica Paulista and Companhia Cervejaria Brahma announce the creation of Companhia de Bebidas das Américas, resulting from the merging of both companies — an outstanding landmark in the Brazilian market.


 * 2000 — After 9 months of analyses from Brazilian Government regulation agencies, the creation of the new company is approved. In March 2000 came the long-awaited news: "AmBev is created as the 5th largest beverage company in the world."

If they labeled themselves a "new company" "resulting from the merging of both companies" (Antarctica and Brahma), it makes clear that the old companies no longer exist. Also, when you buy their beers in Brazil, you can read in the label:

"Produced and bottled by CBB", or:

"Produced and bottled by Cia (Companhia) Brasileira de Bebidas", which is a domestic name used by AmBev.

The reason why they don't use AmBev insted of CBB is unknow for me. Nowdays, howhever, no Brahma bottle or can claims to be "Produced by CCB (Companhia Cervejaria Brahma)", like in the days pre-merging.

For the CCB Wikipedia article, I sugest some explaning about the mergings (Brahma + Antarctica = AmBev); (Interbrew + AmBev = InBev), but keeping the article about the Brahma brand.

Holly Lodge Estate
Hi. The reference is me (as it happens) as I've been researching the estate for nearly the 19 years since I moved here ... and Pevsner is wrong (see article talk page). --Vamp:Willow 10:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Irish beer
thanks. i was also curious about things like this, which are "Irish" beers but arent from ireland--and obviously arent stout porters, either. any thoughts? Nateji77 05:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks. Nateji77 05:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Meetup
Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sue Sweeney Images
Thanks for notifying me. The images are all released under the GFDL. (I fixed the image description pages to say so.) See this page for further copyright information. – Quadell (talk) 21:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Image:South Kentish Town former tube station 2005.jpg - cash converters and a brothel! Secretlondon 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How come ...?
that you are the only one to detect Image not used within guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use ?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justinc

Please stop that and wait some hours - till Mr. Whales will kick you out.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Have_you_seen_this_.3F

MutterErde 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I beleive these uses are not fair use. Many of the uses are fair use, but the ones I marked are not.

I was expecting flames though. Justinc 12:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * bye bye, Justinc MutterErde 12:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Justin, you are not the only one who got messages like the above because of what Jimbo is trying to do. Believe me, you should see my talk page. But I believe you are doing a good job at what you are doing. Zach (Sound Off) 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use
Let me just point out that I think you're absolutely right in disputing the "fair use" claims on these images. You've taken on a highly controversial task that will earn you tons of flames, because most contributors here still seem to think that "fair use" allowed them to get away with anything. Are you aware of WikiProject Fair use? Lupo 12:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anita Colby Fair use
Just to understand, why is a Time Magazine cover photo with Anita Colby not fair use? It seems to fall under the fair use rules (low resolution image of magazine cover with the magazine's name clearly on it. I see covers similar for Playboy magazine, for example. 18:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Will respond on Talk:Anita Colby as it is more useful. Justinc 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)I thought magazine covers came under fair use. The earlier guideline for magazine covers went something like "It is believed that magazine covers fall under fair use." There was nothing abt resolution. When did the policy change.Gaurav1146 12:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not all uses of magazine covers come under fair use. SOme examples are given on Fair use, in general you can use them to talk about the specific issue of the magazine in question (for critical commentary), and copyright law suggests that a lower quality version might be more acceptable. There is no blanket diclaimer for any form of fair use, and magazine covers do not fall out of copyright law. Justinc 14:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:WBYeats1908.jpg
See also the discussion at WP:CP and at the bottom of the image. Before 1978, the U.S. had a fixed term of copyright that did not depend on the author's date of death. This means that everything published in 1922 or before is now public domain in the U.S. Since this image was published in 1913, it's public domain. This image is likely not public domain in any other jurisdiction in the world, so it's inappropriate for Commons:, but it should be okay here. JYolkowski // talk 14:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. JYolkowski // talk 14:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

London images
I reprocessed the Finsbury pic from your high-res version and put a copy here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Finsbury_Town_hall1.jpg Poetic licence - I added sky from another image. Getting sick of 'white sky' on mine (it's a time of year/day thing), so may retro-fit. But I think lightening it up will make the thumb a lot better (haven't tried it yet, up to you...)


 * It does look better, but the turret and top still have that washed out look, which perhaps looks even odder (its on Finsbury now). Bloody weather. That was about 3.30 too. I also tool Image:Finsbury Town Hall Rosebery Avenue with some flash git driving past in his new car.jpg, which perhaps gives a better impression of the area... Justinc 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I could likely sharpen up the turrets later. Have to leave it for now, though, like you say, bloody weather. I like your second pic - hilarious. If anything that's the one that looks photoshopped - so why stop there, how about a Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle or an Aston Martin DB5 :) Tarquin Binary 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

PA Photo
These can all die. Very unfree and not very good. We'll probably have to do the same with photos from pixelquelle.de as I think we trusted de.wikipedia when they said they were PD - and I think they were actually non-commercial.. Secretlondon 00:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * hmm, yes. They deleted them all "Alle Bilder von pixelquelle.de wurden gelöscht.". I might make some orphans before bedtime. They are nicer than the PA ones but still. Justinc 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Babelfish says that the pixelquelle ones cant be used in "graphic data banks, picture catalogues" or for others to download.. ifd on most of the ones that hadnt been deleted - 10 or so to do in the morning. Justinc 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Google translate (*shudder*) says "The Downloader is justified not to use the pictures of PixelQuelle.de for commercial and commercial duplications in the InterNet." (Der Downloader ist berechtigt, die Bilder von PixelQuelle.de für kommerzielle und nicht kommerzielle Vervielfältigungen im Internet zu nutzen.) Non commercial? Secretlondon 14:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've finished off Pictures from pixelquelle.de - removed the ones that have been deleted from the list, deleted the broken images, orphaned the rest and stuck on ifd. I'm about to look at Imported pictures. Secretlondon 16:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Imported pictures probably need their tagging looking at.. But - decided to search the wiki for pixelquelle and have found more.. *urgh*. Secretlondon 17:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the rest. I can delete the tabbed firefox window I left open when I went to bed. Alas a few reached commons from en and that chip went all over China, huge numbers of articles. My legal German is not good, but it gave me bad feelings. Look forward to them going. Justinc 23:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"don't talk to me"? "I don't care"? "You will be banned"?
I'm a little surprised to see you violating so many of Wikipedia's basic principles. Wikipedia is based on communication; if you don't want to communicate then you shouldn't be here. My deletion of the ifd tag was accidental, and I have commented on the appropriate page. You should assume good faith rather than indulge in name calling (vandal at the handle) to describe someone with whom you disagree, and you shouldn't threaten people with banning at the drop of a hat. - Keeper of Records 23:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * apolgies on your page, but I then noticed the "i dont care" "dont talk to me" - all i meant was that I dont have an opinion on the ifd in question, I accidentally had one nect to it and dont have an opinion, it was a purely procedural edit, reinstating a deleted ifd tag. The ruder comments I apologise for as per your talk page, misinterpreting an accident Justinc 23:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No harm, no foul. I humbly accept, and I agree with you that image problems are very very complicated! Even in daylight! - Keeper of Records 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Colour me initially confused by the vagina (story of my life) but now up-to-date. . It's ok, you don't need to get involved, and I think we're headed towards resolution in any case. I think the nominator just doesn't like penis pictures, and if he's up-front with that, I'm fine too. But I do think the principles are important enough to at least be stated correctly. - Keeper of Records 00:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Mac, good. - Keeper of Records 00:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Its just the focus thing. Mac at home, Linux at work, number of buttons on mouse confusing. I remember poking at the middle and right buttons in about 1990 on X Windows and thinking odd, but its the only thing I dont like about MacOS the way you copy from another window but it doesnt work. Oh and I am sure I wrote another comment somewhere but I have lost it. Justinc 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to sound like an old fogey, but when they went from OS9 to OS X they screwed up the whole ease-of-copying/folder analogy thing... alas. You'll get used to it: I did.... And of course....you can opt for a two-button mouse if it makes it more consistent for you. I wouldn't do without my two-button/scroll-wheel special, and there's the relatively new Mighty Mouse as well... - Keeper of Records 03:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

surprised
I have to say I was quite surprised to see your comment earlier on the talk page "yeah but now I am drawn into a long argument defending you". You make it sound like it's some kind of game and that I'm evil and must be destroyed. I had two concerns when I listed the image. Firstly that it had no source/copyright information. If you claim that it's sorted by adding a then that is fine by me. I'm ain't gonna be the one getting in trouble if someone decides to sue wikipedia. My secondary concern was whether that kind of image was allowed or not. It was my understanding -- which of course may have been wrong and if so I appreciate being corrected -- that nudity was only allowed if it was for educational purposes. Now there's always going to be some prudish people (and I can assure you I'm not) that are going to object to any flesh whatsoever, but IMHO the image was more pornographic than educational. That's just my opinion. I am well aware that wikipedia works by building consensus, and if the consensus is that it's not pornographic then that's absolutely fine by me. chowells 02:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the third evening in a row I have been distracted from writing in detail on why I think fair use images should not be in en wikipedia (except for 3 or 4). But I dont think this image is pornographic (as an illustration of a porn star I think it is quite tasteful). Being the original uploader is not required to defend it (especially for AB). I got involved only because Keeper of Records removed the ifd so I assumed bad faith, but looking at it (after this was determined to be a mistake) I was not impressed by your removal of his attempted justification, which was an ok fair use justifcation. Not great. But looking at some of his others, he seems better at justifying fair use than many other people. You keep referring to pornography in your responses, but you need to be consistent. You could have just put it under speedy delete for having no source ( is now a 7 day speedy in theory, although there is a 20000 picture backlog), but you didnt, and I disagreed with your reasons. Justinc 02:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use
You have marked several fair use tagged images as no source because the copyright holder is not known. There is nothing I can find (except Wikipedia articles, which I believe are wrong) that states in United States copyright law that it is a requirement to know the copyright holder of an image in order to claim a fair use defense. If you know an external source (case law, etc.) for this information could you please give me a link or reference. --Thanks, --Nv8200p (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Aino Aalto
I am glad you liked my changes. It wasn't much. Ellywa 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

E. Pellicci
This cafe is in Bethnal Green LoopZilla 07:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Bentham
Describing someone as an eccentric (noun) requires to my mind a higher bar than describing particular actions of thiers (ie., notes in a will) as eccentric (adjective). Was he regularly described in his lifetime as an eccentric (and I don't just mean as a genuis or as a famous)? Was he notably more eccentric than people of similar classification? I expect a certain eccentricity from someone as intelligent as Bentham! But again, was he really an eccentric? Marskell 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he was, but I dont have a biography to hand alas. Will look into it. Justinc 00:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:1973sonettmk3.jpg
You tagged the image as ifd, but failed to give any reason. // Liftarn
 * Reason is at Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_October_6. Anything marked as "permission" is now considered for deletion. Perhaps you can get it released under a free license (the holder seems reasonable). Justinc 15:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I probably could, but there are better pictures available at. // Liftarn

Adminship
You seem to be pretty active in maintenance work, especially regarding images, you've been on Wikipedia for a good while and seem to know your way around, and as far as I can see you have a good history of edits. Would you be interested in becoming an administrator? :) Coffee 15:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes had been wondering about that for a while now, and think it would be useful. Justinc 16:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Requests for adminship/Justinc. Just follow the instructions at the bottom of this page. Good luck! Coffee 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well its up now. Justinc 20:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone watching this page who hasnt been distracted, I have been nominated for admin, so if you wanto to comment please fo at Requests_for_adminship/Justinc. Justinc 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Stockwell Garage 2005.jpg
Fill-in flash from a number of slave flashes might have made this one succeed. It is a demanding subject. Increasing the exposure time would wash out the roof beams and sky light. The buses are cut off at the bottom. -Wsiegmund 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I had some longer exposures and it did wash out the top. It doesnt help that the place is full of bus fumes, filthy, only lit by the lamps you can see and occasional sun, open to the public only one day a year, and not in a place where you would want to be seen with a decent camera. I might try again in the spring. Justinc 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Another question that came to mind is whether the ceiling might be a good subject (without the busses)? That would largely avoid the lighting problem, and it is an interesting subject. I've copied our dialogue above from. Forgive me and rv if you object. I prefer to have both ends of a conversation in one place. -Walter Siegmund 18:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The ceiling is what I was interested in, although the buses do give some sense of scale and function. The only one I could crop the buses out of is Image:Stockwell Garage roof 2005.jpg, but because of the angle of the sun the beams are unevenly lit. Its hard to get the roof only from the edge (it being closed and full of buses); a wider angle lens would probably help. Its not far from work so I will go down again if I notice it is sunny again. Justinc 19:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Clapham Common by pavement with memorial 2005.jpg
I couldn't resist looking at some of your other pictures and commenting. Forgive me and rv if they are unwelcome.

Image:Clapham Common by pavement with memorial 2005.jpg: May I suggest that you are too far from the temperance statue for it to be the subject, and too close for the Common to be the subject. Also, you might try it with blue sky in the background and the sun, if present, behind or to the left to avoid shadows from the trees.

Image:Bethnal Green museum of childhood 2005.jpg I like the blue sky behind the trees at far left as compared with the cloud behind the adjacent trees. The former are better defined. The mix of clouds and blue sky add to the interest of the window reflections. Again, I think you may be too close to your subject if it is the building. It is cut off on the left. But, an interesting picture might be a foreground group of children in front of the entrance to the building with the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood clearly visible. It would tell a little story, you see, and establish the relationship of the building to people.

Image:Dollshouses.jpg I like this one, though it might not fair well at Commons:Template:Featured pictures candidates. It has an interesting subject and the slate sky and water complement its austerity. You might be able to crop a bit of the sky. I wouldn't crop the water; it adds depth and the highlights on the left provide some relief from the austerity without being distracting.

Do you take a lot of pictures? I find it useful to take 100 to 200 on an outing. I am happy if 3 or 4 are good.

You have a eye for interesting subjects. Best wishes. -Walter Siegmund 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No I welcome comments. What happened was that I havent had a camera for many years (walked around looking at things instead), so I decided to buy a digital camera small enough to always carry around so as to get back into photography. After a few months I do now mostly carry it and have been taking quite a lot of pictures, and am gradually rediscovering how it works. BTW Dollshouses isnt one of mine, was just editing categories. Compositionally I was quite pleased with Image:Truman Black Eagle Brewery 2005.jpg and I might have another go at Image:Victoria Tower gardens 2005.jpg which I think I took as I was leaving - it was getting dark but it was much better than all the others I took. Justinc 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you may be trying to do too much. Less is more, especially in a Wikipedia illustration that many will view only in a small format. Such an image must be simple, with a well-defined subject that stands out from the background and fills the frame.
 * Victoria Tower gardens: The lighting makes the tower stand out. Hence, it is the putative subject and the gazebo and trees are in the way. To illustrate Victoria Tower Gardens, you might try an image from the tower or other vantage point that would encompass the gardens. Alternatively, you might look for an interesting subject in the gardens, e.g., a couple walking, children playing, etc., so that your caption would be Children playing in Victoria Tower Gardens. Another option is the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst sculpture or the Buxton Memorial Fountain if they look interesting. However, for the second alternative, fill the frame with the subject. It won't show much of the gardens, but people will get the idea, and it will be a better picture.
 * Again, I think you may be trying to do too much in this picture. A closeup of the Black Eagle sign with the building it hangs from in the background, if it could be obtained from a higher vantage point, would be good. Showing only a portion of the clock tower is a bit unsettling; what is below it and what is to the left or right? Even if you could get a good picture of the clock tower (or the chimney, for that matter), would it be that interesting or different than any other tower or chimney? To me, the Black Eagle sign is interesting and unique, and should be your subject.
 * I'm sorry about my confusion about Dollshouses. -Walter Siegmund 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The gazebo is the Buxton Memorial Fountain actually, and none of my pictures were as good as the one one that page I thought, though there were some details that were ok. I see what you mean about doing too much in the pictures (also the scaling on the thumbnails seems to darken the pictures). I didnt take any pictures of the Pankhurst, but I shall go back some time soon. Just looking through the pictures I took in the graveyard at St Pancras Old Church, there is one thats ok. Justinc 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining about the fountain and for your patience.
 * Just made a picture gallery at Commons:Category:User:Justinc and it is quite noticeable looking over them that the better ones are the ones I took a lot mroe photos of. Its also quite a good way of comparing them in thumbnail to see how they work in articles. The Clapham Common one looks particularly bad, while the John Snow memorial looks better as a thumb than enlarged.Justinc 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the gallery. I like Image:Giancarlo Neri table and chair.jpg. The subject is clear and fills the frame. It works even as a thumb. Enlarged, I like it that one of the visitors is looking at the camera, i.e., engaging the viewer and bringing him/her into the scene.
 * I like the background of Image:Regbutlersculpturekenwood.jpg in that it is darker than the subject. That makes the sculpture stand out and adds depth to the picture. Contrast that with Image:John Snow memorial and pub.jpg where the bright sky plays havoc with the top of the memorial.
 * The illustration for Image:Emancipation of Slaves 1834 monument - Victoria Tower Gardens - Millbank - Westminster - London - 24042004.jpg has a different problem with its background. (I know that this is not your image, but it is a good example of a background problem.) The tree behind the fountain is so complex that it detracts from the subject. A more uniform background would be better. Your Victoria Tower Gardens image is better in that sense. The trees behind the fountain have their leaves and provide a more uniform background for the fountain.
 * I have had some good fortune recently with fill-in flash. That is a camera setting that forces the camera to flash even when it normally would not. In Commons:Image:GrandFir_7591.jpg, the foreground foliage would have been silhouetted against the bright sky without the flash. It only works if the subject is within a few feet, but it can be a good way to make the subject stand out against a bright or otherwise unfavorable background.
 * Fill-in flash is often the solution to outdoor portraits where the alternatives are to make the subject squint into the light or be shadowed. With fill-in flash, you avoid the squint and have the face well-illuminated. Image:Michael-Eavis-Glastonbury-2005-1.jpg might have been improved with Fill-in flash by reducing shadows on the left sides of the foreground faces.
 * Image:Kenwood House false bridge.jpeg is striking. The bridge really stands out. The Commons Featured Image crowd would jump on you though for the tilt of the image.
 * They would also jump on you for Image:Spotted Dick Wikimeet London 2005.jpg because the subject (spotted dick) is not in focus. BTW, thank you. I've long wondered what it looked like; I've only seen the tins in the shops.
 * The other Stockwell Garage image suggests that you might do something with the ceiling. You need to show more, though, and not be so aligned with the beams, or so I think. Anyhow, best wishes. -Walter Siegmund 04:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Trappist beer
Oh sorry but i was a bit nervous when i saw someone did remove once again the thing. I saw the sources: the first one is the personal website of User:Cyril59 who edits without logging sometimes (and he believes I do...) and the boy thinks I want to write false things about trappist whereas I just want to make things clearer.

The second source is the official website of the abbey and so it might not be reliable (they cite a newspaper source but they don't give the reference).

But I won't remove the info if it is written carefully since i now know it might be possible that it is restored... thanks,

Julien Tuerlinckx 11:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanx again for helping me/us in this conflict. All I want is to have a nice article on those nice beers, so if you want to improve it, please have a look at the website i've let at the talk page.  As you've said, I wont edit this page in a near future so that people can calm down.  Wait and see, Julien Tuerlinckx 15:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish Beer
Dear Justinc, It was really more of a joke than a serious comment (its always difficult to convey humour online). Smithwicks is a different beer from Kilkenny in Ireland - but that's trivial compared to the amount of good work you've done in ceating the articles in the first place. Looks like you'll get the adminship with no problem - congratulations in advance. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk   07:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fortunato Depero
Thanks for adding that image. I'd been looking for something to use and that seems like an appropriate reflection of his work. :) Hn 08:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dangerhiphop
There is no code, or case law that anyone has shown me yet that says knowing the source is a requirement for fair use. Even Fair use says "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible." Please cite your source for making the claim "There is no fair use justification without a source." Thanks --Nv8200p (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is also no reason to delete the tag saying that there is no source when there is no source. There are innumerable reasons why trying to justify fair use with no idea what the source image is is a problem, such as commercial issues (deprivation of revenue), amount of usage etc. And given someone could take a free picture of the object in question in about three minutes there fair use is shaky as is. Justinc 00:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By that logic, every fair use image without a source needs to be tagged as no source, DVD covers, album cover, etc., but we don't do that and we don't need to do it with promotional items either. If the fair use claim is shaky, then the image should just be deleted. You should be able to do that in a few days when you become an admin., but there are lots and lots of images that are going to have to go under your interpretation. --Nv8200p (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been a discussion about whether "obvious" images like album covers or film posters should be allowed without a source, but no firm decision has been reached. The plain promo category though cannot fall under this because the case law depends on the images being given out for free for usage, and many of the images in this category do not fall under that. Given that all these images are just taken off web sites its not that hard for the uploader to give a source; we might have to delete lots of existing images, but new ones can be downloaded rather easily. Justinc 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite the case law you are referring to so I can convince myself. --Thanks Nv8200p (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats if we are accepting promo pictures basically as "permission" ie if they are given out free for publicity reasons we should be able to use them, but clearly we have to know the source. Claiming them as fair use is much harder. There is a good summary for fair use law at, with some case summaries. The point of the fair use categorization exercise is to delete a lot of images eventually. See User talk:Jimbo Wales, "I think that 'fairusenoalternative' is pretty much the _only_ fair use we should allow on the site, period. This is not current policy, and even I hesitate to push too far too fast in that direction." Anything that is in any way marginal might as well go now. If we have loads of stuff that is marginal then its safer and easier to delete all of it. If the stuff we have all has good justifications then we have a better chance of keeping it. Justinc 12:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

aoc list
Hi again. I too was suspicious about the list and was on my way to tidy it up when I got your message. I added it as part of my translation of various French wine articles from fr.wiki, and that's where it's from. I have the Atlas Hachette, but can't find any particularly helpful list. Anyway, I'll seek authority and sort it out. Smb1001 22:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that many of the appellations on the INAO site aren't particularly helpful, and the Vin de Savoie* in particular really jarred with me (as you can see from the comment I had commented out in an earlier version of the page). However, I do acknowledge many of the other 'style' AOCs as being functionally different (eg Jurançon sec), so as I went down the list I felt it hard to justify omitting the others. And what do we take as authoritative if not the INAO themselves? (Having said that, Ayze is in no way special from among the Savoie communes, so I think should go.) I think the list will sort itself out as articles are written as we remove remaining spurious entries. Smb1001 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

* Nom: Chiroubles * Couleur: Rouge * Decrêt d'appellation: 1936 * Cépages autorisés: Gamay * Types de sols: Sables granitiques * Surfaces du vignoble: 373 ha   * Rendement autorisé: * Communes faisant partie de l'appellation : Chiroubles * Nombre de producteurs: * Production:2148 hl Just a thought. Smb1001 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Is there anything to be said for adding a standard infobox to the AOC pages? As the fr.wiki guys add new AOCs they add a table of the form:


 * While it looks nice there are 2 things: 1. it looks much more like a straight copy of the INAO website, and 2. For many AOCs I am not sure there is much more than the table we can say in the short term. Maybe thats because I have mostly done the obscure AOCs (as there were fewer of them, and most of Burgundy/Bordeaux already had coverage). I think it would be a good idea to mock up or actually write what we think a few AOC articles should look like. I might write Vouvray or Montlouis (kind of in between the almost nothing to say except the AOCs and the ones with lots and lots of history and links; oh and I have some behind my chair so I can take a photo) to test. I am not that keen on boxes: keeping the information up to date is hard (and in an encyclopaedia you want the old info anyway, production figures etc) - an AOC navigation box might be good though. But whatever works. Why dont you mock up one and we can compare notes. Justinc 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Congrats on adminship.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   23:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for your support. Justinc 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. I didn't notice or I would have voted for you. Secretlondon 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Balduakari.jpg
Hi Justin, regarding the above, the correct tag is fair use, not permission. I have no idea why I wrote that; I must have been writing it for some other page and made a mistake. It's from a BBC page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Permission images
I think the old permission tag was for images that I got permission for - the Imported pictures lot. We don't accept permission-only images any more. Weekend photo session would be good - although the light in October/November can be dreadful. When I did some with Morwen the key was research (and a rough route) before hand. I'm pretty sure there are drinking troughs around btw. Google is bound to know.. Secretlondon 04:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for that link - the pictures dont link to their permission details directly, and I hadnt found that page. There is a cattle trough somewhere in Hyde Park, but no idea where. Will think about a route aand see how the weather goes. Saturday was really nice, but no other day has been. Justinc 10:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Notification bot
Doesnt appear to be quite working - doesnt seem to have put the notifications on. But it would be very very useful if you could fix it. Justinc 10:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. I have to implement threading for it. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, let me know when its working (or I will see - lots of the images are on my watchlist). Justinc 10:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The other thing is I have fix the notification for users who have their pages redirected to other projects. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think... it's working now... --AllyUnion (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, first one I check didnt look right - Image:2006 Infiniti M45.jpg nothing on the uploaders talk page... Justinc 12:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But others are ok. Justinc 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe lag... --AllyUnion (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mighty Mouse Image
Sorry, was a little slip from my part. Must be getting tired. :P Havok  (T/C) 14:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Again: Fair Use
I´ve asked another admin, what was wrong with these covers - he couldn´t tell me , and as you know , Mr.Wales didn´t want to tell me.

So I ask you: What´s wrong with this 2 pics? ( only as examples for 1000 others)
 * 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buffy_Tyler&action=history
 * ''10:35, 22 September 2005 Justinc (Use of this image not within Wikipedia:Fair use)


 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Hilden&action=history
 * ''12:08, 22 September 2005 Justinc (Image not used within guidelines of Fair use).

I have read the Fair use article, the other admin has read it too , but he couldn´t tell me which phrase you might have meant. So I ask you. Greetings Asker 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didnt feel it fell under the grounds of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", just making the article look nicer. Also it was not referred to specifically in the article - eg for Buffy it wasnt the cover where she was Playmate of the month, just another cover with her on. You can write a detailed fair use justification if you like. Justinc 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I see - no copy vio and all fair use.( even Buffy´s Playboy special edition is mentioned in the article, but peanuts) Next question: What was wrong in ?
 * ........ September 22: "Images not used within guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use "
 * 3 pics, Image:ElisaBridges1999.jpg (Playboy's Nudes December 1998 ), (mentioned in the article) ,
 * Image:Anabeatrizbarros.jpg (Model for some magazines), Image:BeatrizMarieClaire.jpg ???? , Image:Becky Delos Santos 1997.jpg (in the article again - copy-vio?) , Image:Dvd 119546d1.jpg you removed it from the article  Chloe Vevrier , the rest was Zscout`s turn

Btw.: I`m not interested in you, I´m only interested in Kelly Martin and Jimbo Wales , the responsible fakers. I' m preparing a de-sysop procedure against these both or a scandal or better both. Greetings Asker 18:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * At the time we were trying to work out a fair use policy, and I thought I would see what happened if I looked at a few fair use cases and see what happened (and there was the issue of user page only fair use images). I expected them all to be reverted pretty quickly, and most were, or replaced with other images. Surprisingly a few werent. As far as I know hardly anything was deleted - I wasnt an admin then and that wasnt the point anyway. I think a picture of Steve Jobs went, and for some reason the DVD cover above (no idea why, cant even remember what it was, and I am not in the edit history), and of course the Bomis picture that you complained to Jimbo about (you do know he owns Bomis - bad choice). Anyway the result is that we have a fair use justification tag, a fair use disputed tag, the categorisation of plain fair use is getting on well. Not much has really changed. I would chill out a bit if I were you, attacking Jimbo is not very productive; I dont think I know who Kelly Martin is, but I dont think your attitude is going to lead to any productive results. Justinc 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind advice, but I do it my way :-).
 * In the meantime you are an admin. What would you say (today!), if you notice a guy doing exactly that tour you did on September 22 ?
 * Vandalism - yes or no?


 * And what would you say, if you would not know the guy´s name here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:AnnaNicoleSmith-Feb2001.JPG


 * = http://www.pbcovers.com/search.php?s=10&model=Anna%20Nicole%20Smith&co=&y=&sort=coverid&order= (i.e. the last pic, deleted out of her article.)
 * Copy-vio or no copy-vio?
 * Is Mr. Wales a faker? Yes or no?


 * Greetings Asker 11:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bonustrack: Another tricky operation: orphaned by an anonymous, deletion yesterday
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deven_Davis&diff=24574439&oldid=23773544
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:JilKelly-BonitaSaint-DevenDavis-Perfect_Pink.jpg


 * Update: reverted Kelly Martin fake in: ]. Right or wrong? Greetings Asker 11:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Holloway
More appropriate discussion here than on the commons. Have retained Upper Holloway as of possible historical interest, but added advisory that Archway is the proper entry. Still need to decide between Nag's Head and Holloway... And of course, need to create a Lower Holloway entry, this is redlinked all over the place. (Suppose the Lower/Mid boundary would be the railway bridge, it's more-or-less where the shopping starts...) Tarquin Binary 19:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoever wrote Nag's Head (loads of people) managed to put a lot into it. Obviously considered quite real; and it is a childhood memory for me (went shopping at Jones Brothers there). Holloway is maybe a nebulous high level area that covers all the above? The article suggests it is the whole road, and the bits around which would support this. Although pretty much all the article could be moved to Holloway Road, except the census figure that somehow suggests a real district. Justinc 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That was the original reason I was thinking about just keeping Nag's Head and redirecting Holloway - but I like your idea of putting in plain old Holloway as a higher level. Shall we do this then? Oh - remember Jones Bros well myself, sadly missed. And Incidentally, just found that someone has put Seven Sisters, London in as a separate district. Really not sure about that one... Tarquin Binary 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See what you mean about 7 sisters, but its at least somewhere to put the information about the trees. I was about to add Dartmouth Park when I discovered someone else did it about a week ago, but I couldnt find the redlinks that had led me to believe that someone thought it was an area. But Pevsner does, and there isnt really another name, except to grow Tufnell Park right up to Highgate. Tube stations are very important in this. I think Holloway as everything from Highbury corner to Archway makes sense, go for it. Areas are hierarchical after all. Justinc 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I hadn't thought myself as far as Dartmouth Park, but I see your point. Anyway, 'tis done - I didn't have to do a lot, because Holloway already concerns itself with the Road, not the districts. In fact, the cattle drove theme is an interesting one, because I was thinking of separating Caledonian Road from Barnsbury (no-one really thinks the western side of the road is Barnsbury, surely? - and the North London Railway made the same call with the name of the station), focusing on Caledonian Park/Cattle Market.


 * I have now set up the geo-stub for Lower Holloway too. There's a lot to say here, what with the Uni and the Libeskind and Arsenal moving to Drayton Park and all, but I'm leaving that for now. (Ahem, we used to say we lived in Drayton Park when I was living there, but let's just forget about that, shall we?) I'm not absolutely certain where Lower Holloway fades into Highbury and Islington, might just leave that vague. Tarquin Binary 23:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting, when did you live in Drayton Park? The last people I knew there (4-5 years ago) called it Holloway; I just think of Drayton Park as the road. I was born in Kelross Road, which is (was?) Highbury Barn to locals, or "Arsenal" to non locals. Not sure Highbury Barn deserves an entry yet (though it was a spa I think, might deserve one if I can dig up enough stuff). Justinc 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, this was way back, about 1981 or 82, I think. Only there for about 6 months, so not a seasoned native, no expert. Funnily enough, I have some friends who are living on Kelross Road now (the very end house by Kelross Passage), and they tend to say Highbury Barn sometimes, others just plain Highbury. I feel that maybe Highbury is just too large an area in some ways, same with Barnsbury. But not sure about fragmenting off too many micro-districts right now, for the simple reason that I'm still trying to get some sort of content into the existing Hackney (well, and Islington, now) districts. Tarquin Binary 00:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah down that end. I was born at number 16, which is at the top of the bottom part, odd detached house with a turret. My mother remembers some old ladies leaning on the doorbell by mistake one day who had lived there when it was built (1898 I think, it has a plaque). Used to have a big Italian population who would make their own wine, and I am sure my interest in food came from watching them make ravioli in the shop in Highbury barn (new owners now, but nice exterior). Justinc 00:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They've got a turret room at the other end (north side of road), really envy them that room. Odd little quirky bits on the houses round there. Judging from your memories, I think you should fire up and populate Highbury Barn as an entry, you know, can always place it hierarchically within Highbury as we've done with Holloway. To some degree, I think Italian Londoners are a bit of a forgotten London ethnicity, more dispersed around London and Britain now. Maybe we should have a page with numbers and dates, and perhaps districts, summarising (briefly) past and present migrants to London. Probably get vandalised a lot by scumbags, though. Regarding Highbury Fields, I set up a page that is a bit better than a stub - well, it has a pic... Tarquin Binary 13:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I will wander down there again and have a look round. The architecture is quite interesting, and mostly well preserved (whole unmodified terraces). There is quite a bit in Highbury though. I need to add more about the Cypriots in Kentish Town (not so obvious any more, apart from the Orthodox Churches); the older generation ran shops but these were mostly sold to newer immigrants. There are a few shops, and still a few restaurants, but even most of the taxi drivers have moved "Kentish Town yeah I used to live there, its a dump. Live in Crouch End" I remember one saying a few years ago. Now its Somali khat-chewing establishments and Eritrean restaurants, and innumerable internet cafes, and the last shop to open was Russian. Justinc 14:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson photo
It's a publicity photo i got ages ago and can't remember where i got it from. Sorry. PMA 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use query
Justin, if you had a minute, I was wondering if you might take a look at Mário de Andrade for me. A question has been raised at peer review about my use of the images there, which I've tagged as fair use (it's virtually impossible for me to find PD images of Andrade, since I'm not in Brazil). I believe that the second image qualifies as commentary on the artist (I plan to add more about his photography in any case), the third as commentary on the school, and the fourth as commentary on the image. The first I'm a little worried about. I'd be grateful for anything you could tell me. Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this, and for changing the tag on the Week of Modern Art poster. I've been looking for more images but it's a bit dispiriting.  This and this are clearly public domain but the quality is not good.  This photo is all over the web, and I'm pretty sure it's PD, but I don't know what the original source is.  The one I'm most attached to is Andrade's self-portrait.  It was taken in 1927; he died in 1945 and I belive the copyrights for all of his work passed to his nephew, Carlos A. de Andrade Camargo, but I don't know the current status.  Since it's only used for the article about Andrade himself, and since it would be strange to say that he was, among other things, a photographer and not include any of his photographs, it seems to me to be fair use, but I would certainly defer to your judgment.  In any case, thanks again for your trouble.  Chick Bowen 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, this all sounds pretty workable. I will write the photography section tonight.  As for Segall, unfortunately I wrote the Segall article and most of what I know is in it.  I do know that they were good friends, and that Andrade wrote a book about him, but I don't know the circumstances of the painting itself--I'll continue to work on that.  I expanded the caption for the painting.  Oh, and thanks for your compliment on the article.  I'm hoping to put it up for featured fairly soon.  And I would love to go to Brazil, and will at some point; I know a number of people from there, melancholy about the snowy States, and a number of people who went and were captivated.  Chick Bowen 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've expanded the information on the Segall painting and Andrade's photography in the Mário de Andrade article, and I've changed the tags in Image:Mario de Andrade My Shadow.jpg and Image:Andrade.jpg to. I'm still working on the circumstances of the Segall painting itself. Incidentally, I also put a tag on that one pointing to the Lasar Segall page, on the theory that the logic of the one should be the same for the other. All of this is summarized here. Sound reasonable? Thanks again, very much, for your help with this. Chick Bowen 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Apple Mighty Mouse
I don't really want to create an account at Commons just to upload that one file, but if you think it might be useful for other Wikiprojects too, go ahead and upload it yourself. Oh, and thanks for the praise! --Fritz S. 17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Phyllis Pearsall
Yes, that was the reason I was there :-) The TV program (Map Man - aka Nicholas Crane) was more about the A-Z itself than her. Interesting woman - may read the book despite the disparaging comment! AndrewMcQ 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the book; the annoyance in the comment was palpable though, there must be something very wrong with it, but like you still womdering about reading it. Justinc 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cally Cattle and Concrete
Thanks for editing Gin palace. My friend Peter remember the market and the cattle from the 1960s !! I will see what we dig up and perhaps another visit.

I like this! Image:Stockwell_Garage_2005.jpg and the comment even more so: plenty of criticism despite the lovely expanses of concrete I have just submitted a wonderful picture of a boat, a lake and some skyscrapers. What more could you ask for? And I was told that it was not straight (which I tried to fix - it may be a optical illusion; see the adjusted picture and tell me if is straight:-)

Finally, I have been involved in the Wikimedia UK formation and wondered if you are aware of what has been happening. Please see Wikimedia_UK and related files if you are interested. LoopZilla 08:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And can I plug Dead Cafe Society and Dead Pubs Society :-) LoopZilla 08:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * if anything your adjusted picture looks less straight. But it may be an illusion. I am coming to the conclusion that skew (and whiff) is good and natural. I almost went to Ludwigshafen but not quite. Wish I had. Have been vaguely following the Wikimedia UK; not sure I could contribute much though, not very good at paperwork and organisation and so forth, the necessary things to make it happen. Justinc 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Notification bot - 2
Could you point your nice bot at Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status? I can draft wording if you like - it needs to be a little different. There are fewer maybe its not worth it - could do them by hand but I like the formal bot statements. Oh and in general, maybe you want to suggest comments go to a special page, which more people could watch and reply to rather than your talk page bearing the brunt. Justinc 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A WikiProject would be most appropriate for such. Maybe WikiProject Image tagging?  --AllyUnion (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Lupin|talk|popups 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will give you any suggestions once I have played around with it a bit mroe. Justinc 09:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Spell Holy DevotionAura.png
Could you give me your opinion on Image:Spell Holy DevotionAura.png. This image is copyrighted and all rights are reserved by Blizzard Entertainment, the user who uploaded it has used for it's licenced and taken the image from a site which is not Blizzard owned. Thank you for any assistance. Havok (T/C) 15:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * User is clearly lying or made a mistake with the license. I would say that as the article is pointless as you say the picture can be deleted once the article goes, or before. Are you going to merge the article? Justinc 16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have suggested a merger, but seeing as no one is voting or having their say I might just merge it with Paladin (World of Warcraft) and then speedy the image. I have tried to contact the author but have yet to recive any reply. Havok (T/C) 18:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Image licensing
Just for the record, the image at Harold Macmillan has been deleted, the image at Edward Heath is tagged as and the image at Margaret Thatcher is tagged as. So I'm afraid I just can't agree that this is an exclusively Canadian problem. Bearcat 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Burj Dubai pic
Hi, why did you speedy delete the picture of the Burj Dubai (here )? What was wrong with it? Cheers! Peter S. 13:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It had no copyright information, and the uploader had been notified for a week and had not provided any. All images must contain sources and full copyright information, and detailed justification if they are not free images. Justinc 14:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The process wasn't transparent to me. Good job! Peter S. 13:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

South Portico
OK, I'm sorry too, I'm sure you are a very good administrator, and have no literacy problems. I may just (just slightly) have lost the plot a little too! If you are that close to Blenheim, a nice big shot of the bust above the south portico would be good for both articles, and the bridge would be good too for future reference! Thanks. Giano | talk 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: NotificationBot
I have been on a slight programming hiatus. Although I love programming, and I love to help the Wikipedia, the unfortunate fact is that I don't live in a Star Trek world meaning that I don't get paid to do the work I do for the Wikipedia. So, please excuse me if I'm not, at the moment, writing code for the Wikipedia when I'm out trying to make a living for myself. As much I like to be locked in a closet and finish my Wikipedia work, I have some real life priorities that need attention at the moment, so please excuse me if my attention and activity level is not at par. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, no problem. Justinc 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

D'Agostini Winery
After your deletion of the external link, I did some more research on the winery and rewrote the article. I hope it's more to your liking. FYI, the article was never written as advertisement of the winery, although I realize it ended up sounding like one; it was part of a series of articles on California Historical Landmarks, and I wrote it quickly. Best regards, howcheng   [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mário
Thanks! You deserve a fair bit of credit too, since it wouldn't have looked so impressive if I'd had to remove those images. Chick Bowen 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why JakeW should be banned from editing circumcision
OR: Why, how and wherefors of an introverted homosexual British youth.

JakeW is an "uncircumcised, out" homosexual in Britain. He discredits his own country's CIRP as a "biased source" despite CIRP's continued efforts to make unbiased statements regarding the issue. He has several times censored or otherwise deleted statements without a reason, reverted to his "preferred" version which involves a male-oriented article about a non-gender-specific issue, circumcision.

In his discussions of "circumcision" he initially "censored" any attempt at making the Circumcision article reflect a non-gender-biased view. Despite numerous edits, JakeW continually reverts to versions that he believes are under "his control", with equally biased views that make circumcision somehow equal to or synonymous with Judeo-Christian words "Gentile", "non-Jew", yet my contributions to his articles were only permitted when they involved "male circumcision" only, yet I have time and time again outside of Wikipedia seen reference to a phenomenon known as "female circumcision" which is also under the definition of circumcision in some sources.

Circumcision is not gender-specific, yet the article is. Despite attempts by my sister and myself to change the course of this entry into Wikipedia, as well as numerous attempts by anonymous users to remove the gender bias from Wiki's Circumcision article, JakeW continually reverts with little or no discussion to a version which he prefers: one that makes predominantly male-oriented statements, Judeo-Christian oriented statements. Also, I believe JakeW prefers staring at the penis pictures due to his sexual orientation, which has unfortunately biased his views toward a male-dominated article. JakeW is obviously fixating on those photographs of penises in his daily life, as JakeW is constantly logging in to "despute" the validity of "female circumcision" as relevant to this circumcision article.

I recommend you ban both JakeW and I from further editing the article, and revert the last version I reverted to, which makes mention of both genders in its definition and explanation of the issues surrounding Circumcision, provides ample opportunity for improvement, not "revertion" and enables both genders to be equally identified and the issues to be equally explored.

JakeW's penile fixation is a quality of his homosexual personality, and I believe homo-eroticism is the motivating factor behind JakeW's continued "interest" in this article. I think it's kind of disgusting (and discriminating) to think that Wikipedia can be tainted by sexual orientation, gender and the like, as none of those factors lend much to neutrality, which I feel is the most important part of Wiki's policies and which will, ultimately, lead to a more reliable text and a less biased context for definitions and articles in this "free encyclopedia"

JakeW also is showing control issues, which has caused a standoff. JakeW has also had a series of complaints targeted at him on the Discussion page of the Circumcision article, so I am not the only one who has noticed his strong bias toward males, which is obviously related to his sexual orientation.

As far as personal attacks, I am trying to say that "JakeW, because he is gay (male on male) in his private life, he has unfortunately extended his 'inverse sexism' to his editing style." To "call this man gay" is not an insult, merely a clarification. And to watch his "style" and "will" which he has been using on the article, he has left a trail of evidence which suggests that he is taking everything personally, despite the lack of tonality in this forum. JakeW is biasing the views of Wikipedia unfairly and continues to be 'inversely sexist' without someone stepping in to stop him from biasing the article further. I have no problems stepping down as a contributer to this article, as long as "JakeW" also steps down and lets other people handle it.

JakeW likes to paint pictures of unfairness which are not really there, and to "make mountains out of molehills" -- even a reference to the clinical term "female circumcision" was reverted several times by JakeW's "sniping" of the edit, because JakeW feels that the "radical, politically active term" "FGC (Female Genital Cutting)" is somehow less biased than the clinical term "female circumcision" - regardless of this, it is obvious to me that JakeW is not interested in un-biased un-gender-specific definitions and is instead interested primarily in staring at circumcized and uncircumcized penises on a daily basis.

Cheers! -mm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Merv (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 November 2005

More on circumcision bias
So, the female circumcision thing keeps getting reverted to the political active term "FGC" without reason, but the term is actually "female circumcision" and not the non-clinical term "female genital cutting" which is eroneous and politically charged.

The other suggestion I have is to create

a) Circumcision

b) Male Circumcision

c) Female Circumcision

to break up the huge articles.

It's gross. I wrote the original definition and it was literally 3 lines. They kept adding "non-Jew" and "Gentile" and wouldn't let me move those statements under "religious significance.."

It's just a bunch of nippers nipping at the nipple, as far as I can see. I can't even determine if they are interested in being fair - and frankly, because they are a majority of men, they are biasing it against females, pro-male, and, well, toward Judeo-Christian values as the dominant form. Muslim additions were made later, and should be incorperated into a part of the article which should read "Religious Significance of Circumcision" or something to that effect.

Cheers, -h

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Merv (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 November 2005

Deleting images
Hi Justinc. I see you've been an Admin for about 3 weeks now. I really must ask you to be extra careful when deleting images (especially, because those are permanently deleted). You have just deleted a fair use image that was being used on my user page exclusively. It had been tagged as an orphaned fair use image by a bot that, I gather, must be malfunctioning, and it happened while I was out on a wikibreak. None of this, of course, is your fault, but even an image or article that has been tagged for speedy deletion needs to be checked carefully before you actually delete them, regardless of whether they've bee tagged for 7 days or longer. Mistagging is not that uncommon (as it was the case), and the uploader might still be unaware of what happened. Thank you for your attention. Regards, Redux 16:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Before you start sweating: don't worry, your deletion was within policy; looks like a misunderstanding by Redux. See Village_pump_%28policy%29. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was a misunderstanding. As it turns out, it's a bit more tricky than the logs seemed to indicate.  I'm still not sure that it should have been deleted (that's now, before I was certain it shouldn't have been, so much that I even re-uploaded it), but it wasn't as clear cut as it appeared to me at first.  Still, any misunderstandings can be avoided by contacting the uploader of the image (specifically in the case of an image that is being used in a user page exclusively).  Never you mind though, I'm trying to sort it out over at the discussion linked by Mindspillage above.  If deletion was indeed the correct thing to do, which is what is being advocated to me over there, I will delete the image again myself.  Thanks again.  Redux 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

JakeW should be banned from editing Circumcision, FGC and Female Circumcision
He refuses to leave appropriate comments when he reverts without a clear intention other than to censor my additions. (Nov 5) Mad Merv

He also keeps removing the public domain copyrighted image that displays Female Circumcision. This is ludicrous. I quit. I don't trust "WikiGangs" like JakeW's inane reversions. My version is more complete and concise, and has an additional image that hey keeps censoring due to his own homosexual lifestyle. What a Gay Hitler. Mad Merv

Re: Your message
Justin, I'm afraid that I haven't received an email from you. It's possible that it was deleted by accident - if so, I apologise.

I take exception to your characterisation of these as my edit wars. In the case of the Jenchurch/Mad Merv issue, I was one of nine people who reverted (I just counted). Jakew 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I realised you meant circumcision advocacy just after I wrote this first message. Believe it or not, I don't enjoy the war with Michael, but what can I do? We discuss it and keep going around in circles. Jakew 11:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not keen on an edit war, either. Most of the time Jake and I have been able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement, despite our different approaches. I'm also not keen on being told that both of us are being stupid. I can't see any helpfulness in that comment. Michael Glass 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is stupid because you are both good contributors but anyone seeing that long list of reverts, both of you trying to avoid 3RR by just doing it slowly wont see that. Learning how to resolve disputes is more important than what the content is for a few weeks. Come to an agreement, and lets carry on writing stuff. Justinc 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Burmese cat large.jpg
Regarding Image:Burmese cat large.jpg...

Here is the IFD discussion for it:



Also, judging on the page history from :

Undeletion revision of page

It looks like the original image had no source either. It's safe to say that Image:Burmese cat large.jpg can be deleted. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, done. There are several more pictures, and I have some too if anyone wants more. Justinc 11:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Metal gear oggs
The Metal Gear Solid Original Game Soundtrack oggs you nominated on wp:ifd did not have consensus to delete. -Nv8200p talk 15:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I may tag them as fairusedisputed. Justinc 02:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Trigger-happy image deletion
You have deleted Image:SablePlante.JPG. This image was uploaded by User:Anthere, member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation (thus not the kind of people who upload copyright violations). She apparently had forgotten to add her copyright tags on it. You apparently removed the image without even warning her. David.Monniaux 13:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I had not forgotten, most of the images I uploaded on the english wikipedia, were uploaded before tags ever existed. When we uploaded them, there was a text where we agreed we were uploading the images according to our licence. Later, I wonder if the image was not indicated fair use for some strange reason, either fair use or old image with no tag. Fair use was authorized on the english wikipedia, and for all I know, is still authorized. For the record, Justinc, I consider you should not be an admin. And I say it very politely. There was a lot of discussion on the issue and there was an agreement to warn the editor, when the upload was anterior to the existence of tags, and more politely, when the uploader is still active and not just a near vandal newbie. I consider you did not respected the agreement. You are actually decreasing the value of our project. Anthere 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just in the process of replying on the list, but here will do instead. I am very sorry about this. You yourself tagged the image as fair use on 17 December 2004, replacing the previous unverified tag. This suggested that you were not the copyright holder and this was not a free image. I will extract the old images by tag from a database dump and work out how best to get them all properly tagged. Note that fair use outside article space is no longer accepted on wikipedia (see WP:FU. Justinc 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What happens when an image previously used in an article is no more used for any reason ? And why are fair use images no more allowed outside of main space ? And why are all the fair use images using wikipedia or wikimedia logos used in so many user pages without qualifying as speedy deletion ? Could you also find back possibly the other images of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/PictAlgerie ? There are no other sources than here. My computer was totally full, so I had to crop them and uploaded them after croping. I do not have this computer any more, so no more sources. The author of the pictures was my husband; he was away when I was asked to tag these images, if I remember used in the main space; and since I did not have his direct agreement, I put them under fair use since it was allowed at that time to use fair use images in the articles. While these images do not appear fabulous, I must insist that some were taken at about 5 days by car from the nearest city, plus 2 days walk for approach. Please ? Ant

Primary and secondary sources
Hi - I see the distinction you're making. Thanks for the guidance. ````

Re: Image:Email instructions for talkpage.PNG
Hi, the reason I removed the orphand fair use tag was because it's not a "fair use" image, it's a Wikipedia screenshot (wich is a bit of a special "license" tag). It's a category of images that do need some cleaning up, many include parts of the browser and OS for example and I'm not sure where screenshots of articles with fair use images included would fit, but AFAIK the Wikipedia logo is not one of the problems with these images. Anyway it is my understanding they are currently not speedyable as orphanded fair use images wich is why I removed the orphand tag. You are naturaly free to IFD them if you feel they pose a problem though. --Sherool (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)