User talk:Lycurgus/Archive0

Justify
We don't typically use justified alignment in Wikipedia prose. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  22:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:B6700.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B6700.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved this one into the place I've reserved for this as an exemplar but in the future will remove any machine postings to this page. This page is for human interaction. I did specify the copyright and will do so again embedded in the image but not right now. Lycurgus 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lycurgus. Thanks for your work on Burroughs large systems. I did a lot of work on this article last year, and brought of up from "deplorable" to "marginal." I'm glad to see other input. I do have a question on the image copyrights. You assert that you are the copyright holder. If these are scanned images from the Organik book. Then you are not the copyright holder for these images unless you are Elliot Organik. It would be perfectly acceptable for you to draw your own images with this identical information but using a different layout, and then claim copyright in your own images, but you cannot claim copyright in Organik's images. Now if Organik assigned the copyrights to ACM, then ACM could release those copyrights. However, this would need to be done by ACM's board, not by an individual member. -Arch dude 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Arch_dude, I do not claim copyright for Elliot Organicks original work, nor do I claim (for example) to be the current president or even a board member of the ACM. The image prep work however is mine and I release that to the public domain. Of course at this point I could go into the details on ACM specific and general scholarly practice in such cases but really why fucking bother? Lycurgus 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You should "bother" because of the following policies: WP:IUP, WP:COPY and specifically because of WP:COPY. This is an important part of the set of policies that we as editors are supposed to live by when we edit Wikipedia. I do not understand how we can claim that the use of these two images does not violate the original copyright. If I understand you correctly, you created these images via "scanning and prep work", incorporating the originals as a basis. The result ins technically a "derived work", in which you claim copyright. Your claim is defensible, but you are still not allowed to distribute your derived work unless you have some valid permission from the copyright holders for any work or works included in the derived work. If you feel that Wikipedia should adhere to "general scholarly practice," then you will need to argue for this view in the appropriate place, which is probablyWikipedia talk:Copyrights. It's a real shame that we need to waste time on this whole copyright mess, but if we do not, then someone with an axe to grind against Wikipedia could get the whole thing shut down. I assume from your wording that you are frustrated by this: I assure you that I am also. I would strongly prefer that scholarly works in particular have a much shorter copyright and that "fair use" be expanded to include situations such as your use of these images. Unfortunately, that is not how the law is written. -Arch dude 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant why bother trying to contribute or participate in community sites like Wikipedia. The is the time of Epiphany on this matter generally though. The minimum diligence to commit a third such learning experience would be to introspect seriously on the membership first, a few minutes that can save many hours better spent elsewhere. 71.186.139.79 06:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BarloweSloanThrint.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BarloweSloanThrint.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BenB4 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC) BenB4 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I presume this is by automation and it's fine, was partially meant as a test, also presume link to sloand3d.com or whatever where they do show the image retained. Lycurgus 07:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page. It's a good idea to set your user preferences (under Edit) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". It' looks like this:
 * [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]

This is especially true, when edits are made to an article that is often vandalized or seemingly used to push a certain POV, as they are prone to be scrutanized and will be contested, reverted, etc. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Thank you for considering this, if you will. - Jeeny Talk 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I've had this account for more than a year, just began a phase of serious contribution this last month. Still finding my center, if you will, with respect to how I will adapt to community standards. Have stated my position on summaries on my POV page. Basically my thinking is that people shouldn't be hampered from contributing by the requirement of a summary if they are capable of making a (correct) judgement that none is needed (since the diff function clearly shows what changed). Lycurgus 05:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that the history shows the changes. But, that makes extra work for others who are not yet familiar with you, and I only ask that you respect that. Why make others do the work for changes you make? I do understand "finding a center", I was asking if you would be considerate to help others who work on this project, and who are serious about it. Not saying you aren't, but asking that you make that extra effort to provide the summaries, especially on articles that are prone to vandalism as Uncle Tom's Cabin is. That's all. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, I will not read your POV page. I have enough to read. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to follow the always comment policy for any edits I might make to Uncle Tom's Cabin. Lycurgus 06:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: IP
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but the truth is, I did have a sneaky feeling that it was you editing from an anonymous IP, yet I chose to risk it wasn't you. For what it's worth, I'm sorry it didn't turn out that way. It's usually a good idea to edit your user page while logged under your username, but let me know if you wish me to mind my business and not touch your userpage again should I find such edits in the future. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it was fine, it was a very minor edit and you should continue if you like since the person can always revert themselves when they remember to log in.I didn't revert because I took the opportunity do the edit in a different/better way. Lycurgus 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GFM
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Crossmr 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Crossmr couldn't have been more wrong, I was (and currently still am) the maintaining site architect for the site in question, if that doesn't make it obvious that I have no reason to attack it, I do so state categorically. Lycurgus 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have misinterpreted this users comments and may also have made comments regarding perceived bias which were taken as attacks. Though I don't fully recall details (it was 5 mos ago), I regret this and am better aculturated now. Lycurgus 07:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)