User talk:Malatesta

Adopt-A-User
Hey, are you still looking for someone to 'adopt' you? I've been around here for a couple of years now, and I bet I could help you out. Check out my user page for more information about me, and let me know on my talk page. Happy editing, tiZom(2¢) 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Thanks for the offer. I could really use the help. The main reason I put the request up is that I found myself spending a lot of time reading "help" pages and not figuring out how to do something. I think it would help to have someone I can ask who would either know the answer or send me to the right place. malatesta 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In case that is not clear enough, I wholeheartedly accept. thanks malatesta 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent :o) I'm pretty knowledgeable about WP, including coding and policies and whatnot.  And if there's something I don't know, I generally know how to go about finding it.  I've got a few hundred pages on my watch list, so I'm constantly checking up on them...at least several times a day.  So if you need anything, just let me know on my talk page!  (Oh, and PS - be sure to leave comments at the bottom of a talk page.  If you leave it at the top, it might be overlooked.  You can also use the "+" sign at the top of the page if you're starting a new topic...hope that helps!)  tiZom(2¢)  20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm slowly pruning Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, so I've changed malatesta's adoptme tag to adoptee, since it looks like everything's going well here. =) — coe l acan — 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright
OK, my first question. I am trying to upload an image for Bisbee Deportation and am confused by which category I should use as far as copyright licensing. I found a link on the page where the image is hosted: http://aquarius.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/copyright.html which gives info on copyright. Can I upload one of these images? thanks malatesta 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyright stuff can get pretty involved, because people are very strict about it. Ready?  Here goes:
 * There are two kinds of images that we can use on WP: free images and unfree images.
 * An image is free if the owner has given up the copyright, or if it is ineligible for copyright (it's produced by the government, it's really old, etc) - The full list of reasons are at Copyrights and, in particular, Public domain. It's pretty extensive, and I'd be happy to help you understand it if you need more help on that.
 * This image, however, is unfree - the copyright is owned by University of Arizona. In order for us to lawfully use this image, we either need (1) permission from the copyright holder to re-license it (in most cases, they won't do this, because they lose a little control on the copyright...but seeing as how it's a University, it might be worth a shot), or (2) a good reason to use it regardless of copyright status.  Wikipedia can, for example, use corporate logos, movie screenshots, album covers, etc. because we need to have the ability to demonstrate what the subject is, but there is nothing out there that could be used to replace it (e.g. you can't find a "free equivalent" to the NBC Peacock or the cover for The Dark Side of the Moon - it is what it is).  This idea is called Fair use, and it allows Wikipedia to use a lot of copyrighted materials.  There are, however, a bunch of restrictions.  See the Fair Use page, or ask me with any questions.
 * What is the image, exactly? Post a link to it, and I'll give you my input...
 * This image, however, is unfree - the copyright is owned by University of Arizona. In order for us to lawfully use this image, we either need (1) permission from the copyright holder to re-license it (in most cases, they won't do this, because they lose a little control on the copyright...but seeing as how it's a University, it might be worth a shot), or (2) a good reason to use it regardless of copyright status.  Wikipedia can, for example, use corporate logos, movie screenshots, album covers, etc. because we need to have the ability to demonstrate what the subject is, but there is nothing out there that could be used to replace it (e.g. you can't find a "free equivalent" to the NBC Peacock or the cover for The Dark Side of the Moon - it is what it is).  This idea is called Fair use, and it allows Wikipedia to use a lot of copyrighted materials.  There are, however, a bunch of restrictions.  See the Fair Use page, or ask me with any questions.
 * What is the image, exactly? Post a link to it, and I'll give you my input...


 * Keep in mind that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of free content. So whenever possible, we should be using free images.


 * Sorry for being so long-winded, but it took me quite a while to understand all this copyright stuff. Hope this helps a little.  tiZom(2¢)  21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the photo I want to use: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/primarysources/photographs/deportation.html The caption says that it belongs to the Arizona Historical Society(AHS). I was rereading the copyright info on the page and it said that the images could be used for educational purposes. Could that be construed as meaing its ok for wikipedia? malatesta 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Link didnt copy correctly, but I want to use the 4th from the left.malatesta 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for the delay. I was in Montreal for the weekend, and was supposed to have internet access at the hotel... but let's not get into that :o)


 * Regarding the image copyright problem. If it says that you can use it for educational purposes, unfortunately that will still not be enough for Wikipedia.  The problem is that the main goal of WP is to create a free and open encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose.  This means that somewhere down the line, someone may use it in a way that is not educational... and thereby going against the copyright owner's requests.  This is why we use free images first, and use unfree ones only when it is necessary.


 * I had a strikingly similar problem when I was working on a template for Olympic Medal winners (See, for example, the medal infobox on the page for Alexandre Despatie. It used to have a picture of the Olympic Rings because the Olympic Charter says you can use the rings for anything that promotes the Olympic Movement (which pages like this certainly did).  However, the image was removed (diff) because somewhere down the road, someone might use our free encyclopedia in a way that does not promote the Olympic Movement.


 * If I were you, I'd try to e-mail the copyright holders and get permission to license that image under the GFDL license - it's the one that allows the copyright holder to keep the most control over the image. Otherwise, you might want to try to find that image (...or something similar) in a link on this page:  Free image resources.  Lots of historical stuff there.  tiZom(2¢)  20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, try Public domain resources too...it's got a lot more history-related stuff. tiZom(2¢)  21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey, I noticed that you're working a lot to revert vandalism. VandalProof is a browser that is specifically designed for that. It lets you view revisions in real time, shows key words that might indicate vandalism, and lets you roll back to previous revisions. You'll need 250 edits in the article space (i.e. not user pages, talk pages, etc. - just the articles) to qualify for it. Once you do, you can just follow the directions on the page. And PS - You can check your edit count with this link:   Hope this helps! tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢) 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, fellow vandalism fighter. A helpful hint: always be sure to scrutinize the page that you are reverting to, to be sure that it's not just another problematic edit. Case in point: I just checked the recent edits on Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which I have watchlisted, and discovered that the page you reverted to, while not blatant vandalism, was a bad edit (unsourced POV). I only caught it because I've learned from experience that it's always a good idea to check things out when vandalism is reverted to an edit submitted by an anonymous IP. All such edits are big red flags in my book, because so few anons make constructive edits. I've seen all sorts of problems result when good faith reversions are done to bad edits, which then go unnoticed -- sometimes for months! (I've cleaned up more than a few of these, and it's very time-consuming.) Okay, 'nuff said, I guess! Regards, Cgingold 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof / Articles for Deletion
I would like to use it but I usually edit while at work (they get what they pay for which is very little) and I doubt the IT fascists would like it. A question though, I tried to nominate for deletion Michael Aaron McGowan and added it to the articles for deletion page put it didn't look right after I did it. What did I do wrong?malatesta 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's what happened: When you nominate an article for deletion, you have to do three things.  I'll go ahead and do it, and give you links to show you what I did:
 * Put a message on the article's page. Instead of just adding a message, you'll want to put this deletion template at the top of the article page (not the talk page):   .  "afd1" is a template which is substituted.  You don't need to know about either, but just know that when you type    on a page, it will create a box that displays information about the deletion debate.  See this diff - All I did was add   .
 * Create a new page to hold the discussion. This is done as a subpage of the AfD page.  The previous step actually generated the link, all you need to do is follow it and start up the page.  So go back to Michael Aaron McGowan, There will be a link in the deletion box that will say "this article's entry".  Follow that link, and start this new discussion page with the text   ~   Check this permalink - The text I started this page with was   ~ 
 * Transclude that page onto the AfD log page. Take the title of the page in step 2, and add to the log by placing  at the bottom of the AfD log page.  This takes the entire content of the Articles for deletion/Michael Aaron McGowan article (the discussion article), and includes it in the AfD log.  (See this diff)  Now, when you see the log, you'll see the deletion discussion.  Now if you go to the log page, and try to edit that particular section, you'll actually go to the edit page for the subpage.
 * In fact, a lot of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace operate like that, Like Featured article candidates, Featured picture candidates, etc. The benefit is that all of the edits (people supporting/opposing) go on individual pages, rather than the respective main page.  It's just better organized that way.


 * PS - You may want to check out the software that Mr. McGowan produced: Madeche vision.  It seems like it might not be notable either, but I'll let you make that call, and decide if you want to nominate it.  Let me know if you have any problems! <b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢)  07:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle
Hey, how're things going? Just wanted to tell you that I've been following your lead in doing a lot of counter-vandalism stuff recently, and I found a script that really helps out with it. If you use Firefox, then check out Twinkle. If you save the script to your .js file (instructions are on the page), all it takes is a click, and it rolls back the edits to the last user before the vandal. It's neat, and I've been using it quite a lot. If you're interested, let me know, and I can help install it for you. <b style="color:#08457E;">tiZom</b><sub style="color:black;">(2¢) 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin Grammar

 * I do not know what the hell you are talking about whenever you say that I "valdilized" the Latin Grammar page. I have never even been to that page until I got your little message. Okay, I do not appreciate being accused of something I did not do, so you can sit there and blame me all you want, your just acting like a fool!!! And no where does it say that I changed anything.70.20.64.195 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Dryriver1.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Dryriver1.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)