User talk:Phase1/Archive 1

PA 103
Thank you for your thoughts about my advice on subdividing the articles. I have been very concerned about the page becoming very long and needed some divisions so that the page can become shorter. SNIyer12(talk) 19:36 UTC, Sept 20, 2005

I sure will plan in assisting moving the investigation section to the investigation page, as well as the trial section to the trial page. SNIyer12(talk) 16:38 Sept 26, 2005 (UTC)

If we remove Frankfurt then we should remove Detroit as well since the continuing leg was also on a 727 that did eventually take off that night. PRueda29 19:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, u have Grams in parenthesis, but then later you have miles in parenthesis. We should keep the article uniform by deciding which units will go in parenthesis. Now, this is a US flight that blew up in the UK, but since many passengers were UK citizens, and it did blow up there I'm thinking the imperial units should go in parenthesis, but you can decided however, just as long as its uniform (if you think it should be, if not it's ok, just suggesting) PRueda29 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out these metric/imperial inconsistencies. But I suggest you have a look at the archives on the Pan Am Flight 103 talk page. Angels would probably fear to tread where you are suggesting. I think matters are best left as they are.Phase1 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela
Can you explain the notability of Nelson Mandela being in the Category Pan Am Flight 103 ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   15:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you click on the Category you will find some 48 articles, including Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair. Nelson Mandela is included because of the important part he played, as described in his article's section headed "International diplomacy".Phase1 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I just read through Pan Am Flight 103, and could not find him mentioned. Clear now. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   07:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised Mandela isn't mentioned in the main article: he is, however, featured in Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial (The venue).Phase1 11:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

New user box
Hello Phase1, Im Moe Epsilon. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! — M o e   ε  03:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee Moe Epsilon, I don't know what to say: thanks very much, I suppose.Phase1 11:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:PWBotha.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation
EdwinHJ | Talk 14:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EdwinHJ. I uploaded Image:PWBotha.jpg under the template {Non-free fair use in|Pieter Willem Botha} from BBC website . No-one has challenged this "Non-free fair use in" template. Which leads me to ask: who, exactly, suspects this is a copyright problem?


 * This uploading was made about one week after the previous image of P W Botha (that had been there for six months or more unchallenged) had been peremptorily removed from the Pieter Willem Botha article after what seemed to be some vandalism.


 * The postage stamp image that you have now apparently inserted depicts P W Botha as a rather benign character. That is not the image that most customers of Mr Botha and his apartheid regime would want to retain. If you have a problem with either of the two earlier images (pre-postage stamp), would you like me to upload another more suitable image?Phase1 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the image from the BBC would constitute fair use. Obviously, I am not a fan of Mr Botha, but official type portraits are often used on Wikipedia even for evil leaders--see Adolf Hitler for example. Using a poor image of Mr Botha to obtain a certain effect and reaction from the reader would be POV however. And, as I said, it is possibly violating the copyright of the BBC. Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 13:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi EdwinHJ, aside from any copyright considerations the image I uploaded from the BBC is nowhere near as good as the original image which J.J. uploaded on February 25, 2004. When the image was uploaded J.J.&mdash;who created the Pieter Willem Botha article&mdash;asserted that it was a "public domain government portrait". The best solution, as I see it, is to get the original image re-uploaded by J.J. to replace the current postage stamp image. I am in touch with JesseW, who deleted J.J.'s Botha image on December 10, 2005, with a view to getting the portrait restored or re-uploaded. Meanwhile, I think it is preferable to treat "Image:PWBotha.jpg" as an orphaned image for automatic deletion within 7 days, rather than as a possible copyright violation which could have wider implications and raise a number of unwelcome issues.Phase1 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pwbotha.jpg
You said:
 * Same theme, Jesse. On December 10 you deleted "Image:Pwbotha.jpg" and do not appear to have informed the uploader first&mdash;J.J.&mdash;who actually created the original Pieter Willem Botha article. When J.J. uploaded the image on February 25, 2004 he described it as a "public domain government portrait", which seems a good enough source although the copyright status isn't clear. As a result of your deletion, I uploaded a replacement "Image:PWBotha.jpg" on December 16 on the "Non-free fair use in" template but this was quickly listed at Copyright problems because of a suspected copyright violation. Although a postage stamp image has now been uploaded as "Image:Pwbotha.jpg" to replace the deleted version, I prefer J.J.'s public domain government portrait. Is there any reason that J.J. cannot now re-upload the original portrait (with suitable source/copyright citations) to replace the postage stamp image?Phase1 14:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First, J.J. (or anyone) can reupload the picture (with sufficient source/copyright info) - that would be great! It was not deleted due to any intrinsic problems with the picture, just that we didn't know if there were problems.  A reupload with more information is one of the best results possible.  IMO, the info you mentioned, "public domain goverment portrait" is not sufficient - which government, who created it, when - all of this is needed to verify a claim of PD; without it, the source/copyright info is insufficient.  As for the notifying uploader issue - I am sorry that J.J. was not alerted when the image was tagged - many uploader's were.  There are thousands of images, and thousands of uploaders - it was not feasible to re-check if they all were notified manually(although a bot is working through the list).  I'm glad you are working to get a good, well-sourced image back in the article.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I mentioned the notifying the uploader issue, Jesse, is that you posted the following message on J.J.'s talk page on October 17, 2005 under the heading Unsourced images: "The following are in the category {no source} and so will be deleted ASAP. Just so you know. JesseW, the juggling janitor": there follows 25 images in alphabetical order from Byng.jpg thru' to Mugabemedals.jpg. My point is that, alphabetically, Image:Pwbotha.jpg is not that much further on, and given that J.J. actually uploaded that particular image originally&mdash;on February 25, 2004&mdash;you could have brought him into the loop of your deletion exercise! I am sure that the janitorial work you are doing is very necessary and worthwhile but I think, and it is only my opinion, that in this particular case an error has been made and you should now ask J.J. to re-upload the image you deleted (with suitable source/copyright citations). It would be better coming from you but I'll ask him if you don't want to!Phase1 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My goodness! You are right; that must have been the time when I was working from a partial list (made by Beland, I think) (the category had 12000 items in at when we started; partial lists were the best we could do).  I certainly agree that a number of errors have been made - uploading an image with insufficient info; tagging the image without notifying the uploader; having a partial list to work from; not re-notifying when the deletion happened are all errors, more or less... As for asking J.J. to reupload, I'm happy to do it (and I have), but you could do so also, as I know very little about the actual subject of the article.  Thanks for working on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well! J.J. has today re-uploaded the original portrait photo of P.W. Botha.Phase1 13:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

apologies
I am sorry if you took my flagging of the Botha image as a copyright violation as an insult or criticism of you personally. That was not my intent at all, I am just trying to help WP follow US intellectual property law. Your committment to the article and its appearance and quality should be commended. Again my apologies if I insulted you in any way. EdwinHJ | Talk 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your apologies are accepted, so far as they go. What I object to, in particular, is your apparent pre-judging of the issue, by posting the heading Copyright violation on my User talk page.Phase1 13:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again I didnt intend to insult you or accuse you of intentionally breaking copyright rules. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lockerbie Photo
I really don't appreciate you making something personal that is not. I'm not trying to "cast aspersions" on anything but the image. The image has no source, if you know the source then provide it and tag the image correctly. I'm not going to get in an edit war over you with this either so I will leave the page as is with the problem image tag on it. I would appreciate it if you recanted your accusation, I'm not making personal attacks on anyone and your statement made it sound as though I am. --Wgfinley 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Original uploader has now provided the required source info and tags have been removed from the relevant articles.Phase1 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

abramoff
Hey I think that instead of a bigger picture, a better summary is needed, something longer. We can't have a pix that big on an article, it's gonna look like Cosmpolitan eventually ;)
 * Please stop removing the preamble, suggest it in the talk page then do it, otherwise this is going to an arbitration.

International Freedom Foundation
Wanted to inform you that I noticed that the text you submitted for International Freedom Foundation appears to be nearly identical to a 1995 Newsday article. Please respect the copyrights of others. You are welcome to aid in rewriting the article in your own words, based on research. -Kwh 07:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The IFF text I submitted did not come from the website you cite:which I note was dated April 8, 2005. A six-page summary of the Newsday article of Sunday, July 16, 1995 entitled Front for Apartheid was given as the "External link"to the short IFF page. The latter cannot therefore be "a copy with minor grammar changes" as you wrongly assumed. It is not a copyvio and I disagree that it needs to be rewritten. Newsday should however be credited under a new References heading.Phase1 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The WarandPiece site just happened to be where I found the information. The geocities site you cite is obviously another copy of the Newsday article, not a summary, as it states on that page "The Newsday article follows:". If you didn't write the text, and if the authors of the text (Newsday, Dele Olojede in South Africa and Timothy M. Phelps in Washington) have not clearly released the text under a free license, you should not be copying the entire text into Wikipedia. As it states at the bottom of the Editing page (scroll down to the bottom): The Newsday text can be quoted as support in the article rewrite, but should not be copied verbatim or nearly verbatim. -Kwh 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages.

As a result of this alleged copyvio, I have completely rewritten the article on the "Temp" page.Phase1 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's so awesome! Thanks for talking it out. -Kwh 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking
Whoops! Thanks for fixing my blanking on Pan Am Flight 103. Dunno how that happened, but glad you caught it so quick. —Cleared as filed. 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)