User talk:RP88/Archive 5

__NOINDEX__

goldman sachs and paulson
nice work on those articles Decora (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.—RP88 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

208.91.210.130
Hi. How did you track this IP down to its school name? Neither the built-in WHOIS nor http://samspade.org/whois/ gave me anything better than "Optiquest Internet Services, Inc." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whois isn't really helpful in this case. However, reverse DNS of 208.91.210.130 is mail.twca.net.  Reverse DNS isn't, by itself, trustworthy since IP block owners can set RDNS to anything they like.  However, a standard DNS lookup of mail.twca.net resolves to 208.91.210.130 -- so in this case we've got a clear match.  Additional confirmation that The Woodlands Christian Academy (twca.net) is the correct organization responsible is that Optiquest Internet Services is located in The Woodlands, Texas, just like The Woodlands Christian Academy (presumably Optiquest is the school's ISP). —RP88 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's useful. I often find obvious school-type vandalism without a Sharedipedu and would like to be able to add one. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account
Why did you undo the edit that I made to Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account? I told them that it is the user talk pages listed that would be considered such. Boygirl22 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally best to propose changes to WP policy and related pages on the discussion pages before making edits.  But in any case, I think you're overly concerned -- for example, now that you've mentioned the page on my user page, my account will appear in the back links for that page.  It's not a big deal. —RP88 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you because the keyword is "nearly" which means most of them, not all of them. Boygirl22 (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Ralphallen.jpg
Thanks for your detective work & improved tagging on File:Ralphallen.jpg. I uploaded that image in 2004 before I was aware of all the rules & procedures re copyright & it has only just been picked up which says something.&mdash; Rod talk 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have been of assistance, it was a fun little bit of research. Did you personally scan it from a book back in 2004?  If so, it would be great to note the book from which you obtained your copy.  It would be nice to know definitively if this version is a reproduction of one of the mezzotints in National Portrait Gallery's collection. —RP88 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it came from a web site, but I can't remember which one, possibly biography at Bath postal museum or biog at Carfax Hotel but the sites have changed in the last 6 yrs!.&mdash; Rod talk 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It must have been from Carfax Hotel. A check with the Internet Archive shows that they've had a bit-for-bit identical version of the image on their website since at least October, 2000, well before you uploaded it to Wikipedia.  I'll update the sourcing in the image. —RP88 21:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Date of file
Thanks for this. It actually makes more sense, but Special:Upload automatically added five tildes in order to generate a timestamp. Since several of the upload options automatically add a timestamp, I've asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Upload. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was a minor fix on my part. I'm not sure why the file upload defaults to a current timestamp when the field is intended to contain the date of creation and/or publication (since those dates are the ones that are relevant for correctly determining copyright status). —RP88 18:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to WP:NFCC
If copying exclusive commercial content is acceptable, then criteria 2 of WP:NFCC needs removing, or at least rewording.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm not inclined to rehash  a discussion from the non-free content review page here on my user page.  However, I'll repeat and expand upon the last point I made over there in case you overlooked it.  First, I don't thinking copying is an issue here, while a bit-for-bit copy can qualify as  fair use, such a use would rarely survive WP:NFCC. Second, I think you're laboring under a misunderstanding regarding fair use and how it interacts with licensed exclusivity.  Consider the case of a first-run television program.  TV networks purchase the right to exclusively distribute a program from the program's production company.  Despite this exclusivity, Wikipedia routinely includes a copyrighted screen shot of the program in the article about the program.  When doing so Wikipedia relies upon the rights conferred by the fair use doctrine (WP further restricts itself with its own self-imposed rules, i.e. WP:NFCC).  Now imagine the case where TV Guide magazine pays for the rights to exclusively show screen shots of a forthcoming TV program, a program that has an article on Wikipedia.  Does this change the reasoning of using screenshots from the program in the article?  It does not, under the fair use doctrine the rationale for using copyrighted material owned by the production company without their permission remains the same.  If the earlier use was reasonable, the later use is reasonable.   —RP88 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is acceptable, then the policy should be reworded.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly that criteria 2 of WP:NFCC needs to be reworded and you think you can draft a rewrite that will achieve consensus, you can propose your modification over at  the discussion page for WP:NFC. —RP88 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCR
Why did you revert your change? Do you know something about archiving that I don't? I'm tempted to just go through and archive everything manually if ClueBot doesn't come back soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking into how ClueBot III works, I saw that the numberstart parameter is used to specify where the first auto archive begins (presumably archives prior to this number were manually archived). Since for WP:NFCR the page Archive 6 is now considered full by ClueBot III, it should move on to archiving at Archive 7, and it appears to have done so. —RP88 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it did roll over (which is why I was updating the archive box), I was just hoping that you knew some way to jump start it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MCQ post
I noticed your MCQ post mentioning the template Non-free with NC. As a member of the Philately project I try to ensure that all non-free stamps are used properly and now that I see this template, I wonder if it would be an appropriate addition to the non-free stamp images. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your question. Are you asking if it would be appropriate to add Non-free with NC to every image in Category:Fair use stamp images?  I suspect you're asking something else, since the answer to that questions is obvious -- no, it should only be added to images of stamps where the stamp's copyright holder is known to have issued a non-commercial license to the stamp's copyright.  That template is largely for the convenience of non-commericial reusers of Wikipedia.  Some of these non-commercial users of repurposed Wikipedia articles drop all of the non-free images from their version of an article because they can't rely on U.S. fair use laws (usually because they are in another country that has no equivalent), but they keep the "non-free with NC" images  (and obviously the free images as well).  The template eases this process since it is easy to detect with an automated process. —RP88 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I am asking. For instance USPS allows specific of their images per this webpage and that would seem a case where this template is appropriate. Other postal administrations may not have such specific terms of use. Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting with U.S. stamps, it'd be nice to add Non-free with NC to the images in Category:Fair_use_images_of_United_States_postage to which it applies.  I was going to suggest editing Non-free USGov-USPS stamp to transclude Non-free with NC so that it would be automatically added to all images that make use of Non-free USGov-USPS stamp.  However, after reviewing the images in Category:Fair_use_images_of_United_States_postage, the use of Non-free USGov-USPS stamp appears to have been, perhaps, a little sloppy.  Images that I found in Category:Fair_use_images_of_United_States_postage that might need some fixup are:
 * File:PriestleyStamp.jpg - This appears to be an image of the artwork commissioned for a stamp, not an actual stamp itself. A fair use rationale can probably be made for it, but it is probably not appropriate to tag it with Non-free USGov-USPS stamp.  However, I readily admit that I'm not familiar with the copyright status of the of the works of art commissioned for stamps.
 * File:Crayola.jpg - This image might need the Trademark tag added to the licensing section (depending on the status of that Crayola trademark). Trademarks don't expire as long as they remain in commercial use.
 * File:STS-8_flight_cover_8912_front.jpg - This image shows a NASA mission insignia.  While the insignia is PD, use of NASA insignia's are restricted by US law.  I'd recommend adding subsections to the license section, so that the stamp can be clearly shown to  separately licensed from the NASA mission insignia (I'd use PD-USGov-NASA and Insignia in that subsection).
 * File:STS-8_flight_cover_8912_back.jpg - There doesn't appear to be any stamp in this image.
 * File:Type1.jpg - This image appears to of content held by several rights holders -- the stamps are probably Non-free USGov-USPS stamp, the rest is probably PD-text with Trademark.
 * Do you think it appropriate to add transclude Non-free with NC from Non-free USGov-USPS stamp? That would make sense if the users of Non-free USGov-USPS stamp are careful to only apply it to stamps.—RP88 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Selena_Gomez_&_the_Scene.jpg‎ Image Issue
The picture was taken by me at Selena & The Scene's concert Meet & Greet in San Francisco. I had just begun using Wikipedia at the time I uploaded it, and thought that the picture would appear in the article in it's actual size. So, I downsized it to what I thought would be a good size for the infobox.

Just now, I went ahead and uploaded a larger version because the size was a problem? I have another similiar pic, too, if I can't upload the same picture twice, but it's fine by me if the smaller picture is deleted now. Please inform me if there are any other problems! Thanks! Selenaismylife555 (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can upload the original photo at full size to the existing location File:Selena Gomez & the Scene.jpg by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of that page, or by clicking this link. After you upload the original photo, I recommend you edit the image description to add some additional details, such as how, when and where you took the photo.  It's been my experience that editors are less likely to question the provenance of photos that have detailed information about the nature and origin of the photo on their description page. —RP88 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I noticed that you removed some ELs added by User:JJHamlin, but it appears the newly-created User:Starfish090 is putting many of them back. (Check out their respective contributions.) Does this warrant being brought to an admin's attention? Location (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've also noticed a bunch of City Lights only contributions coming from User:Jennywiki099, User:Starfish090, and User:PrincessConsuela100. Most of the new edits aren't adding links to City Light's web site, just adding ISBN numbers. I suspect someone at City Lights has created a bunch of accounts to disguise  their conflict of interest. I've never dealt with this kind thing before, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. —RP88 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to barge in if I'm unwanted, but that sounds like a case for WP:SPI. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. After my reply above  I added   a report at WikiProject Spam.  This might be multiple WP:COI accounts to avoid  scrutiny.  I've never listed anything at WP:SPI before, at a quick glance that process seems to move rather glacially.  Do you have any experience with WP:SPI? —RP88 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed a few cases, but yeah - from what I've seen it takes about a week or more for anything to be done, so short term it's just a matter of damage control. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)