User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-01

Thanks for the pictures of Branner and Wilbur
Rich, thanks for the pictures. Any thoughts on what to do in the Stanford Project? --Erp (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to get a decent photo of the Munger student residence complex (and add it to the Charlie Munger article). It would be nice to get more information about the various Stanford residence halls and their respective benefactors or namesakes.  And the Stanford University article should definitely be spruced up to the point that it can become a Good Article.  —  Rich wales (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Spruced up or overhauled? I'm not sure how one would get a good picture of Munger. --Erp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't really studied the Stanford article super-critically, so I can't say at the moment how much work would be required to get it to GA. As for Munger, it might or might not be possible to take a decent photo from Hoover Tower — Munger is due south from Hoover Tower, and the south side of the observation deck is blocked by the elevator, so I'm a bit skeptical, but I might try.  A ground photo should be possible from any of several angles — not as desirable, perhaps, as an aerial photo, but better than nothing.  —  Rich wales (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I was walking by Munger today, I took a picture from the Wilbur Field side which gives some idea. I've put it in the Charles Munger article but haven't categorized yet. --Erp (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Followup query on indefinite full protection of User talk:Anythingyouwant
[copied from talk page of ]

Hi. On November 28, as Anythingyouwant was leaving in a huff, he asked you to fully protect his user and talk pages. You said you'd rather have an uninvolved admin do this than do it yourself. I obliged on December 15, so these pages are now indefinitely fully protected. I wanted to check with you to see if you still feel this protection should be kept up. I know WP:UPROT says that "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected due to retirement is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page" — but I figure you had your reasons in this case. — Rich wales 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I don't really care one way or the other.  I just think Anythingyouwant's wishes should be honored to the greatest extent consistent with policy--I didn't mean to authorize (as if I held any particular authority to do so...) deviation from them, and any implication to that effect was a misstatement on my part. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. :-) OK, then, I'll unprotect his talk page, but I'll keep an eye on it (it's on my watch list).  If anyone posts anything on it, I'll point out that he's retired.  —  Rich wales 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
Hi Richwales,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIKILINK
It doesn't make it so you can't under any circumstances wikilinks in quotes, just says to try and put in in the surrounding text or see also. However, there is at least one instance of an FA I worked on where that wasn't possible. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * True — though my impression has been that if I put a wikilink inside a quotation, it's so likely to raise an automatic red flag that the effort required to justify it in the particular case in question would have been better spent figuring out an alternative approach not involving wikilinking quoted text. As it turns out here, jus soli really needed to be mentioned (and wikilinked) in the second paragraph anyway (to contrast it with the already-existing mention of jus sanguinis).  Originally, jus soli was present (and wikilinked) in the opening sentence, but someone insisted this concept was too abstract for the opening, and so the opening sentence was rewritten to mention the Citizenship Clause instead — and that should have triggered a rewrite later on in the lead to move the wikilinked jus soli reference elsewhere, but I overlooked doing that.


 * As for your other comments, I'm probably going to go ahead and make some changes even in places where I explained why I felt the existing text was sufficient as it stood. The fact that you were confused by these things probably means others may be similarly perplexed, and I may be too close to the subject to see all the things that are obvious to me but not to others.  On the other hand, it might be difficult to find high-quality secondary sources for some of these new explanations, since these same things will probably also be obvious to (and thus left unexplained by) the legal experts who write the good sources! :-)  —  Rich wales 17:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Edwin Rushton photo
[copied from talk page of ]

Hi. Some controversy has arisen regarding the copyright status (if any) of File:EdwinRushton.jpg. The editor who recently reviewed White Horse Prophecy for promotion to a "Good Article" questioned whether the photo really is in the public domain in the US. This turns out to be a more complicated question than "author unknown, but the photograph is well over a hundred years old, so does it really matter?" — apparently it really does matter.

You said the source of the picture was "a photograph in my Book of Remembrance". Can you tell me whether the picture really is an original photographic print, or if it was copied from or cut out of a book, newspaper, or other publication? And is there any indication (possibly written on the back of the photo) of an author, photographic studio, etc.? Or is it really, really just a photograph, taken by who-knows-who, handed down in your family and mounted in your Book of Remembrance, with nothing written on it, and absolutely no other clue regarding how it came to exist?

As part of getting White Horse Prophecy promoted to a Good Article, I agreed to remove Edwin Rushton's photo from the article until such time (if ever) that the image's copyright status can be definitively and unarguably established. I wouldn't mind restoring the photo to the article, but this can only happen if a consensus can be reached at Commons that the picture really is in the public domain in the US.

I'd be grateful for any additional information or assistance you can offer me. Thanks. — Rich wales (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As of this point, I do not know that there is any possible way to establish who took this picture, or who ever might have held or claimed any copyright on it. The &ldquo;Book of Remembrance&rdquo;, in this case, is something that was once a tradition among Mormons; a sort of a scrapbook containing various materials relevant to its owner's ancestry and heritage.  The specific photograph is in the form of a small (about an inch wide by an inch and a half high) photographic print, glued among several others to a sort of a photographic pedigree chart, prepared a very long time ago by my paternal grandmother.  I can only assume that she had this picture, and probably the negative thereof, because this was of one of her own ancestors, in this case, her maternal grandfather.   (I believe she produced similar pages for several of my cousins around the same time, so I presume she had access then to the negative from which to have as many prints made as she needed of this and other photographs that she used for this purpose.)  She's been dead now, for more than twenty years, so I cannot very well ask her where she got this picture.  I think I can definitively say that it was not &ldquo;copied from or cut out of a book, newspaper, or other publication&rdquo;, and that &ldquo;just a photograph, taken by who-knows-who, handed down in your family and mounted in your Book of Remembrance, with nothing written on it, and absolutely no other clue regarding how it came to exist&rdquo; is really about the best possible description of its origin.


 * It's difficult to imagine how this photograph could possibly fall under any extant copyright. Edwin Rushton died in 1904&mdash;more than a hundred years ago&mdash;at the age of about eighty years, and this photograph appears to be of him at a considerably younger age than that.  This photograph cannot possibly be any less than one hundred eight (108) years old, and is most likely considerably older than that.  It's impossible to establish who took the picture, but it is very likely the the photographer has been dead for at least a hundred years, and almost certain that the photographer has been dead for at least seventy years.


 * If it's of any use to know who is connected to whom, I refer you to my pedigree chart at this URL: [deleted]  The person who prepared the page on which this photograph appears is Edna Verl Field, who appears at position 5 on this chart.  She is my father's mother; and her mother (11) was a daughter of Edwin Rushton (22).


 * &mdash; Bob Blaylock (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The people at Commons are very conservative in their interpretation of copyright laws — they really, really don't want anything which might (even by totally innocent accident) be covered by a copyright and not freely usable without any strings attached.  The last word I got (a short time ago) was that "it is very, very likely that this image is [public domain under US law], but we can't be entirely sure".  I'll pass this latest info from you along to the Commons people and see what they say now.  BTW, I am LDS and am familiar with the "Book of Remembrance" practice.  I also took the liberty of deleting the URL above pointing to your pedigree chart, in order to lessen the chance of giving anything useful to identity thieves.  Thanks again for replying to me with this information.  —  Rich wales (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So what is the current status of this controversy? I assume that the photograph ought to have been deleted by now from the Commons if it could not be reliably enough be established as having no copyright issues.  Otherwise, it ought to have been put back into the White Horse Prophecy article.  Neither of these have yet been done. &mdash; Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I restored the Edwin Rushton photo to the article.  I included a link to the Commons discussion in the talk page.  I agree that if the Commons people are comfortable with having the picture stay, then there is no valid reason not to use it here on Wikipedia.  —  Rich wales 07:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WKA FAC
I have either struck or elaborated on each of the points I initially raised. Please let me know when you have finished addressing my revised comments. Savidan 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done as you request. Savidan 19:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Since our exchange has become so lengthy, I'd like to propose that we collapse the material we've already produced, and copy all our still-unresolved issues into a single group (outside the collapsed material).  I'm concerned that other participants may be put off by the chaotic complexity of what we've currently got — and I think it would help everyone to focus on the important things that remain to be dealt with.  I'm willing to try my hand at doing this when I get back to the article in earnest tonight (about 7-8 hours from now).  Would that be OK with you?  —  Rich wales 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. Savidan 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will give the article a completely fresh look when I have time to read it all in one sitting. In the meantime, I think my previous comments should give you a good indication of what I'm likely to think. Savidan 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to waste either of our time further hashing out the issues where you have "put your foot down." I think I'm right in saying that you understand what I'm asking you to do and why I want you to do it, but that we just have a disagreement. Why don't we focus on addressing (1) the first trip, (2) the development of the WKA exceptions in subsequent cases, and (3) including full citation details for statutes, proposed bills, and treaties? In the meantime, I will think further about the other issues. Once these last three things have been resolved, I will make a holistic decision whether to support, oppose, or be neutral towards the article. Alternatively, feel free to bring a full stop to the discussion of these other issues as well, but as long as you still think there is room for mutually acceptable improvement to the article on these remaining issues, I will withhold final judgment. Savidan 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not clear on whether you are refusing to add footnote parenthetical quotations for the cases in notes 138-141 or not. Ditto in terms of adding content that either rebuts the criticism of WKA that you have used or otherwise praises the decision. Savidan 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay; I was out and about visiting family for a few hours. I'm going to do some more work on the article now (including some more below-the-line quotes as you suggested).  It may all take a while, so I hope you'll bear with me.  —  Rich wales 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)