User talk:Riverbend Trail

New to Wikipedia; article as Historical Commission project offshoot
The article about Julian Steele stems from research conducted in connection with the West Newbury, MA, Historical Commission's project to install a new historical marker commemorating Steele. The author is a complete Wikipedia novice--please forgive and correct errors.West Newbury (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry
Unfortunately, it's not just that linking to Ancestry is verboten while citing the content inside an Ancestry database is still okay; it's that we can't cite purely genealogical sources at all. What you have to do is find newspaper, magazine or book content that supports the information you want to add, not genealogical records. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julian Steele has been accepted
 Julian Steele, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Julian_Steele help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, West Newbury

Thank you for creating Frances Keegan Marquis.

User:CaptainEek, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Town history
Hi, it's always nice to have thoughtful new editors, especially those who already know how scholarship works. At WikiConference North America in November in Cambridge I was one of the coaches helping newbies get up to speed. Some of them, well, some had more enthusiasm than understanding, and needed a lot of help. Perhaps you will be able to attend a Meetup/Boston and meet some of your fellow editors.

Your username might run into conflict with Username policy though this is an area in which I lack experience. I'm one of the minority of Wikipedians who simply use our real name. Possible problems with the Conflict of interest policy can be handled by the methods outlined there.

You have been writing new biographies, and have attracted several favorable comments. Fortunately, you haven't ventured into the thorny jungle of WP:BLP.

You asked about proper credit for material that you have written both in WP and in the official Town history. I think the methods outlined in Donating copyrighted materials might answer that question. When you want a copyright Web page to be available for other websites including Wikipedia, you can put a File copyright tags/Free licenses notice. This topic has become very complex over the years, but putting one of the Creative Commons tags on the official Web page ought to suffice. Explaining this to the Commission might turn out to be the hard part. Well, I'm in a hurry this morning, so time to sign off and I'll be watching this page for any further discussions. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I have applied to change the name (very sorry!) and have tried, with the Julian Steele talk page to disclose and will continue to do so when anybody from West Newbury is involved as a subject. Any advice about better disclosure language in this circumstance would be appreciated.


 * It seems from Teahouse like it's simplest to have the Wikipedia article come out before the town article. When crunched to meet the town deadline, I may just skip the Wikipedia version, which takes much, much longer to write up.


 * I would likely enjoy and learn quite a bit from the sessions you describe. Unfortunately, after years of commuting between Washington, DC and Northern Virginia, I am now pretty phobic about driving into Boston. My husband goes to Cambridge about once a week when school is in session, but even that is very nerve wracking. Any such meetings in Portsmouth, NH or points north? Or do they have these things on video or webinars?


 * It will be a long time (if ever) I have a live subject for either Wikipedia or the town stories!!


 * Again, thanks--

West Newbury (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of indenting your reply, the usual method for separating the words of different users. I am not aware of any meetups in New Hampshire or Maine, but then I wouldn't as I know very little about that area. I have sometimes taken a train to attend events of Wikimedia New York City in places pretty far from my home in Manhattan. Boston Area Wikipedians would know; you should contact them through Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Boston or maybe there are other ways.

When you change username, you should put links in each user page to the other. Those user pages should also describe your connection to the History Commission. Mine, you might notice, is pretty long and, umm, messy. Whether you aught to use the name of a real trail or other real thing that might eventually become the subject of a Wikipedia article, I am uncertain. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, . The name change has occurred and it appears that Wikipedia is doing its own search and replace, so I no longer can access West Newbury and prior edits are coming up with the new name. Thus I am unclear about how to do the linking you mention.... Any additional advice there appreciated. Looking at your talk page, it seems your name is in greater danger than my new one, which will likely become notable if and when the Martians hike there! I'll do another name change in that event.


 * I did sign up to follow the Boston Wikipedia and sometimes do brave a bus trip. Riverbend Trail (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I was mistaken; didn't know the user renaming process would be so thorough. You should, however, write a short WP:User page saying what you hope to do in Wikipedia. And maybe some personal background if you like. I took a long bus ride to Boston for the North America Conference and then a subway ride; being an experienced urbanite I only got lost four or five times during my entire visit. Or six or eight, maybe.

Yes, the news stories make me appear to be in danger of going over the bar of WP:Notability, thus exposing me to a possible Wikipedia biography. The danger is slight, however, as almost all the information in the news stories came from interviewing me, making it inadmissible under WP:Autobiography. We frequently encounter people who earnestly lust after Wikibiography, who have difficulty understanding why experienced Wikipedians prefer to shun that particular spotlight if possible. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "West Newbury", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is the name of an organization, in this case a town.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. ''Given your history of constructive edits, i am not simply blocking you, but I expect you to request a change of username promptly. Your username must not be the name of any organization. It could be something like "Jane at West Newbury" which indicates a person associated with an organization. ''  DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,, for telling me about this mistake--I thought I was just using a place name but clearly you are correct, and I am sorry about having made this error. I have applied for a change in name to Riverbend Trail, which I hope will be acceptable. West Newbury (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright on File:Julian Steele and Roland Hayes in West Newbury.jpg
I see that you uploaded File:Julian Steele and Roland Hayes in West Newbury.jpg to commons wth a source designation of "own work". That would mean that you were the photographer back in 1947. Unless this is the case, the file description information on this imnage will need to be changed. That actual photographer should be named if known, and the copyright holder. If the holder is the Historical Society, the society will need to execute a release as described in Donating copyrighted materials and Requesting copyright permission, and send it (if poossibole from an official society email address) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After that email has been sent  should be added to the file description page.

The date of the image is curently given as "16 June 2019". This should be the date that the iamge was created, in this case the date that the photo was taken, presumably some date in 1947.

Please correct these issues. You will understand the need to have historically accurate identification of documents. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you, . The photo in question is a picture I took of an image in the Historical Society (which confusingly is different from the Historical Commission). Because I cannot verify ownership, I am removing the image from the Wikipedia page--should I do more to remove it from the Wikimedia data base and if yes, would you send me a link about it? I will try to pursue your directions about obtaining a release from the Historical Society, but they are not highly organized and if this were to happen, it would likely take a long time.

West Newbury (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. exact reproductions (also known as "slavish copies") of flat (two-dimensional) images are not considered original works, and do not get their own copyrights. The existing copyright, if any, on the original image applies. Such pictures should be treated as copies of the original photo for Wikipedia purposes, and dated with the original date.
 * In the case of a photo taken and apparently published in 1947, under US law the copyright would normally belong to the photographer, unless there was a contract or other document transferring it to someone else, or it was a "work-made-for-hire", in which case the employer would be considered the "author" of the photo. The copyright could last until 2042 (95 years), if it was published with a proper copyright notice, and if the copyright was renewed in 1975 (+/- 1 year). If either of those was not done, the image would now be in the public domain. See Hirtle chart, which also gives the proper templates to use on commons for various situations. If the photo was never published, than copyright would last until 70 years after the death of the author (normally the photographer). The odds that the photo was published without a copyright notice are fairly good, and the odds that the copyright was not renewed are good, sources estimate that fewer than 1 in 10 copyrights were properly renewed during that period. There is a published list of copyright renewals that can be checked, but it would help a lot to know who the original photographer was. Also, was there any copyright notice stamped on the back of the photo, or accompanying its original publication?
 * If the image is still under copyright, a release from the current copyright owner would be needed. This might or might not be the Historical Society. Ownership of a print, even the original print, of a photo does not prove ownership of the copyright.  Since the subject is long dead, the photo might qualify to be used under fair sue if a public-domain status cannot be established. The criteria are at WP:NFCC. As you can see, all this is a bit complaex and requires some research. The questiosn you could best research are:
 * Who was the original photographer, and when did that person die?
 * Where and when was the photo originally published, if it was? Did any notice accompany it?
 * Does the historical society have any documents relating to the ownership of the copyright for the photo?
 * If it was published with a copyright notice, I can and will research the copyright renewals -- i have done that before quite a few times. I can also help to make a case for fair use (if it coems down to that) given the above information.
 * If e can't establish a PD status, we will want to have the image deleted from commons, but there is no huge rush about that. sine it isn't currently in use. The chance of any copyright owner suing the Wikimedia foundation, or you, over this image is, in my opinion, very low.
 * I hope that clarifies things a bit. Please ping me if you respond to this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. My recollection is that the Steele photo is a snapshot with no identifying information, although perhaps the names of the persons in the picture are on the back. I will try to get somebody to let me into the Historical Society building, which may take some time. In the course of getting a new historical marker for Julian Steele I have begun to be in email contact with his daughter and I can ask her if she knows about that photo. I don't know how compelling her recollection would be in terms of evidence, but she is likely a far better source than anyone at the Historical Society would be. Is "publish" a term of art here? I can think of one book that might have it and it's conceivable that it was included in a Historical Society calendar. If so, odds are it would have been done without undertaking the copyright consideration used for Wikipedia. Perhaps better odds are that the photo has just been lying around in a folder in the Historical Society--could it be deemed somehow "published" in those circumstances? I will report any progress....

Forgive me for a couple more questions on the topic:

1) I took (my very own) photos of Frances Keegan Marquis's medals and uploaded them. OK? If no, down they go. 2) Newspapers.com has images of old newspapers and it claims a copyright so I assume use of any images in the papers online is forbidden, even if the newspaper is dated in the 1880s-1910s. Yes? And what if I found an article on Newspapers.com and then went to a library and photographed a newspaper or clipping from that date. I assume still a no--correct?

Again thanks--I learned quite a bit today! West Newbury (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Photos of 3-D objects such as medals do get their own copyright, and the medals themselves are probably using a design old enough to be out of copyright. (If they were US medals, they would be PD as works of the US Federal Government, I think). Those should be OK.
 * Anything published in the US in 1924 or earlier is in the public domain under US law and may be used freely. No copyright notice can change that. Anything later than that could be used if the copyright was not renewed properly, which is not unlikely, but takes work to prove. (Again no modern notice changes that.) Give as much source and publication info as possible, but it is OK if some is "unknown".
 * For copyright purposes, "published" means "made available to the general public, such as by sale, or offer to sell, or by free distribution." Inclusion in a book or a Society calendar would definitely count. Inclusion in a newspaper would also count. Sitting in a folder in the society would not constitute publication, I think, but being displayed as part of a society exhibit would. However then the date of publication would be that of the book, calendar or exhibit, and if this was later than 1964 renewal was automatic.
 * I hope that helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Declaring a COI
A conflict of Interest can be declared on the talk page of the article by using Connected contributor. However, a less formal note on the talk page will normally suffice instead. But honestly, I do not see that writing about the same person for a historical society and for Wikipedia is a CoI, unless there is also some closer connection. It would be good to mention on the talk page of the article, however, to avoid false positives on copyright checks, and in the interest of better transparency. But I think it is at the level of optional, and need not be done if it would expose your identity when you do not want that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Notice, Julian Steele talk page--corrections
, sorry to bother you again. The Julian Steele talk page notice about copyright needs a bit of correction and I don't know how to do it and don't think I'm the one to change it even if I could. First, the organization listed should be the West Newbury Historical Commission, which is a town committee under town bylaws that does town stuff--not the Historical Society, which is a private group that houses items and is separate from the Commission, though we have personnel overlap and are friendly. Second, based on feedback, I added at the bottom of the town Julian Steele story the statement: "First published as Wikipedia article by the same author," with a hyperlink in "Wikipedia article" to Julian Steele. Doing this to a document on the town website required uploading a new file with a new name, so now the correct link is https://www.wnewbury.org/sites/westnewburyma/files/uploads/juliansteelestory2.pdf. From now on, I'll include that added line with all the town stories that present this issue.

And a question--there's another town story coming up about Frances Keegan Marquis. Should I go to Teahouse or somewhere else to provide notice to Wikipedia when that happens (likely February)?

Thanks  West Newbury (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrections made. See these edits for the initial notice plus the correction. If you should upload a similar story to the town website about another article subject, and you are concerned that some wording may be duplicated or close enough to raise a false suspicion of copyright infringement, you need only place Backwards copy on the talk page of the relevant article, filling in the parameters in a similar way to that shown above, correcting the title and url, of course. There is no problem with you doing it, indeed you are the best person to do it, and ther3e is no need to make a general announcement at the teahouse or elsewhere.
 * However, if the article has been sufficiently rewritten that there is no significant overlap of language, ther is no nee to use the "Backwards copy" template. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

, thank you, will do. And I did receive notice that the name change was accepted. Riverbend Trail (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Accidental rollback
Just wanted to apologise for my misclick at the Teahouse. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 15:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

November 2022
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Julian Steele, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sumanuil.  (talk to me) 22:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks--not so fluent in this & advice appreciated Riverbend Trail (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)