User talk:Uris/27 conversations

Canadian colleges in Residental college
Uris, you pulled out the names of the three Canadian residential colleges in the Residential college article. I'm the one that put those names in there. I respectfully disagree with your change. I'm going to revert your change, but I've opened up a topic in Talk:Residential_college to discuss the issue if you wish.

Cheers, JDLH | Talk 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Matter resolved through the article's talk page. –Uris 15:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Commons
Hi Uris. I noticed you upload a lot of good photos here. You might want to put them on the Commons instead. That's a project specifically for free pictures, so not every picture has to be used in an article here on Wikipedia. Also, pictures there can be used on other Wikimedia projects, for example the other language Wikipedias. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 01:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been on the Commons for quite some time, but I do need to upload more images there. Yesterday I started with the University of Virginia public domain images, and I will upload the New York City PD images soon. –Uris 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

licensing conditions
I didn't see that user:Nv8200p is an admin, who actually reviewed the terms of licensing for Image:UVa Marching Band.jpg. Apologies. Jim Apple 15:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What talk pages are for
DO NOT REMOVE MY COMMENTS FROM TALK PAGES. That's not how talk pages work. Because you think something is petty is not a good enough reason to delete my comments. Jim Apple 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You addressed me, not the article content. I clean that talk page regularly, and most talk pages are cleaned regularly.  That is, in fact, the way talk pages work. –Uris 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I addressed both you and page content. Furthermore, when talk pages are cleaned, things are put in archive, not just deleted. Jim Apple 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been cleaning content pages' talk page for years, and never have I seen anything archived. But I think you did address page content later in the discussion, so I'll replace it. -Uris 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See talk:Tutankhamun or Talk:George W. Bush for examples. Jim Apple 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

UVa/UNC
Uris: you and I swapped edits on the South's Oldest Rivalry page. I thought I'd touch base with you very quickly - I hope this is the proper way to do so.

Although I can understand the pride in the matter (and this coming from a UVa grad bred in North Carolina), I am always a little thrown by the claim. Accordingly, to my mind it would be best to include more facts rather than fewer (all the while making it clear, perhaps, that whatever the facts are, the UVA-UNC game is known to many people as the oldest southern rivalry). If this is a bit of ESPN-generated promotion, perhaps a little light should be shed on it.

For instance, as I noted, UVa played both Duke and Wake Forest, current conference rivals, prior to playing UNC. Also, as noted, Auburn-Georgia played before UVa and UNC played. Also, Vanderbilt/Tennessee, Duke/WF, UNC/WF, and Duke/UNC were all first played prior to the UVa/UNC game, and some of them had been played several times prior the first UVa/UNC game. All of this should cast at least some doubt on the claim. Did you check whether there is any southern rivalry that has played continuously since before 1930? Or is that just a metric to break the "tie" between AU/Ga and UNC/UVA?

It strikes me that a rivalry is sort of like obscenity - you know it when you see it. So, I don't worry too much about Duke or Wake (although they still hang around in my head). But, the oldest criteria seems very unclear. If UVa/UNC was to be canceled next year for some reason, would Auburn-Georgia, if not cancelled, become the oldest southern rivalry? Also, being the rivalry that has played the most games cannot be the answer, in light of the possibility that AU/UGa would pass UVA/UNC via SEC championship games and/or the possibility that two games tied in the rankings would change positions through the course of a college football season. In light of those curiosities, it strikes me that the criteria for the Oldest Southern Rivalry might have been selected ex post in order to explain why the UVA/UNC game met the test, and not vice versa as you'd expect.

I press the issue only because Wikipedia can be a source to resolve disputes. In such cases, it seems to me, the more facts (in this case, I relied on the college football history warehouse) the better - let the reader interpret.

Cka3n 08:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most would say that it's the combination of games played and continuous years that makes a rivalry old... and perhaps the first game played matters, but not so much. Look at UVa-WF, for instance.  The teams have only played 45 times!  Not notable at all, IMO.  As far as including information about all sorts of different games on this page, it exists to discuss the game called the "South's Oldest Rivalry" (which isn't just a statement about its age but the actual name given to the game, much like "Big Game" or the "Iron Bowl") and my intent in comparing it to the Army-Navy Game and the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry when I created the page was only that those are other notable games readers might have heard of for the series to be contrasted with.  There is probably no other rivalry that is noteworthy enough to get a prime mention on the page, IMO, unless there's a rivalry that has been played more times and longer continuously than Army-Navy or Deep South's Oldest. The only one I know of going back before 1930 is UNC-Duke, but that has been played 18 times less than the South's Oldest so it doesn't seem as noteworthy as Army-Navy and Deep South's Oldest. Maybe UNC-Duke should be mentioned in some way, however. –Uris 13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on your response, I think maybe the page would be better served if it made clear that the UVa-UNC rivalry "was known as the South's Oldest Rivalry". 18 times is a lot, but UNC-Duke goes continuously back much further than UVa/UNC, is definitely a rivalry game (e.g., a coach can make a season at Duke by beating UNC often).  Since I think we are in agreement that what makes UVA/UNC the oldest rivalry is not that it is undisputably the oldest or even that there is any set of easy criteria by which it is the oldest, but that it is called the oldest, I think wikipedia should reflect that (or should at least include the facts which make clear).


 * All that said, then, I think two changes should be made: 1) I think the intro (which now reads "The South's Oldest Rivalry, also known as the Oldest Rivalry in the South, is the annual football game between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia that has been played every year since 1919, making it the oldest continuous rivalry in the southern United States.  The 2005 meeting marked the 110th edition of the game, four more than the Army-Navy Game ...") should read "The annual football game between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia is known as The South's Oldest Rivalry (and as the Oldest Rivalry in the South).  The 2005 meeting marked the 110th edition of the game, played every year since 1919, four more ... ."  2) I think that a reference to the UNC/Duke game should be mentioned which sets forth when they first played, how many times they played, and when they have played continuously since.  If these changes sound okay to you, I can make them.


 * By the way, I didn't check, but do you know whether any small school southern rivalries date back further? If so, we should probably mention them, at least as an aside.  Cka3n 14:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your changes seem okay, but note that UNC-Duke goes back continuously to only 1922. (You referred to its continuity as going back further than UVa/UNC, perhaps you meant Army-Navy.)  As for small schools, I don't mind that either as long as it doesn't make the page cluttered that might be nice.  I think there is at least one that goes back further continuously, I'll try to remember... –Uris 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Hampden-Sydney College and Randolph-Macon College (Division III) have played 111 times, one more than UVa-UNC. The series was first played in 1893, but I can't seem to find information on how many consecutive years for which they have renewed the series. Just in case, I'll update the page to say 1-A. –Uris 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Actually now that I look at it more, that first change may put too many words in the intro before introducing the bold-faced encyclopedia entry (South's Oldest Rivalry). –Uris 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for putting all that effort it - I think it paid off. Cka3n 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

College of William and Mary
There's a marble slab on the side of the Wren building titled "The Priorities of the College", and the text in that section is more or less a summary. Given that, I think perhaps it should stay with the "priorities" wording? I thought it was really odd myself until I saw the plaque. -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  16:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay. Sorry, I didn't know that... yeah, I suppose we should probably change it back then. –Uris 16:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Faulkner, Public Ivy, etc.
Listen, I really really really really am not trying to just be a pain in the ass. I also really want the Faulkner thing to stay, both at U.Va. and at Public Ivies; I just want it to stay with a degree of verifiability. I think it would go a long way to cementing the Public Ivies page (which is less so now, but was certainly on shaky ground for a long while, getting VfD'd, AfD'd, what have you), and think it'd be appropriate on the U.Va. page too. I'm doing it for the love of the Wiki. Yes, that's pretty nerdy. But I'm pretty sure you know where I'm coming from. JDoorjam 03:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, no worries... I'll see what I can scrounge up on that too. –Uris 03:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Talk:Vin Diesel
If you will check the history on the Vin Diesel article, I added the original link to the "fact" generator on October 6th, 2005. I am frankly surprised and appalled to be accused of adding commercialism to Wikipedia. You may view my full response on the link in the title above.


 * My last comment there was on July 10, 2005. If you added a link on October 6, 2005, I haven't accused you of anything. However, the link you added is not very informative and should be removed. I won't remove it though, so you don't need to defend yourself here. –Uris 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NYC article- top photo
Regarding photos on the New York City article, Jleon switched the top photo several weeks ago, with discussion on the talk page. I'm open to changing it again, but feel the top photo is important enough to merit discussion first on the talk page. Thanks, (and thanks for your many contributions to the NYC-related articles). &mdash;--Aude (talk | contribs) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in NYC
Hello Omnibus - Your NYC photos are fantastic. One of them is up on the Transportation in New York City sub article, which has really come along and has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 03:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ho, O
I notice that you just took a big bite out of the Gutzon Borglum article. Which is, I suspect, a good thing. i have just picked up - a week or so ago - a biography on Borglum that suggests that it will present the real man, warts and all, but in a NPOV perspective. As I read it I might [or might not, depending on what I find] add back some of those words, or at least their sentiment - as seems appropriate, as well as a citation. The article as a whole is lacking in references and I might make that a priority too. Life is supposed to be fun. Carptrash 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed just one quote from the article that had been tagged for citation since July 20, nothing more. The two paragraphs were merged with no other editing. Omnibus 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Dragon
I was there today!!! It's a great closeup of the dragon.

Litoralis 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

US Collaboration of the week
You have voted for Transportation in New York City on WP:USCOTW. It was selected to be this week's winner. You are invited to contribute to improve Transportation in New York City in any way you can. Cmadler 13:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style
Please check out the disambiguation page style manual for the use of wikilinks in disambiguation pages. -Acjelen 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty
Are you a Libertarian, either politically or of personal philosophy? The beliefs you listed on your user page would seem to indicate it. I'm would consider myself mostly Libertarian, so I was just wondering. FedEx Pope 03:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I believe in a more limited government, both socially and economically, but I feel that government does has a significant role to play in our daily lives (just not as expensive a role as it plays today). Whether you'd call me a Libertarian or not is up to the observer. I have Libertarian leanings but do not necessarily identify with the Libertarian Party. They are far too ideological, and my views I consider more practical. As two examples, I believe drug prohibition is a very good thing for worker productivity and that free trade is a very bad idea for the United States at this time. Ross Perot was right about that, the Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians were all dead wrong. (Our record trade deficit has grown exponentially since Perot made his stand in the 1992 election. It was $39 billion when Perot said it would balloon because of NAFTA and now it is $726 billion and still rising.) We could raise GDP immediately and permanently by leaving free trade agreements in the dust. Uris 15:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

... a continuation of this conversation with another user is found here. Uris 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool picture of City Hall
Nice job. Tfine80 18:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Country template
You could use a sanbox for the template and copy the actual implementations for various countries into another sandbox. There is no need to test on an in service template. --Martyman- (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:FreedomTower2.jpg
Done. Uris 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Shani Davis pic
Thanks for taking time to cleanup Shani Davis article. Is there a better pic we can use - current version is a bit unflattering. Best regards, etc... 16 February 2006


 * The one you consider unflattering is right after he won a World Championship I think, but I've replaced it with an action pic of him speed skating. Hope you like it better!  Uris 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that
I have had permission from Jimbo Wales to delete the images. If you upload them I will ask another admin to block you for being disruptive. I will also do a straight deletion of the image(s). - Ta bu shi da yu 21:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, finally some semblance of an explanation for blind deletions! As I figured... the squeeky wheel gets the oil. Thanks for taking the time to respond to someone, finally. Good luck with making friends on Wikipedia, you have an uphill climb if you are going to continue to behave this way. All we Wikipedians expect is some civility and rationale for deleting images or making other wholesale changes. (Of course, you still haven't given any rationale other than "I had permission from this other guy", so I can only assume you don't actually know what you are doing.) Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has to take copyright and fair use issues very seriously. The problem of TIME covers was discussed at a high level and it was decided that we can live without them for now. Even in the absence of a specific discussion, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution. It would be a mistake for you to create additional work for admins by uploading additional TIME covers or re-uploading deleted ones. And please assume good faith. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That all sounds good and well, but what needed to happen was to remove the Time-cover copyright tag, and to remove images from articles far before placing them up for deletion, much less speedy deletion. Furthermore, if this was discussed at a high level, Ta bu shi da yu needs to discuss or link to that in his changes instead of saying "sorry this isn't fair use" and then not responding to the throngs of people upset that the various articles they are familiar with have been severely deprecated. If he has been around here for any time at all, and he has, Ta bu shi da yu should have known better than to carry out a new policy in this matter. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I seem unfriendly, I have to make myself very clear on this matter however. We frown on fair use, and if at all possible we don't want it. As I have said to a few editors, please feel free to discuss this issue with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees or Jimbo Wales if you think that I have been unfair in my deletions. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough... just remember in the future to explain yourself when making edits. Most Wikipedians don't like radical changes with little or no explanation/rationale, as I'm sure you know by now. Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of this. I don't mind being the bad guy here: if editors want to know why I deleted images then they should be reading fair use, simple as that. If they don't understand fair use, then they shouldn't be using the fair use tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the same tolkien, if you don't understand the process we use for deleting fair use images, you should not have taken it upon yourself to do it "your way" instead of the Wikipedia way. Furthermore, it appears that at least some of the images you deleted were clearly fair use. (You admitted to this in the Request For Comment.) Uris [[Image:Flag_of_New_York_City.svg|18px]] 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can find this image, I'll upload it myself - it's cleary fair use to illustrate the person the article is about.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2
I noticed you posted something on Ta's talk page, so I'd invite you to comment here. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of content is not a free pass to violate copyright...
In your most recent set of comments on Requests_for_comment/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_2 you seem to imply that it is acceptable for us under fair use to republish the copyrighted works of others, simply because we can not find a free illustration nor could we be expected to make one (because the subject is dead, for example). If this is actually your view, you are mistaken. We do not have a fundimental right to have our articles illustrated. Fair use is carefully tailored to prevent the abuse of copyright from suppressing the ability of the public to discuss copyrighted works. The mere possibility of a free replacement is a strong sign that there is little to no reasonable claim of fair use possible, after all are we really discussing the copyrighted work if it could be directly replaced with some other work? When a free image exists, we simply have no excuse under the goals of the project, nor under in the eyes of copyright law. --Gmaxwell 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is your view of fair use, but it is not Time Warner's view of fair use. And, frankly, their's should matter more than yours when using their copyrighted images. Uris I ♥ NY 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not my personal view, nor is it at odds with Time Warner's. In any case, the freedom of the content on this site is a concern of the project and not time warners. --Gmaxwell 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The freedom of Time Warner's content on this site should be a concern of Time Warner's first and foremost (and incidently, it's been pointed out throughout this discussion that they hold that fair use allows thumbnails of all of their TIME covers). Perhaps they are flatly wrong about Fair Use and that is not subject to interpretation, and some Wikipedians are interpreting their more liberal use of "Fair Use" as "use by permission" but it isn't limited to this site, nor to non-commercial use, and it looks as though they phrased it "Fair Use allows..."  Uris ♥  15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where they said that all possible uses of cover thumbnails are fair use? To me it seems like they were claiming the uses which we don't dispute (like the user of the covers on TIME) would be fair use. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I think you are probably reading more into it than was said. --Gmaxwell 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert R. Young
I've run out of interest in TBSDY's RfC, but the reference to Robert R. Young intrigued me. Corporate moguls of early 20th century are probably the hardest to get free photos of, but I'm thinking that the Chesapeake&Ohio Historical Society might be worth writing to, or even visiting in person, and seeing if you can wheedle a CC-licensed pic out of them. They would have some motivation to offer up just one, as good publicity, and they could identify one where the copyright holder was known. Another possibility is the present-day C&O company. Other WPians nearby to the physical location could be helpful too, maybe there's even one who already belongs to the society and can pitch the idea to them. Stan 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Revoking PD
Regarding, I don't think one can legally revoke a public domain gift. If that is true, it should be noted on your image pages that they are in the public domain. Jim Apple 22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was told that copyright holders can't legally give their work to the public domain... so I wanted to be unambiguous. The BSD license was chosen because it is closer to the public domain than the GFDL (standard Wikipedia license).


 * If the public domain is legally possible, it is also revocable at will. So I don't think there's any legal problem either way with saying all my images are BSD licensed starting now, having received no consideration. Uris &#9829;  23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Miami_Intermodal_Center.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Miami_Intermodal_Center.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:FreedomTower3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FreedomTower3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)