User talk:Jessemonroy650: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:19, 6 August 2006

Fraser Gold Rush map thing

Hi; I'd love to find/scan a map. I have a vintage one which would be public-domain/scannable but the book layout splits the map on the binding; I'll have to find an unbound original. Ideally the map would show some of the major "bars" and trails, rather than the modern one; but yeah, at least a location map. this article was written as a near-stub and I haven't been back to it in a while; I was waiting until I got my butt to work on the Fraser Canyon War, David Spintlum and related bio articles, but I haven't found my focus for that yet.Skookum1 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood City map

Hi there, this is about Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg, the map that you uploaded for the article on Redwood City, California. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain. Dr Zak 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The image is from the City of Redwood City part of a 1969 environmental impact report. Also, it appears I have misread the copyrights [Wikipedia:Copyright#U.S._government_photographs]. I have also mislabeled the copyright.

I'm correcting it now and the correction should clear any questions. If any questions remain, then I would consider it appropriate to remove the image until the matter is settled. I'm adding details to the image so you might consider it. If you feel inappropriate, then we should find a way to deal with this as the image (I believe) is fair use.

On the other matter concerning MSG, I'm not in the mood for a fight. I will let the matter sit until Monday or Tuesday.

--meatclerk 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information the map was drawn from is public, however, the artwork itself is eminently copyrightable. Fair use wouldn't pull because we are using the whole of the map - as a map. May I point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Dr Zak 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... My poor choice of words - quoting "fair use" is not the same as fair use. In any case, I believe the artwork is in the PD and the new tag { { PD-ineligible } } is more appropriate.

In any case, per 'Possibly Unfree Unimages': "Images are listed here for 14 days before they are processed." So, let's let it rest and I'll be back on it in a few days... possible Thursday. In the meantime I will investigate your suggestion.

--meatclerk 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessemonroy,

I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup queue

Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer. It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately). The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category. The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix. Good work! --Robth^Talk 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CLICK HERE TO ADD COMMENT

Here for you convience.

Change the title Blank Comment (below)
Remove the <nowiki></nowiki>
Enter your comments below that.

==Blank Comment==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
-==Blank 1==
+== Cleanup queue ==
+Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer.  It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately).  The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category.   The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix.  Good work! --[[User:Robth|Robth]]<sup>[[User Talk:Robth|Talk]]</sup> 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 ==CLICK HERE TO ADD COMMENT==
 Here for you convience.
-# Copy one of the blanks below.
+# Change the title '''Blank Comment''' (below)
+# Remove the <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki></nowiki>
-# Place copy above this section title.
+# Enter your comments below that.
-# Change the title
-# Enter your comments.
-<nowiki>==Blank 3==</nowiki>
+<nowiki>==Blank Comment==</nowiki>
-<nowiki>==Blank 4==</nowiki>
-== Cleanup queue ==
-Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer.  It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately).  The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category.   The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix.  Good work! --[[User:Robth|Robth]]<sup>[[User Talk:Robth|Talk]]</sup> 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)