User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NYScholar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

no need to reply.. change this page to redirect

.. no need to reply to this; sorry for putting it here.. just wanna say thanks for your patience with WP:GAC; I think people have been accidentally talking around each other..
PLUS if you don't want messages here, you can change this page (your talk page) to a redirect to your user page. Then no one (such as myself ;-) ) can post anything here..
.. no need to reply! Good luck with your real-life stuff! If I have time, I might edit Harold Pinter to help it pass GAC.. but I am busy too... -- Ling.Nut 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. Now I really do have to go do the other work! --NYScholar 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette

I could not access your talk page, so I am leaving this message here. Please do not post review tags at GAC for other editors. I was not reviewing Harold Pinter for GAC. I was only offering comments. Other editors had asked for my assistance, so I was trying to help out. I am sorry if there was any confusion on that point. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [just saw this on my user page; archived it here today. --NYScholar 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

MoSElement Template

Hello there. I notice that you've used the {{MoSElement}} template on the talk page for Harold Pinter. I'm glad to see that it's useful for you, and I'm eager to get it out into the project. However, one editor has raised an objection to its very existence, and others have suggested it needs some tweaking before widespread use.

Still, I'm interested to see how it works when used in the real Wikipedia world, so I'll propose that we let it go and see what happens. I hope you're willing to make this a beta-test for the template and its effect on the editing process. (It might help to stifle debate about the optional elements, or it might make them more pronounced.) Any thoughts are appreciated. Just thought you should know about the buzz surrounding it. – Scartol · Talk 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. This particular template is useful for that particular article's talk page; it helps to respond to questions raised about the very elements that the template refers to. That is why I used it there. I'm not sure what "a beta-test for the template and its effect on the editing process" amounts to, but, if others are willing, I'd like to use it on that particular talk page as a aid. In general, where elements of style have been very carefully selected from Wikipedia's various (sometimes conflicting) options, I think the MoSElements template can be useful for talk pages relating to particular articles. It is a quick way of indicating what the "prevailing format" of an article is, especially with regard to citation and bibliography style format, but with the other items as well. (The descriptive terms in instructions for the template regarding categories (the "elements" included in it) confused me at first, but it's simple enough to master after a few minutes, I think.) Thanks again. (I'm not logged on most of the time, but I've been working on and off on editing sections of that particular article re: its "good article" review, so I noticed this comment. I will archive this discussion probably late tonight. I leave this here so you can see it for the time being.) --NYScholar 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment nails precisely what I hopes to achieve by making the template. I suppose I used an excessively wordy method of saying: I want to see if the page implodes with bickering (as some have suggested) as a result of the template. If not, I'll be much more confident putting it out there. Thanks again. (If you have any suggestions on how to clean up the syntax of the docs, I'm all ears.) – Scartol · Talk 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation style format that I am using in that article--MLA Style Manual format--allows for both in-text parenthetical citations and footnotes, but your "elements" in the template do not enable me to indicate that. (My recent comments toward the bottom of the talk page (Talk:Harold Pinter) explain and link to relevant section that I added to MLA Style Manual so that people will realize this possibility (and that it is not an "inconsistency" but part of the style format for citations and bibliography.) It would be most helpful (and useful for other users/editors) if the template would enable a way to indicate this format (which people not familiar with it think is mixing formats when it is not). MLA Style is not Harvard referencing; it is similar but different (more streamlined and allows use of content and bibliographical footnotes/endnotes). --NYScholar 23:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Geez, you think I would have thought of that – I cover MLA style with my 10th graders every freakin' year! The reason I have only the three citation styles on the template is because each of those pages lists it as "one of three citation styles recommended for Wikipedia." But it makes sense to me to add a fourth option for straight-up MLA parens. Thanks for the note. – Scartol · Talk 01:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MLA Style Manual

Re your edits to MLA Style Manual regarding a work's original date of publication (a relatively minor point, all things considered, but since there is substantive disagreement, I thought I'd spell out my case)—

I think there's some confusion here about what "original date of publication" means. Compare these two pairs of references:

Crane, Stephen. The Red Badge of Courage: An Episode of the American Civil War. 1895. Ed. Fredson Bowers. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1975. [This one is taken right from the Handbook.]

---. The Red Badge of Courage. 1895. Ed. Donald Pizer. 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 1994.

Carson, Robert C., James N. Butcher, and Susan Mineka. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. 11th ed. Boston: Allyn, 2000.

Coleman, James C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. 4th ed. Glenview: Scott, 1972.

The last two are two editions of the same textbook (Carson, Butcher, and Mineka xiii) but they certainly don't share the same "original publication date" in the way that the two editions of Red Badge of Courage do. The Crane volumes are nearly entirely comprised of text lifted directly from the 1895 publication of the book, while the connection between the 11th edition of a textbook and the 4th edition (or between the 6th edition of the Handbook and the 1st) is severely attenuated.

Also note that none of the examples in the Handbook's (I don't own the Manual) section 5.6.14 (A Book Published in a Second or Subsequent Edition) includes a previous date. For example:

Bondanella, Peter. Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present. 3rd ed. New York: Continuum, 2001.

--zenohockey 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates of first editions (first publication) are given when one wants readers to know the original date of publication: In a note it appears with the semi-colon preceding the place of publication (within parentheses); in a bibliographical entry it does appear set off by periods. See MLA Style Manual#Works cited, where I have added the relevant entries. It is important to know that the first edition of The MLA Style Manual has as its primary author (first listed) Walter S. Achtert. [....] Gibaldi revised it and became sole author (otherwise Achtert would have received credit--perhaps he still should, since the first edition, which he co-wrote, is the basis for the revised 2nd ed)--and the title expanded. [According to the MLA (as cited more recently on my talk page by Achtert's brother, who points out that he is still alive), Achtert was "not involved" in the "preparation" of the 1998 ed.] By the way, I had an editorial interpolation in the "Works cited" (in MLA format it should be "Works Cited," but Wikipedia MoS headings don't capitalize all the words in a heading) stating that the "Works cited" illustrates how entries are constructed; that is what I meant. There actually was no "Works cited" section in that article at all until I added it. In order for it to include all the works cited (from the lead on), it needs the entries that I have added to it more recently. [I will be archiving this exchange in the near future. I am mostly logged off Wikipedia doing other work, and I really don't want to be distracted by minor editing issues. I am moving the pertinent parts of this exchange to the talk page of the relevant article, where others need to consult it. Please scroll up and read my N.B. section. Thanks. --NYScholar 07:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC) [struck out error. See more recent discuss "Email?" and related more current talk page comment being archived later. --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)] [strike out and updated due to Achtert's brother's comment on my talk page on 5 December 2007. --NYScholar (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)] [deleted erroneous clause and replaced with ellipsis, as per WP:BLP. --NYScholar (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Previous discussion re: Image:Nobel in Literature.jpg

[This image is marked for deletion; once its deleted, along with it will go the talk page: Here is what I posted on it over a year ago and recent updated comment due to ongoing problems w/ the image:]

<<

The statement that "The copyright holder of this file, the Nobel Foundation, allows anyone to use it for any purpose" is false and contradicted by statements to the contrary in its official copyright notices concerning these trademarked and copyrighted images. The copyright notices are posted prominently on its site. See talk page of Nobel Prize.--NYScholar 09:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See the discussions in the talk pages for Nobel Prize and for the Nobel Prize image linked in that article. The Nobel Foundation copyright notice is prominently linked in the webpages for every medal, including this one. Go to Nobel Prize (Nobel Foundation) official website and click on "copyright" notice at the foot of the page(s).

Permission in writing is required for:

Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se.

If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated. (italics and bold added)

Any permission "granted" is not in advance but rather after a written requests and it is not automatic but conditional, according to the copyright notice on the official website of the Nobel Foundation. Note that the image of the Nobel medal and each ("a") Nobel medal (including one in each of the fields) is both copyrighted and trademarked. --NYScholar 21:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

N.B.: A statement posted that User:Nkcs posts in "file history" on the image page for this image (Nobel in Literature.jpg)is false and misleading: "The copyright holder of this file, the Nobel Foundation, allows anyone to use it for any purpose" (italics added). The Noble Foundation copyright notice (linked in that image's "Summary") explicitly restricts use of images and designs of the Nobel Medal (any Nobel Medal, the medals in all fields). See the copyright policy. The quoted statement claiming that the Nobel Foundation permits its use for "any purpose" is completely false and misleading. See the talk page of Nobel Prize and talk pages of other Nobel Medal images posted in Wikipedia and in Wikipedia Commons (where they have been deleted) for further discussion about this and related matters. Restrictions are stated in the Nobel Foundation Copyright Notice ; Here is direct link to it: Copyright Notice, with additional link to PDF with "detailed information about Terms and Conditions of Use". --NYScholar 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the old summary was reverted, the information in it is still misleading and in some cases false (as stated above). See previous links given and this link to the Nobel Foundation's own webpage for the Nobel Prize in Literature Medal.

Note the Nobel Foundation's own caption: "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation"; both the registered and the copyright (®©) symbols are required in captions for images/photographs of such Nobel Medals taken from its website (and they are not supposed to be altered); I had already added the symbols, but they were deleted through the reversion back to less accurate single reference only to "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation," which is really only for text and images/photographs that are its properties, not the designs and trademarks (which are registered as well as copyrighted). The notice "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 2006" at the bottom of the Nobel Foundation webpage is primarily for its full text on that page (including its image/photograph), not for the registered trademark. Both its caption/notice "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" and the website's images/photographs of it thus are to be indicated by others as "®© The Nobel Foundation" (as it explicitly requires when granting permission to use them). Wikipedia's image page for this Nobel Prize in Literature Medal is, therefore, still inaccurate and misleading. The Nobel Foundation does not allow "anyone to use [the Nobel Prize in Literature Medal or any of its Nobel Medals] for any purpose", as stated in this image page's "File History"; to the contrary, the Nobel Foundation (copyright notice) pointedly and specifically restricts their uses by others (to illustrating articles about the Nobel Prize, Alfred Nobel, and individual Nobel Laureates) and requires "permission in writing" for any such acceptable uses.

The Fair Use tag on the image page points out the most likely potential problems re: both copyright and trademark. These problems are in direct conflict with the statement re: "any use" being permitted in the File History on the image page. The reversion does not make that statement any more accurate; it just misleadingly indicates that the File History statement is accurate when it is not. For more information, go to Nobel Prizes: Medals on its site, where each image/photograph of each medal is captioned with the same statement "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation." There is no excuse or rationale for omitting the symbols or this fact on the image page itself. (It is appropriate that the caption re: the design being registered and copyrighted (®© the Nobel Foundation) shows up when one moves a mouse cursor over the image as it has been added to some articles, however.) ---NYScholar 09:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Over a year has gone by, and this image still does not have a proper fair use rationale (if one is possible, which I doubt). --NYScholar 09:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC) >>

User talk:CoolKid1993

Just wanted to clear something up. I saw your reply at User talk:CoolKid1993#Nobel prize at the top of the infobox and was unsure if you were replying to me, to CoolKid1993 or both of us. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied there via threading. [Only one signature was related to the comments that I was responding to; they appeared to come from you (CambridgeBayWeather).] --NYScholar 00:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion. I was not concerned as to the .svg or .png beeing better but the use of any uniformative/decorative icon being used in that manner. Please see Talk:Al Gore#Nobel prize icon at top of box and Talk:Al Gore#The Nobel Peace Prize icon revert war for more on this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I do not have time to get involved in this matter any further. The icon is used throughout many of the articles in Wikipedia about Nobel Prize winners. I do not think it is appropriate for you to delete it. It is not a "decorative" icon. Since the Nobel Prize is universally considered the most prestigious prize in the world, it is appropriate to have in these infoboxes about individuals. It is the highest honor that they have received. I copy these kinds of exchanges to the appropriate talk pages of articles that they concern and/or archive them. Please do not add further comments here. (Scroll up to "N.B."; thank you.) --NYScholar 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are bucking consensus: see

: "File links". It is inappropriate to delete the image from all of these infoboxes where it is appropriately linked already. --NYScholar 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[Updated. --NYScholar 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

Nobel Prize image

I removed it. I didn't do so at first because of the edit-warring over it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Please know that if the Nobel Foundation does give written permission for the use of the photograph (Anubis3's photograph) in Wikipedia, then, I believe, it would be fine to include it in an article about the Nobel Peace Prize or in Nobel Foundation's infobox (if there were one) or in Norman Angell (since it is a photograph of his medal according to Anubis3) with an appropriate caption "Original design R C [in circles] The Nobel Foundation" as required. (Once written permission is received to feature an image of the Nobel medal or of Nobel medals in Wikipedia articles about the medals, the prizes, the Foundation, or Alfred Nobel, then it could be featured followed by the requisite captions. If written permission is denied, then it cannot be used in Wikipedia articles.) --NYScholar 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Again, my apologies for not deleting it at first. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WIKIHOLISM:THERE IS A CURE

Little too much time on your hands lately? Need to get out more? See:WP:Wikiholic Lol ;-) ...Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict: wouldn't you know it!)

Anubis3: I am taking your comment with the humor that it is intended (I think). :-) I think that if you were to get permission to post your image in writing from the Nobel Foundation (and perhaps if needed the Imperial War Museum), then an appropriate place to put an image (without all the black as Panda suggests) is possibly in Norman Angell in an section that one could create for that article on his Nobel Peace Prize; or perhaps in Nobel Peace Prize in a section about its history, where one would be illustrating the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (see the guidelines for illustrations/images in Wikipedia). I got involved in this as an extension of my concerns about questionable images that make currently "good articles" in Wikipedia lose their status as "good articles".

Please note: I have nothing personally against you or your image; but I am concerned about such an image staying in Wikipedia and being inserted inappropriately in other articles too and thus leading to the articles losing their current "good article" status because of breaches of the "images" policy in "good articles" criteria. The image could use a detailed fair use rationale for each of its uses, like any other "derivative work" (image) that is potentially deemed to include Wikipedia:Non-free content.

[Moved: Please clarify whether your image is a photograph that you took in the Imperial War Museum or a scan or photograph of an already-published photograph of the medal on exhibit.]

I have been dealing with this problem relating to Nobel Prize images for over a year and a half; the history is in my archived talk pages.

My "N.B." indicates that I have other things to do, and I will be doing them. Thanks for the bit of humor.

Now, I will be logging out of Wikipedia, following your implied advice above. I actually have "no time on my hands!" (and I'm starving!!) (I'll be archiving this exchange later and updating my notice ("N.B.") --NYScholar 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)'

Replaceable fair use Image:Antonia_Fraser_by_Sue_Greenhill.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Antonia_Fraser_by_Sue_Greenhill.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 06:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel medal

I was in Appleton Tower in Edinburgh for a scientific conference and did not return to the site. David.Monniaux 12:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for replying. Just curious: In your experience, was the case in which the medal was located as "dusty" and "ignored" as that described by the quotation by JHeald?

I've been working on trying to provide more information in your original description/license, etc. for that image page, including a "fair use rationale" since you "deemed" the image "fair use." Could you look over the current image page and see if there is anything that you would like to change, revise, add, correct, etc.? After your first uploaded your image in 2005, two other users edited your image and re-uploaded it more recently (last time March 2007). Thanks again. --NYScholar 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The case certainly was not a prominent display. It sits in a large hall. I went browsing the display during a conference break, saw a display on a famous local scientist, and was astonished to see the Nobel medal. David.Monniaux 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply as well. When you have time, perhaps you can take a look at the current image page. If you have comments about the image, please make them on the current talk page of the image for the benefit of others reading it. Again, thank you for your assistance. (I will archive this exchange. I'm logging out of Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel prize images

I do remember a specific situation regarding that image. I'm not sure of the specifics, or what I can say about it, but I'll get back to you ASAP. Ral315 » 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an OTRS request regarding this image (ticket #2006092110007177). The Nobel Foundation didn't appear to have any problem with us using the 200x200 resized version. I don't think that means Wikipedia has rights to use it any way we want to, but I do take that to mean that we can use a straight-up claim of fair use, which I think is defensible in Nobel Prize. Since they weren't too concerned about the image, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth, Panda should not have e-mailed the Nobel Foundation; that's really something that should be handled within the Wikimedia Foundation, if at all. Ral315 » 11:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I did provide a "working" "fair use rationale" for the image for general reference with that possibility in mind. If the Nobel Foundation has already been contacted in writing and responded in writing, it would be helpful to cite that correspondence in the image page, explaining for those who do not know what "OTRS" stands for (with a link to numbered the "ticket" item) [if that is Wikipedia procedure (I don't know)]. I will archive this exchange a bit later. [corr.] --NYScholar 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:OTRS for those who need it. Thanks again. --NYScholar 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [Also copied the above exchange to talk pages of relevant disputed images. --NYScholar 06:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BakerRossHaroldPinter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BakerRossHaroldPinter.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[Updated the link to the article page in the fair use rationale; it had been split off from main article. --NYScholar 00:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)]

[For historical purposes, next sec. copied from my comments on talk page of User:Shell Kinney; archived here. --NYScholar 16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

Images based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) Medals

Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg

I had just agreed with your changes, when along came the PD-US-license reverter again. Could you please investigate the most recent editing change; again, it creates problems. It is not accurate. The image that User:David.Monniaux created (his photograph) is published in Wikipedia in 2005 (originally); the PD license is misleading. It is also unnecessary. The image is claimed to be within "fair use"; please see my reply to you in the image page. Thank you. --NYScholar 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For the meantime, I undid the revision; but I remain open to your replies. (If an appropriate license tag (if even necessary) is found that does not create inconsistencies and related problems of perception, I think that would be good to have. One really does not want to confuse inexperienced Wikipedia users who might come along in the future and misunderstand what can be done w/ this image on Wikipedia and elsewhere.) --NYScholar 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG is the other image, where similar problems in licensing are occurring; in dispute. Thank you for any assistance that you might be able to provide. --NYScholar 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have looked more closely at the tag. Since the medal design was published in 1902 and has not changed, it appears that US law considers this to be public domain - the image should be tagged as such. There is also an explanation of why the use of the logo also meets fair-use rationale. You have been on about these images for a year and have yet to find anyone who agrees with your interpretation of the law; perhaps its time to move on? Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you did look at the tag. It is not accurate to say that I "have yet to find anyone who agrees with [my] intepretation of the law"; prior discussions have been inconclusive because some people have agreed with it and some people haven't. Please be more careful and examine the previous discussion (it is extensive); your summary of it is not accurate. I provide a direct link to [1] in my talk page. It is true that I really cannot take more time with this (as I've said over a year ago now). It came up again via other images that popped up on my "watch" some time about a week ago. I really had not been involved in this newer dispute until the infobox image in Nobel Prize occurred. I really think these matters are still unresolved and that these image page descriptions do not meet Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to use of such images. If I thought differently, I would not have persisted. The image page description in the case of the one you worked on today was a mess; I thought that your changes had improved it. Please check the dates; even relating to "Public domain", using the earliest date possible (1902), the images from which the content derives are still copyright-protected (as well as registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation: see Work for hire#Copyright duration. In Wikipedia, concerning potential copyright and/or trademark violations, one really does need to take a conservative position (acc. to Wikipedia). The claim that the designs of the medals were not "commissioned" Work for hire in Sweden does not seem legitimate. I think it needs more investigation. I would be happy to have others do the investigating. But I think the license featured needs to be entirely accurate. It appears to me that in order to "allow" or "permit" some images in Wikipedia, inaccurate statements are being presented on the image pages. That should not be happening (in my view). There is no necessity for some of these images even to appear in the articles in which they are inserted; they are merely decorative illustrations and not adding to information in the articles. I wouldn't mind them being there if their presentation were entirely accurate; but that is not the case. Please see the criteria for good articles pertaining to images using in them. These images need to meet the standards of such criteria. An important question is: Do they? --NYScholar 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment about the "Fair use rationale": it was I who initially provided it and who revised it prior to your changes. I attempted to provide an up-until-that-point "Fair use rationale" and revised its format after it had been altered to a first-person account, so that the presentation of the claims for the image would be more in keeping with the uploaders' references to "fair use." If the image were "in the public domain" as claimed, there would not need to be a "Fair use rationale" for the image page. A reason why such a "Fair use rationale" is necessary is because the basis of the image, the photograph, is a "Derivative work" which has content that is still a registered trademark of the Swedish Nobel Foundation and a replica of its currently still-copyright-protected images (according to its notices).

Adding the "public domain" template tag really confuses the nature of the image. The image itself (User:David.Monniaux's photograph was not "published" prior to 1923 in the U.S.; it was published in Wikipedia in 2005 initially (when first uploaded) and then published again when uploaded again, most recently in March 2007. This is the "image" that is in Wikipedia, not the actual medal that was designed in 1901-1902 and first minted in 1902. Please read the article on the history of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal designs in the website of the Nobel Foundation which is linked in the talk page, on my current talk page and which was linked until you removed the link in the image page. It is the source of the information pertaining to the designs of the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize (R) Medals.

The Nobel Foundation commissioned the designs in 1901 and they were "completed" in 1902 for most of the Nobel Prizes (R) (which were presented in 1901 without medals because they were finished yet. The Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal was completed later. The person credited in the article "modeled" the medals for the Nobel Foundation. The designs themselves were not "published": the medals were minted and then presented. Images of the medals in photographs are copyrighted by the Nobel Foundation and they are used as its registered trademark (according to its site).

Some Wikipedians using an extremely odd and unsupported idea of what "published" means in relation to minted medals are claiming "public domain" in the U.S.. But such claims are not consistent with the notices on the Nobel Foundation's website and are contradicted by the fact that there has been correspondence between the Wikipedia Foundation and the Nobel Foundation (apparently) relating to its notice.

Since images that the Nobel Foundation provides are in its website and can be linked to as sources (though not inserted into the articles as images), the information provided by these Wikipedia-posted images is not additonal information in the Nobel-Prize related articles. The webpage with all the images of the medals is already listed in the article Nobel Prize and via the template for Nobel Laureates. In the past, these Nobel Prize (R) images were removed by administrators from these articles.

To emphasize, I point out again that I have no "dislike" of the particular Wikipedians' images in question; I just want their image pages to feature claims, licenses, and templates that are fully consistent with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to all other images.

Currently, the "public domain" template conflicts with the author's (the Nobel Foundation's) claims to its proprietary rights to images of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals and its right to restrict uses of them. The image derived from the photograph of the medal on display is extremely similar to the images on the Nobel Foundation's website (a replica of them).

The image on the image page (the edited version of David Monniaux's photograph) itself was not "published" in the U.S. or elsewhere prior to 1923, as the notice claims. The design of the image of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal was also not published in the U.S. or abroad; the design and model of the medal was "completed" in 1902 in Sweden. Its Registered trademarks and copyrights are still in force in Sweden and they appear to be trademarks and copyrights that are protected by the Berne convention as well, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

The current "public domain" template tag reads: "The three-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States before 1923"; that is not accurate. The 1947 medal depicted in this image (David Monniaux's photograph) was not "published in the United States before 1923"; nor was any other of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals (the "three-dimensional work[s] of art") "published in the United States before 1923." I don't see how "public domain in the U.S." template tag applies to Monniaux's photograph-based image uploaded from 2005-2007 in Wikipedia at all. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even reading that. Making your claims over and over using lengthier paragraphs each time you tell me doesn't change the underling problem. Your interpretation of copyright law contradicts current usage on Wikipedia. Since I am not an expert, I have suggested you bring this up with the legal counsel for Wikipedia, or the community at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where someone may feel they have the time to answer your eternal arguments. Shell ^babelfish 22:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done that [see below]. [...] --NYScholar 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[I have also updated my own current talk page with a link to the query that I posted in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: [2]. --NYScholar 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]

tc?

I've seen you write "tc" in your edit summary several times and I have no idea what it means. Just wondering what does "tc" stand for? –panda 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It means "typographical corrections" (minor and I put "format" in parentheses when the typographical corrections involve format; both kinds are "minor" changes acc. to the explanation (which is a default in my editing preview box). I explain that above or in now-archived talk pages. I've been using it for a very long time. Sorry for any confusion. (I'll archive this exchange after you have a chance to see it.) --NYScholar 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! –panda 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Email?

Hey NYScholar, are you contactable by email? The foundation has received an email about Walter Achtert and the person would like to talk to you. It isn't bad or anything, they just wanted to ask you for more information about a comment you posted on 7 October. Is there anyway I can forward this email to you? Thanks, Sarah 05:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. I am sorry but I do not use email with relation to Wikipedia. I looked at my comment of 7 October 2007 on Talk:The MLA Style Manual#Recent changes, which may be the one that you are referring to. I revised slightly and updated that comment. [Or maybe you or that person is referring to the previous comment, also dated 7 Oct. 2007; I've revised that and updated it as well. --NYScholar 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]

Since I first posted it, I had done some work on both articles mentioned there (that one and one on The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. If the person who emailed has comments about improving the articles or wants to start an article on Walter Achtert in Wikipedia, I suggest that he or she comment briefly on the talk page. I think that questions about the comment can be posted in the talk page(s) of the pertinent article, and perhaps I can respond there (if I have time). Right now, I am working to meet some press deadlines. If the person wants to ask something about Walter Achtert or comment on him or start an article on him: I myself do not have further information about him; more information should be available on the website of the Modern Language Association. (I do not have time to work on one, if that is what interests the person.) I simply identified him as the author of the first edition of The MLA Style Manual (New York: MLA, 1985), the first edition of that work published by the MLA. The two authors listed on the title page are Walter S. Achtert and Joseph Gibaldi. Previously, the articles had not acknowledged Achtert's authorship. ... Gibaldi took over the authorship of the 2nd ed., which is a revised ed. based on the first edition. --NYScholar 22:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In May 1986, Walter S. Achtert was listed in an online directory as "Dir., Book Pub, Research Modern Language Association." --NYScholar 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A brief history of these volumes is published in the May 2002 "Foreword" to the 6th ed. of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (xv-xvii), by Phyllis Franklin, then exec. dir. of the MLA. (Official site links are listed in the two articles.) [Updated.] --NYScholar 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. No it has nothing to do with articles. They noticed your comment about Walter Achtert's death and wanted to ask you for information. It is from a family member. Sarah 12:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Debate

I have requested an informal debate on the Nobel Prize image. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Since you did, I've been working on responding; I've added a possible new section to Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize Medals, which may solve some of the problems while the copyright/trademark status of these images are being reviewed. (I'll be archiving this and the previous exchange after giving you chance to notice it.) Please comment on the talk pages of the articles and/or images in question. I've got to get back to work outside of Wikipedia. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Econ prize article

Just wanted to let you know that there is currently a discussion about the introduction paragraph in the talk page that you may want to participate in. The current text is somewhat misleading in some respects. Also, the first sentence of the Award process section makes it clear that the prize is awarded according to the rules for the Nobel Prizes.

Regarding the page move, User:Cool Hand Luke moved it back to Nobel Prize in Economics for the RM debate. You can see his talk page for a discussion about it, plus he's commented on it in the RM. Anyway, it's a good idea to leave it at Nobel Prize in Economics until the results of the RM so that it doesn't confuse people what the RM is about and to not cause more tension about this. So I hope you'll move it back.

–panda 02:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do; but could use some help w/ redirects perhaps. (I had missed what Cool Hand Luke did and noticed only after the change; was posting in the talk page of the Economics Prize when you posted here. Did not see CHL's talk page prior to this. Will take a look at it. Thanks for posting. Will archive this after I know you've seen exchange here. Got to get back offline to do other work, I'm afraid. Sorry if I complicated anything. Acted too quickly. --NYScholar 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Move it back ASAP before anyone notices... :) Don't worry about the redirects -- someone else will fix them. –panda 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already moved it back to "Nobel Prize in Economics": Nobel Prize in Economics. I don't know why on CHL's talk page the other user states that I "started all this" (though I'm not sure what "this" refers to. I had noticed that someone must have corrected the typographical error in "Nobel prize in Economics" to "Nobel Prize in Economics" but maybe some of the changes overlapped. I hadn't seen CHL's change of the title to "Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" (which I actually prefer too) when I changed it. I first typed "Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" on my own but before I saved it, I realized that it wasn't the proposed name change, so I used "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (which seems to have most support in the "support"/don't support section on the talk page. Now, after realizing that CHL may have wanted to change it back to "Nobel Prize in Economics" temporarily while this issue is resolved, and seeing what you posted on my talk page, I've also moved it back to "Nobel Prize in Economics." Contrary to (I believe) faulty assumptions of the other user on CHL's talk page, I believe that you, CHL, and I have all been trying to edit "in good faith". For my own part, I am just not familiar with how this Request for Move is functioning. Something about it has become almost backward it seems to me. It should not be this difficult to correct what is clearly a misnomer (according to the most reliable and verifiable and most authoritative sources (such as the Nobel Foundation!). All sources are not equal in value. See Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics and/or Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (whichever is blue at the moment). --NYScholar 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An admin will close the RM debate after 5 days. Just ignore what Vision Thing writes. He was the one who originally requested that the article be moved from Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → Nobel Prize in Economics about 14 months ago. He's been refusing to accept that it is not a Nobel Prize, has claimed that information on the Noble Foundation's site can't be used, has been making it extremely difficult to keep credible references in the article etc etc etc. (I would post diffs but I know you're in a hurry.) It's a looooong story but if you're interested, read the talk archive in both Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics. –panda 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will be archiving this exchange asap. --NYScholar 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you can just use The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in the Nobel Prize article. –panda 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also tried to do so. --NYScholar 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(I fixed the redirect. I plan to skip the others unless there's a need for it since the article may move in a few days. –panda 02:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Nobel image at WP:CP

Hi there. In case you are not watching the page, I commented on the image (Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg) you listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22/Images. I decline to delete it as a copyright violation, and I provided my reasoning. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CP ==

Please do not remove strikeouts on this page. The strikeout indicates to administrators that the item has been reviewed. I already told you that I'm not deleting it as a copyright violation. If you wish to pursue the matter, you'll have to find another avenue for having the image deleted. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that (I was going by what you said there and the fact that I responded to it). I have not been asking for the image(s) to be deleted. I have been asking for the image page not to feature a faulty "public domain the U.S." template, a request with which you apparently agree. (Unless the image pages are correct, there is danger that they might be deleted by other administrators.) Other users falsely state or falsely assume that I am trying to delete these images. While that is not the case, nonetheless, the images should not appear without captions indicating what they depict and templates for indicating their problems on their image pages so that those image pages can be corrected. (One of them has a protected image page which makes correcting it impossible. If this one needs fair use rationales for each use in Wikipedia articles, so do the other ones based on photographs of Nobel Prize (R) medals. There is a lack of fair use rationales in the case of the other image; faulty public-domain-in-the-U.S." template in the case of this image that you responded to. (If the Nobel Foundation provides written permission to feature the images relating to and/or based on their designs for the medals, that is a diff. sit., but it hasn't occurred yet and might not occur.)

I am sorry about deleting the strikeout; I did not understand its function as you just described. (I did not know that it meant it was reviewed by an admin., and I did not know that you are an admin.) I will archive this exchange too after giving you a chance to read it. Again, sorry. I am not always familiar with the procedures in administrative pages. I'm doing my best though not to step on toes. I try to be clear, but what I say is not always being interpreted as I intend it. If you restored the strike-out, that's fine w/ me. --NYScholar (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[BTW: The most recent place it was suggested that I post comment about these images is the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page, not the WP:CP page. I went there after Shell directed me to it. In various copyright pages, I found links specifying "media" copyright issues pages. --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I just clicked on your user page for the first time and see that you are clearly an administrator!!! (:lol); prior to now, I had just gone directly to your talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there - no problem with the strikeout. I have some time later to look at the image page again to see if we can get the tags corrected. What image page is protected? The one we have been discussing here is not protected. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. The three images are listed in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images; the protected image page is: Image:DSCN0732.JPG; the other one, a .png image is being cross-posted on both Wikipedia and in Wikipedia Commons (with, I believe, faulty information re: copyright/public domain). Thank you if you can help correct whatever inconsistencies/problems may exist in the image pages. --NYScholar (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

To those who celebrate it! (Will be away.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact Checking

On October 7 you posted the following in a discussion about the MLA Style Manual, " If I recall correctly, after Achtert's death, Gibaldi revised it and became sole author".

When I referred your comment to MLA I received the following response, "The Wikipedia entry you sent to us makes a false assumption--that Walter Achtert's name was not listed on the second edition of the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, published in 1998, because he had died. I understand that Walter left the MLA staff around 1995 and was not involved in the preparation of the 1998 volume."

My brother left academic life and has been living a reclusive life. That being the case, it might have been possible that I had missed his death. However, after much anguish and effort I can assure you that you know nothing about his death because he is very much alive.

The casual reference to the "fact" was unnecessary for your discussion and raises some issues about fact checking.

Aachtert (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Alfred Achtert Jr.

I had already corrected this error. ~~This is an unnecessary continuation of previously-changed material.~~ It was a mistake that I have already apologized for a few weeks ago now. A source that I had encountered had assumed that Achtert had died. It was the source's error. Sometimes errors do occur in sources, and when I discover them, I correct the erroneous material; in this case I removed the erroneous reference. After learning that a family member was trying to contact me by email (which I [understandably] do not use in dealing with Wikipedia), I researched the matter further and corrected the error. I removed the references due to my realizations of that mistake. As I can no longer find the source, I cannot refer you to it. I do apologize for the inadvertent mistake. It was an honest error. I will be archiving this discussion. You can find the previous discussion already archived in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16#Email?. (That is where I explained that I had already corrected the error in response to being alerted that someone [you, I see now] were trying to email me about my Oct. 7 talk page comment.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment which appears at NYScholar/Archive_16#MLA_Style_Manual which is still posted Aachtert (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying which Oct. 7 talk page comment you meant; I thought you were referring to the article talk page. I struck that out in my archived talk page too. Sorry again. --NYScholar (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (I was referring to the article talk page in "my talk page comment" above; now I see where the comment is. (It had a conditional "if I remember correctly," which was referring to a source that I had seen; I remembered the source correctly I think, but the source itself was incorrect. I thought that "the Wikipedia entry" you were referring to was in the article; I guess that you sent the MLA the entry from my talk page; talk pages have more leaway than articles in Wikipedia; but, of course, one doesn't want an error to remain even in a talk page, so I struck it out in my archived talk page now as well. --NYScholar (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

In the case of that archive 16 comment, I had copied the same comment in the talk page of the article (as the person I was replying to had posted in my talk page and I moved the material to the appropriate article talk page; I had deleted it in the article talk page version, but the material in my own talk page [archive 16] had remained.) I can delete it (as opposed to just striking it out), but one is not supposed to edit already-archived talk pages, so I leave it as a strike out for you (and others) to be able to see what it actually said. If you prefer for it to be entirely deleted, I might be able to do that, but I might need permission from Wikipedia to do so (I'm not sure what the policy is on that). I do recall reading in WP:BLP (or somewhere in relation to WP:BLP) that mistaken references to the deaths of still-living persons are to be immediately corrected in Wikipedia articles. WP:BLP. It must be a fairly frequent occurrence, because there are policy statements about such mistakes.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [There is currently still no Wikipedia article on Walter S. Achtert. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

[As per WP:BLP,] I deleted the erroneous clause and replaced it with ellipsis in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

[Cited Wikipedia policy enabling me to delete the clause from this archived talk page and struck out earlier speculations about whether or not I could do so. --NYScholar (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Get well soon

Thanks for your work on the Nobel Prize article! I thought you may like to know that one of the sources I listed in the talk page lists many of the theories about why there's no math prize, so I may add back some of that info and include a proper source. Hope you get well soon! –panda (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. After updating another article, I'm heading back to bed (dreadful cold)! (I'll archive this later.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I'm still sick, but I stopped in a few times in the past couple of days to make some edits before getting back to delayed work outside of Wikipedia and more bedrest. Will archive this later. --NYScholar (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)