User talk:Piersbertrand

Image copyright problem with Image:Grant Wood self portrait.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Grant Wood self portrait.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Chipperfieldfigge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chipperfieldfigge.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Terence young2.jpg‎

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Terence young2.jpg‎ . I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thirdship 12:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:JackBennyByAlHirshfeld.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:JackBennyByAlHirshfeld.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:JackBennyByAlHirshfeld.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Thomas Lawrence (painter)

Thanks for your improvements to Thomas Lawrence (painter) and, as nobody has mentioned it yet, welcome to Wikipedia. Please consider adding a summary when you change a page, to help editors coming along afterwards. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JackBennyByAlHirschfeld.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JackBennyByAlHirschfeld.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Grant Wood self portrait.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Grant Wood self portrait.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 15:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REPONSE: it is entitled "Grant Wood self portrait". Who do you think painted it??? BTW, I own the painting, the copyright, and took the photo myself. Please stop messing about with the photos I put on Wikipedia, as you obviously don't know what you are doing. piersbertrand 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Hart Benton, 'Spring Storm'.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thomas Hart Benton, 'Spring Storm'.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:White Goddess by Nicholas Marsicano.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:White Goddess by Nicholas Marsicano.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Self portrait by Thomas Hart Benton.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Self portrait by Thomas Hart Benton.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —An gr 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport, Iowa

Excuse you, why did you revert my edit? Ctjf83Talk 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your deletion of my additions because I supplied actual dates with the facts I wrote. I should really ask you why *you* think you needed to delete my paragraphs. Do you want verification of the dates I used? Dates cannot be disputed. If we say that someone was born on a certain date, for example, do you want a footnoted original source? Of course not. That is why I don't see such footnotes in almost all the articles on Wikipedia. piersbertrand 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, i want sources for "the first municipal art museum in the country", "nation's oldest history and natural science museum", "the oldest public library system west of the Mississippi" and yes, those kind of dates need sources, if someone questions them. So they need sources, or will be removed again! Ctjf83Talk 22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one verify "the oldest" of something other than using dates? Is there a reference manual written by Nobel-Pulitzer-Pritzker prize winning historians verifying such info. I think not. How about these two examples in Wikipedia: The Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum in St. Louis, which claims to be "the oldest art museum west of the Mississippi River - it was founded in 1881." Where's the footnote??? Oooops, delete that one I guess. Next Wikipedia example: "The Speed Art Museum... is the oldest and largest museum of art in Kentucky" Hey, we need proof that there is no art museum founded in Kentucky before 1927! Hey, I know how to solve this, how about looking for a book entitled: "Institutions That Never Existed and Their Founding Dates"? I'm sorry, but your reasoning doesn't stand up. Dates are dates, and if you can find an older institution in Kentucky than the Speed Art Museum, for example, then you may delete the info, not before. piersbertrand 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one, I don't know if you're being a smartass or not, but this attitude I see needs to stop! It accomplishes nothing. I'm sure there is some reliable site that will list the oldest of everything. As far as the other unsourced stuff you mentioned...one, I have never been to those articles, and two, I don't care about those articles. Davenport is a Good Article. I'm the one that got it there, and I'm not gonna let anyone ruin it, by putting unsourced information into the article. WP:Cite says that if anyone challenges something, it needs to be sourced. Saying something is the oldest, smallest, biggest, etc, it needs a reliable source Ctjf83Talk 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not trying to be a smartass, and I am sorry if I upset you, but I am simply making the point that foundation dates of institutions are agreed-upon facts. I will be happy to supply footnoted sources for every date I write if you require me to do so. However, there is no publication stating which institution is the oldest, second oldest, oldest north of the Mason-Dixon, etc. I've looked everywhere and I am satisfied that it does not exist (I am a professor of history at a respectable university, btw) I will footnote the paragraphs if it makes you feel better. piersbertrand 22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

here are a few sites that claim their library is the oldest: [1] [2] [3] So you tell me which is true. Also, you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ instead of typing everything out. Also see here how I have a source for WOC being the second oldest radio station.Ctjf83 Talk 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You've just proved my point. Your first example: The Burlington Public Library claims that "Library services in Burlington can be traced to January 1872". Well, Davenport Public Library's 1839 date is 33 years earlier. Your next example: The site states "The oldest public library system west of the Mississippi, the Multnomah County Library has a history that reaches back to 1864". Again, the Davenport Public Library, founded in 1839, is older. Your third example: it states "As the oldest public library west of the Mississippi River, Omaha Public Library has served the citizens of Omaha and Douglas County for more than 130 years." The Omaha Public Library was founded in 1857 (The City of Omaha wasn't founded until 1854!!!) and this makes it younger than the Davenport Public Library, founded in 1839. Remember the old adage: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet". Look at the dates first as the facts don't lie! 'Nuff said. Also, your example of WOC doesn't look very accurate. You may want to check your sources. How about using the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Oldest_radio_station It looks like there are a number of stations older than WOC pushing it out of second place. Anyway, I think I made my point. To end this silly debate, as you will see in the City of Davenport entry, there are now footnotes. I hope you are happy. Have a good evening. Piersbertrand (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well the WOC (radio station) page says it was 1907, which does make it the 2nd oldest. But anyway, I have to go for now, and I'm not done with this debate...yet. Also, your sources just give dates, how do I know a library or museum wasn't opened before the dates you have listed Ctjf83Talk 00:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the Wikipedia entry on oldest radio stations says... To your next point: a claim can be made until it is refuted, not the other way around. Your reasoning is illogical. My car was made in 1968 and is therefore the oldest car in my neighborhood. How do I know? I looked at the ages of the other cars in my neighborhood! Did I have to read it somewhere to know? Of course not! You simply cannot say, as you write, that just because someone else makes the claim, then it is a fact. That's bogus reasoning. I am basing my work on DATES, just as you just did with WOC. You obviously took the date 1907 and *compared* it with the foundation dates in the Wikipedia entry. GENIUS!!! I did the very same thing to verify my information!!!!!!! I looked at the dates of the foundation of the various institutions, I compared the dates, then I looked at which date was the earliest and then I wrote down what I read!!!! GENIUS!!! Piersbertrand (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...until you look at the date for every library west of the River, then you don't know if it is the first, I will be deleting it again...as your source doesn't say it is the oldest, it just says the date in which it was opened Ctjf83Talk 04:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence to read "possibly the oldest", which is accurate. Piersbertrand (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you still need to do something about both museums and the symphony Ctjf83Talk 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ma'am. By the way, my source does say that the Figge is the oldest...Piersbertrand (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am?! eh...I've been called worse, lol Ctjf83Talk 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in the Quads? Ctjf83Talk 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, but I moved here recently. I just feel that there are a number of important institutions here and that their significance is overlooked. Research shows that Davenport has established important organizations early on, but the problem is that the local people don't care enough to notice. People here are very ignorant of the facts. Piersbertrand (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, why did u move here?! Ctjf83Talk 03:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved here for my job. I never heard of the place in my life, even though my family is from Chicago, and when I visited it for the first time, I really liked it. There is so much here, but no one talks about it, no one promotes it well, and, as a consequence, the outside world knows nothing about the area. That's a real shame and why this wikipedia entry is so important (if nothing, at least people will know some facts and truths about Davenport). Why are you here? Piersbertrand (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice this...I was born in neighboring Bettendorf, Iowa so I'm just here for now...I'm dying to move to Boystown in Chicago!! Ctjf83Talk 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand why you want to move there. My family has lived off north Lincoln Park for the past 50 years. Piersbertrand (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet!! that would be awesome..but way expensive, as is Lakeview Ctjf83Talk 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of National Center for Midwest Art and Design

A tag has been placed on National Center for Midwest Art and Design requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy-deletion criterion I selected applies to groups and organizations as well. As for your comparison to the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and other similar groups, please be advised that the existence of other articles about apparently similar subjects is not grounds for keeping a particular article. Each subject must stand or fall on its own merits and notability. This organization does not meet notability standards. An administrator agreed with my assessment and actually removed the article on my suggestion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not know what you are talking about.Piersbertrand (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chunghi Choo, Tea Service at Figge Art Museum.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of File:Tower 1984.jpg

File:Tower 1984.jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Tower 1984.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File:Tower 1984.jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]