User talk:Joe Quick/Archive 5

Joe Quick

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

Hover

I'll have to find out how to transclude the definition page, but I'll look at it later. --Robert W King 15:57, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

Can you show me a page that has a def link in context? --Robert W King 16:42, 12 April 2008 (CDT)

On the related articles page, the definition is already transcluded from the template:def page, so I'm not sure I understand what you want to have happen that wouldn't be redundant. --Robert W King 06:45, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Thanks!

From me, Aleta Curry 03:00, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

Your template {{pl}} is really cool!

Robert: Chris Day just applied your template to the list of my created articles on my Talk page ... and it is really cool!! Just wanted to let you know I like it a lot. - Milton Beychok 14:11, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks! The idea was inspired by Lee Berger and the code was modified from something I saw Chris do with the subpages template. -Joe Quick 18:05, 12 May 2008 (CDT)

I have created over 45 new articles and I don't check on each of them every day. Recently, two of them were nominated for Approval, but I wasn't aware of that until the last day of the Approval period. Right now, the {{pl}} creates a green check mark image when an article has been approved. Would it be much of a chore to have it create some other mark when an article has been nominated for approval? Perhaps simply a different color check mark? - Milton Beychok 23:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Joe, I took the liberty. See Template:Pl#Up_for_approval. Chris Day 04:00, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Hi Chris, as I liked this implementation, I tried the same for {{rpl}} but seem to have to come too close to the system limits again for some of the larger article lists (core and biology). Any suggestions? -- Daniel Mietchen 04:27, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Thank you

Today the Dokdo article will be approved. Thank you for all the efforts you put in. The article is in so much better shape now. I can compare the two and see so much positive difference. If you hadn't come in to check on the article, I wouldn't have checked on it either and several key flaws would have remained on the article upon approval. Thank you again. (Chunbum Park 11:00, 21 July 2008 (CDT))

You're welcome. If our collaboration helped to make the article better, then the Citizendium system is clearly working. --Joe Quick 09:39, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

From your friendly neighbourhood mistress of ceremonies

Hi Joe--I see you signed in at The August Party. Do join us on Wednesday September 2nd for what I hope will be a very active party with music, music, music. Theme: "My Favourite Band" (or, 'ensemble' or 'group' or 'orchestra' or 'singer' or 'recording' or...?

Hope school's going well. Aleta Curry 00:18, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

Joe Lewis

Ho Joe, remember in January 08 you asked me to approve the article on Joe Lewis..which I did. I was just perusing the sports group looking for drafts and found that the Joe Lewis article is still listed under drafts as well as approved. I don't know how to remedy this.Gary Giamboi 18:36, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

I think what you're seeing is the approved article in the approved category and the draft in the draft category. That sounds like a really dumb explanation, let me explain. The draft is there for people to further develop while the approved version is locked and cannot be edited. If the draft is ever developed to the point that it is better than the locked article, then an editor can "re-approve" it and the locked article will be replaced with the improved draft. --Joe Quick 18:50, 24 August 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the quick reply. Do most people know this? I didn't. If people do not know it, then they will just see that the approved article can't be changed. Gary Giamboi 21:46, 24 August 2008 (CDT

That's a good question. I assumed that most people knew, but maybe not. There's a pretty prominent notice at the top of approved articles that says "Help improve this article further on the draft page!" but we might want to put another note on the page that people see when they try to edit a locked page. I'll look into that. --Joe Quick 08:56, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

That would probably be useful, Joe, if it could be done -- to have a notice pop up if someone *does* try to edit the approved page; ALSO telling them to go to the draft article for editing. Hayford Peirce 11:20, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

New Article on Gender

Hi, Joe -- Don't know if you noticed, but I've started a new article on gender on User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox. It will be longer, thoroughly referenced, and deal with a number of topics not in the present article. Come over and let me know what you think -- and check User:Timothy Perper to see my credentials for undertaking the revision. Hope you come by and comment! Timothy Perper 18:38, 27 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the Air Force

I moved some misplaced text and didn't realize how it would expand. Thanks for catching it. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:16, 3 October 2008 (CDT)

Re Flickr photos

Thanks, Joe, for educating me about how to find usable photos on Flickr.

I still have a problem. For example, I want to use the photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/skrewtape/2012056555/ which I found by searching the Creative Commons-licensed content. The photo is tagged as "Some restrictions" and when I click on that, I am told that Attribution is necessary. That's my problem ... all I can find is that it was uploaded by "Screwtape" (obviously not a real name) and I can find no way to contact him/her to ask what attribution is wanted. What do I do? Do I upload it to CZ and then create a credit line for "Screwtape" ? Or do I simply create a credit line for "Flickr" ? Or what? Milton Beychok 05:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Milt, I replied in the forums where more people are likely to see it. --Joe Quick 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe, i have a related question. In some cases more than attribution is required, permission too. In those cases the template {{Incompatible}} appears at the bottom. For example, i uploaded this picture recently. So far we have over 300 of these images, however, there does not seem to be any way to know if permission has be recieved for photo's in that category or not. Shouldn't there be a persmission field on the image page that once filled causes the template {{Incompatible}} to disappear. In that way we can distinguish between those images we have permission to use and those that we still need to seek permission. Does this make sense? Chris Day 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris, 5 of those photos you collected are mine and none of them require any further permission. The Incompatability temple appears on those 5 for 'some reason other than needing perission.

• Image:Sulfur Piles.jpg: was obtained from Flickr and the photographer did not request permission be obtained. However, he had certain requirements (such as attribution, no commercial use, no derivatives).
• Image:Industrial Piping.jpg: was obtained from Flickr and the photographer did not request permission be obtained. However, he had certain requirements (such as attribution, no commercial use, no derivatives).
• Image:NCAR Building.jpg: was obtained from Flickr and the photographer did not request permission be obtained. However, he had certain requirements (such as attribution, no commercial use, no derivatives).
• Image:Industrial air pollution plume.jpg: was obtained from www.morguefile.com and their License Agreement does not require obtaining permission. The Image file even has a Morgue file licensing template.
• Image:Screw Compressor Male and Female Screws.jpg: This was obtained from a manufacturer's website. Written permission was obtained and the Image file links to the Permission subpage that I created. They did require attribution, no commercial use and no-resizing.

It appears to me that the Incompatability template appears for some reason other than a lack of pernmission. Milton Beychok 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the license the photographer chooses. i assume what the license states is more important that what the photographer writes in his profile (or where ever they note that permission is not needed?). Maybe the photographer does not realise that users need to seek his permission by choosing that particular license? In short I'm totally confused. :( Chris Day 23:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CC license, green are OK but for yellow we need permission according to our automatic upload.

So am I confused. Milton Beychok 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the options of CC and Flickr (see figure at right). Chris Day 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No additional permission is required to use those images here. The incompatible message is intended for people who want to reuse our content. If someone wants to copy one of our articles and it contains an image that is not in the public domain and is licensed under something other than the Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-Share Alike licenses, then they cannot copy the photo along with the article unless they meet the additional requirements of the more restrictive license under which the photo is released. The incompatibility message simply means that the photo is used under something other than our site-wide license.

The color coding system was designed by Stephen Ewen, who designated green as "high-free" licenses, yellow as "low-free", and red as restrictive. It is based, I believe, on the level of "freedom" we have to modify and reuse images.

I hope this makes sense. I just woke up... --Joe Quick 13:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Stephen did a great job automating this legal minefield. Is there a set of take home messages anywhere? For example, I did see this page, CZ:Media_Credit_Lines_within_Articles but that does not explain the color code. Chris Day 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image licenses that read "BlahBlahBlahBlah...."

Joe, a couple of the current image upload options end up with a license that reads "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah....". Is it the intent that those options will someday be revised to some actual license? Or what? Milton Beychok 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. We should make a list of which options produce that result. I can probably do something about it after I get my thesis turned in this Friday. --Joe Quick 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the file upload options that use "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah...." as the license:

• Some other internet source that features re-usable media
• Some book, newspaper, or other print publication, as a scan or screen capture
• Somewhere else, but its copyright has expired, or I think it may have
• I am an author and need to make a fair use (fair dealing) claim
• I am an editor and need to make a fair use (fair dealing) claim

I think I found all of them but I may have missed some. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe, now that Stephen Ewen is back (thank goodness!), perhaps you could get together with him and get something done about those image file upload licensing options that read "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah....". Those are sorely needed items. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good news, I hadn't noticed him around yet. I actually just finished off my PhD applications and was planning to return to this in the next couple of days, so the timing is just about perfect. Now, I'm off to read your article on continuous distillation - I'll leave comments there. --Joe Quick 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things

(1) Joe, did you get the email I sent you a few days ago by CZ email? Not having had a reply, I thought that perhaps it got lost in cyber space.

(2) Just above is a list of the file upload license options that use "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah...." as the license. You suggested earlier that such a list would be helpful.

I hope that you got your thesis in last Friday and all went well with it. Milton Beychok 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did get it. But I've been at work so I haven't had time to give it the attention it deserves. I'm going to have another look at the article and then I can give you some more specific feedback.

The list will be very helpful but it looks like I will need to get higher level access to the wiki in order to make the appropriate adjustments. I'll have a look at that this week as well. --Joe Quick 02:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait. Milton Beychok 04:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe, I can edit those mediawiki pages since I need the access for the subpages template. Are you planning on finishing off Stephens work? I was contemplating it, but I really don't know enough about copyright to do the job correctly. Let me know if you want a hand. Or ask Larry to give you the sysop power to finish the job. We could really do with it completed as it is a bit confusing at the moment. The bits that work are superb so this is really worth finishing up. Chris Day 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll - misleading description

Hello Joe,

Thanks for your message. Yes, my Wikipedia-pseudonym is Bylot. When I started editing the former text on Bobby Driscoll in about March 2008 it was just a poor stub, and not very much is left now from the “original” text. The articles on Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce I also extended from brief a-few-lines stubs up to the today C and Start articles. So in all three cases I consider myself the actual major author of them. Yet, I'll remove all three WPauthor templates. --Oliver Renye 19:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)