User talk:DonJay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cl89.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cl89.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 may 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 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your images
Hi, DonJay! I saw your post here and thought I could help you out. While I appreciate your willingness to contribute and the hard work it must have taken to track these images down and secure permissions for them, they are unfortunately inappropriate for Wikipedia at this moment and can be deleted at any time. As Wikipedia is a free project that lets anybody copy content from it, all media must be free content - and sadly, media that is licensed only for Wikipedia's use does not meet this standard. If you have been in contact with the copyright holders of those four images, could you please ask them to get in touch with Wikipedia at permissions-en@wikimedia.org so we can work the licensing details out? Please reply on my talk page if you've got any questions. Thanks! east.718 at 03:05, February 26, 2008
- I have re-added the tags as they don't have a rationale as the bot stated. As east718 has explained, permission to use on wikipedia is mostly irrelevant. All that matters is whether the copyright owner is willing to license them under a free license. If they are not, then they will need to be used under the NFCC which requires a rationale as explained in the disputed tags. One of the key things that is necessary is that these images cannot reasonably be replaced by a free alternative. As these appear to be historic photos or historic items the key issue here is whether they are really necessary for understanding the topic. For example, is it really necessary to show a photo of a CL-84 landing or a CL-89 being launched? If not, CL-84 already has free photos of the plane and I'm guessing there would probably be intact CL-89s on display in museums. In the case of Image:Dray.jpg do you know what year this photo was taken? If it was in the very early 20th century, it may very well be in the public domain so NFCC is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been contributing anonymously since 2004 or so, so I do feel your pain regarding the changes in culture here over time. But that's another discussion for another day. :-) Respectfully, your interpretation of permission-only images is wrong - they are considered non-free for our purposes, and have been for the past three years by decree of Jimbo; this is also the reason why {{withpermission}} and {{permission}} exist as they do. I am quite tired now so I apologize for not leaving an extended message, but please get back to me if you have any other concerns. east.718 at 04:13, February 28, 2008
[edit] Image:Dent.jpg
Pending proof of what edition this is, I've retagged the image as being a non-free book cover. It may still be under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 
[edit] Scots or Scottish
Dear Don Thanks and glad to make your acquaintance. I also work on wiki in the field of the performing arts, adding theatre stuff to pages that seem to suggest actors only ever work on film or television.
The only wiki editors with whom I've shared this field are the US-based MarnetteD and my fellow Brits dnFenner and EnigmaMcmxc; so it's good to know there's another of us plying the craft from Canada!
Sorry I upset you about Scots versus Scottish. Actually what I was doing was changing 'scots' to read 'Scots' (with a capital S).
But before doing so I turned to The Times Guide to English Usage, and spotted that they advised using the word 'Scots' as a noun for 'the Scots' - i.e. the Scottish people, recommending 'Scottish' as the adjective - which is also supported by Chambers Dictionary.
Of course, since reading your note I've looked at the Oxford Dictionary, and you're absolutely right - which just goes to show that English usage is such a warren, and it all depends on which dictionary you first turn to!
My best wishes, John Thaxter (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Further to this, I looked at your website and see that we share the same place and year of birth and were both evacuated at the start of the war to the Home Counties. But I worked for PO Telephones, then BT as a major computer systems designer, and never emigrated. I now work regularly for The Stage newspaper as a theatre critic. Best John Thaxter (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Musicals
Hello. I see that you have worked on some musical theatre articles. You might consider joining the musicals project at WP:MUSICALS. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Joining the project would not obligate you to do anything in particular, except to "watch" the project page so that you can participate in the discussions that interest you. Also, since you work on articles about musicals, you should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, which will help you structure your articles about musicals so that they are consistent in style with the rest of our articles. Also, if you join the project, you get to put our nifty userbox on you userpage. :) In any case, happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
