User talk:VAwebteam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Spam links 3 Proper references and citation templates 4 Please participate in the COI/N discussion! 5 Guide to referencing 6 Touching base 7 Content vs links 8 Created User:VAwebteam/COIN archive for you 9 To do list 10 Two examples of proper Wiki-etiquette 11 Suggestions 12 Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum 13 Edit summaries 14 Feedback 15 Message for VAwebteam 16 Wonderful image 17 Image:Chocolatepot.jpg 18 Working around prejudice 19 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yvessaintlaurent.jpg) 20 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jeanmuir.jpg) 21 image additions 22 Howdy! 23 Simon Bening image 24 Essay 25 GFDL 26 Image copyright problem with Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg 27 Linnaeus Tripe 28 Hardmans 29 GFDL releases 30 Commons 31 Chinese art 32 Lucie Rie 33 Possibly unfree Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg 34 May Morris 35 Victoria and Albert Museum images 36 ping 37 Unspecified source for Image:Isokonpenguin.jpg

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, VAwebteam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me at User talk:Ruakh (my talk page), or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

—Ruakh_TALK 14:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam links

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Bill Brandt do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

May I ask you if you are involved in the Victoria and Albert museum? If so, could you please review WP:COI? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dirk

As you can probably tell I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments they have been useful. I was a little surprised you felt the link I added to the Bill Brandt entry was not seen as helpful to visitors to this page and was used as promotion by the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A). I hope you'll see the link goes through to pages of further information and images about this photographer that I thought would be of further interest to those reading about Bill Brandt.

I'm a member of the V&A webteam and we hope to add other links, references, pictures and content to Wikipedia pages relating to the objects in the museum and research carried out by our curators. I hope this is not contrary to the Wikipedia spirit as we wish to share the information available on our site. Would it be acceptable to copy content from the V&A site onto Wikipedia, where there are gaps, as we are very happy to give permission for this?

The V&A is not a commercial organisation and it is purely our intention to share images and content available on the museum's site.

I hope this explains things. VAwebteam 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry I did not get back to you earlier. Your linkadditions are a problem, per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and per conflict of interest. Even if a site is not commercial, wikipedia is not a linkfarm (if there is one library, more will follow etc.), and you do get site-traffic when someone clicks the link. So please do not add the links yourself, but discuss them on the talkpages and let the links be added by uninvolved editors. Or otherwise, please add content to wikipedia articles (where you can use your link as a reference .. though still, please keep a neutral point of view). I have opened a case on this on WP:COIN (here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful you do not end up like the European Library, which added too many of their own links & then got classed as a "spammer" here, resulting in the removal of ALL links to them (despite my protests). Even perfectly legitimate & relevant links added by you are likely to cause trouble. You should realize that because everybody can add links, many commercial spammers do, and countermeasures are necessarily harsh. Several perfectly legitimate sites have had all links removed. Don't assume being a well known museum means it is ok. Johnbod 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper references and citation templates

Hello, members of the Victoria and Albert Museum webteam … I stumbled across your predicament at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum, and thought that I should contribute my 2¢ worth in the spirit of WP:DBTN.

When adding links to your website, please use a {{cite web}} template placed between <ref> … </ref> brackets so that it will appear in the References section at the end of the article … if the article does not already have such a section, or if your new citation does no appear there, then you may have to add the following (before the External Links, as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions):

==References==
<references/>

You must also be editing the article and not just a section of the article in order to see your changes when you click "Show preview," otherwise the References section is not displayed … I remember that it took me a while to figure that out when I was still a nugget.

See WP:FOOT and WP:CITE for more information, and familiarize yourselves with WP:PG in order to avoid a future faux pas … as User:Johnbod already cautioned you, the Senior Partners could have a WP:BOT remove all of your links in less time than that it would take to explain how it is accomplished.

BTW, I'm looking at a souvenir that I purchased in your gift shop during my 1983 honeymoon trip "even as we speak" … the ex-spousal unit may be just a distant and infrequent memory now, but that whimsical trinket has been a daily reminder of my first visit to London for nearly a quarter of a century. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 16:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please participate in the COI/N discussion!

Please go to WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum at your earliest convenience and participate in the discussion ... your silence has become a topic for conversation!

There is also debate about where your links belong, in References or External links ... since Fig leaf had been used as an example, I also decided to use it as an example of a proper citation/reference for your benefit, and ended up doing some Major Surgery on the article, which I documented on its Talk page ... here is what I added for VAM, and you can use this as a template:

 {{cite web
  |url= http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/stories/david/index.html
  |title= David's Fig Leaf
  |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]]
  |accessdate= 2007-05-29 }}

This generates: David's Fig Leaf. Victoria and Albert Museum. Retrieved on 2007-05-29.

After further consideration, since your pages don't have authors, dates, or any of the other information that would provide values for the optional fields, then these should be the only fields that you need to use:

• |title= — should be the same as the <TITLE> field in the HTML source code for the referenced page
• |publisher= [[Victoria and Albert Museum]] — should always be identical to this
• |accessdate= — should be the date that you add the template and verify that the link is correct

I recommend the use of ISO 8601 date/time format so that the MediaWiki software can automagically link it to the appropriate date-related articles, … "29th of March, 2007" and "05/29/07" not good ways to enter the date ... I have seen Some Other Editors add dates formatted like that, and I always change them to ISO 8601 format!

My personal opinion is that if you can find an appropriate place to add a ref, then do it that way, otherwise putting it in External links is OK … IMHO, the other editor used the wrong location for their example, so I moved it to where I thought it made more sense, i.e., following the sentence, "During the Hellenistic period, the Renaissance and other periods, nudity was a common feature in art.^[1]" —68.239.79.82 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. Good references A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. Simple referencing The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code: ==Notes and references== <references/> The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap): <ref>             </ref> Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. Test it out Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page: ==Reference test== This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref> ==Notes and references== <references/> (End of text to copy and paste.) Information to include You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this: <ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref> An online newspaper source would be: <ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref> Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. Citation templates You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Same ref used twice or more The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code: <ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref> The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again: <ref name=smith/> You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. Example You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. Next step When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book: Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information: Wikipedia:Citing sources Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style Wikipedia:Citation templates Wikipedia:Footnotes I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Touching base

click [show] to display

Howdy ... I'm in Washington, DC (GMT -4 hours) and Really Short for time right now, but wanted to let you know that I've left a message at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum and that we'll be starting your lessons on this page Real Soon Now ... I see that Tyrenius (talk · contribs) has already left your first one. :-) Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Whoops! Looks like I've been touched by the Fickle Finger of Fate again. :-) There was a power failure in my building while I was running my errands, and now I have a new IP address again ... this one could last for just a few days, or for a nearly a month, like my previous one. Anywho, I'm preparing some sandbox pages to which I will point you Real Soon Now, but first I have a little housecleaning to do because of the IP change ... the "collapsible comment" trick that User:Tyrenius just taught us will keep our Talk pages from getting as bloated as my last one did ... that was the New Thing that I learned for today ... I was planning to (and still shall) create sandboxes for discussions on different topics, but I like the idea of having "clones" of article sections right on a Talk page instead of having to bookmark them ... they can always be deleted when no longer needed. Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content vs links

I would just add, what may not have been clear from the discussions above & on the other page, that adding content to articles, as opposed to links, is much less likely to cause problems, and is generally preferable. There may be licensing issues - you can't just plonk down V&A content & say 'I'm from the V&A, so its ok'. I'm no expert on the procedures we have, but I'm sure others can help. But in general, under WP:COI you do not have a COI issue adding information on say Bill Brandt to his article in the way that you do if you add a link to your site - assuming the info is not all about the V&A collection etc. Also info re temporary exhibitions is best avoided, and you need to follow the general wiki-policies. We cover many V&A areas very weakly indeed, and there are thousands of articles where V&A content, suitably, edited, adapted and credited, would be very useful. But of course this takes far longer than just adding a link. Johnbod 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If there is useful content in the linked item, it is better to add that useful content to the article and then use the link as a reference for it. The V&A would certainly count as a reliable source to verify content as long as it is written from a neutral point of view without straying from the content of the reference into personal speculation or interpretation. Tyrenius 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Created User:VAwebteam/COIN archive for you

Hello, VAwebteam … since it will soon disappear from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page during the next backup/purge of inactive issues, I have made an archive copy of the recent discussion regarding your account, just in case you need to refer to it in the future … I have also taken the liberty of creating an initial User page for you (so your username will no longer be redlinked), with convenience links for contacting Some Other Editors who have offered their assistance, and links to a few subpages that I have created in order to help you get started as a responsible contributor to Wikipedia … Happy Editing! —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

Click [show] to display

OK, I think that the first thing to do is review those 40 ELs that were reverted ... we'll use User:VAwebteam/To do list for this ... I've started with 16, and did the first 3 to show what I have in mind, so you've got 13 to work on. The idea is to collect article:link pairs, being the Wikipedia article to which you tried to add an EL, and the recovered EL ... that's the first pass. The second pass is to compare the two the two and make a decision: add it as either a cite or an EL, or else MOVE ON. While you're doing that, I'll continue collecting the Top 40 and add them to the last section ... ping me when you've done the two passes through the initial group, and I'll mark those I've added so far as the second group ... after reviewing your results, I'll go back to collecting the third group while you make the two passes on the second, and so on until we've completed the 40. When we're finished, I think that you'll be ready to continue without supervision, having learned how to decide what to do when presented with an article:link suggestion ... that's what you had proposed posting on the article's talk page to ask for the opinion/consent of Some Other Editor, and that's Not Gonna Happen for a very simple reason; there is no guarantee that anyone will see your post and reply in a reasonable amount of time, say less than a fortnight ... and even if they do reply the very next day, who's to say that they are any better qualified to make a decision than you are? They could be less experienced when they see it than you are at this very moment ... in a fortnight, you will be more experienced (in the decision process at least, bother the technical competency) than most new users are after 6 months. Anywho, please leave a message on my talk page when you've read this and get started ... your User page says you'll be available during normal business hours in London, so we can set a morning or afternoon of a particular day of the week when we'll both be on line at the same time and can respond to each other's posts within a half-hour ... or would you prefer that we exchange email address? Scheduling also depends on who wants to actively participate, and how much they are willing do do, e.g., spend their time reading/reviewing/commenting on what we are doing to help form the consensus, or take a half-dozen article:link pairs and implement the consensus decision by adding the links as either citations or just ELs. It's now Friday afternoon in DC, and I'll assume that you've left for the day/weekend ... I'm ready to crash now ... I'll do more over the weekend, but I don't expect a reply from you before Monday morning. Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC) It's not a case of experience, but of COI. V&Ateam have one, other editors don't. Johnbod 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC) OK, then call it "wisdom" instead of "experience" that VAwebteam will hopefully acquire with our collective efforts in this little project ... FYI, WP:COI used to be called WP:VANITY, and it began: A vanity page is a type of Wikipedia article usually submitted for deletion. While "vanity page" is an amorphous construct and it's difficult to develop explicit criteria for diagnosis, normally the intent of the writer can be inferred from the tone of the article. Are you still questioning their motivational imperative? —72.75.100.232 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Since the old policy has been replaced with the new, that issue does not really arise, and I must say I rather resent you asking the question in that way. Johnbod 02:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Just pointing out that WP:VANITY was renamed, not replaced (a decision made a few months ago for reasons of "political correctness" to remove the negative connotation, a fact which may have been unknown to you before I brought it to your attention), but that has always been the primary focus behind the COI guideline, i.e., "self-promotion" ... and I apologize for my tone of voice, but I thought that we had put this whole COI issue behind us, and here you bring it up again, implying that VAwebteam has an agenda that conflicts with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ... please stop WikiLawyering, because IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE it really doesn't matter that they are adding links to their employer's website (and possibly content as well at some future point) ... either contribute to our effort to help an editor closely associated with the Victoria and Albert Museum become a productive contributor to Wikipedia, or else MOVE ON. Sorry, Johnbod, I'm trying to remain civil, but quite frankly, your comments in this particular thread are disruptive, and I deeply resent the loss of time that I have spent responding to them (which could have been better spent working on the To Do list), because now I have to deal with my responsibilities outside of Wikipedia, and will have to perform the tasks that I had scheduled for this work period at Some Other Time. —72.75.100.232 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC) You are completely failing to remain civil, I'm afraid! Johnbod 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I see it is indeed time to move on. My comments/thoughts/2p: I feel that we are still purely discussing the plain linkadditions. Although the guideline does not forbid a user with a conflict of interest to add the links themselves, they are urged to take great caution. I think the general thought should be that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Though all links should be considered on their value, please consider also the other possibilities. If the external link is to a page with text, I do believe you are doing a disservice to an external site if you only link to it .. is there really nothing to tell that would warrant using it as a reference. If the link is to a page with only pictures, why not consider oploading a representative handful of them (on the picture page there should be a reference to the site where the picture was taken from), making a gallery and discussing the gallery (and here suddenly our external link is viable as a reference for some other pictures!). It makes the pages much more attractive. I think that in the end we then have only a few links left where there is no choice .. and these can be discussed on the talkpages, or on an appropriate wikiproject (please also consider WP:NOT#REPOSITORY there, we don't want a linkfarm on the pages (an often used argument by people adding external links is 'but there is already an external link to another (fill in your company/organisation), why not mine also). Remember with external links, although we are writing an online encyclopedia, there are still people who use the wikipedia offline (on computers without internet, e.g. because they are somewhere in a forest in the middle of Brasil). External links do not have value there, content does. So all in all, I think you should not be focussing on the re-addition of the about 55 reverted external links, I think the focus should be on improving the content of these 55 articles (or another random set of articles), with or without the help of the external links under discussion (remember that links to other organisations can also be appropriate!). In conclusion, I do not have a problem with someone from an organisation adding content (with appropriate links to reliable sources), and with an occasional link to his/her own organisation, I might have a problem if the edits concern only the addition of plain external links (or maybe plain references, where the actual document was not used by that editor to actually improve/write the article) to documents on their own website. The latter may suggest linkspamming under a conflict of interest, and as all these guidelines then say, discuss on the talkpage, even if that takes 4 months before someone responds (use a wikiproject, response may be quicker there). I also understand that discussing on talkpages takes time, effort, and so does writing content. (Bad faith warning:) I hope we are not all too lazy to actually improve the wikipedia by writing content and discussing, in stead of copy-and-pasting external links from one site into the text of the wikipedia document. I know that this borders on not assuming good faith, but I think all the involved policies and guidelines are clear: if in doubt, discuss on the talkpage. I hope this explains and that this gives an incentive to move on to improving the wikipedia. Have a nice day (though Wales seems a bit grey today). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I guess I should have explained more clearly to avoid the confusion ... rather than use new situations of, "I think that this would be a good link to add this this article," we should use the Top 40 that were reverted as "lessons" for the kind of "yes/no" decision process that would take place if they were to propose the addition on the article's talk page. I don't have a clue as to what percentage of them should be added or not, or if added, as refs or as links, but yeah, in some cases, it's the article that needs some Serious Attention, and the warm bodies at VAM are a "potentially exploitable resource" for doing just that, once their consciousness has been raised with regard to COI/POV concerns/issues and how to avoid them. Sorry for the confusion ... it just seemed logical to me (and I assumed it would be to others as well) that we had a ready-made pool of article:link pairs on which we could focus, instead of hoping that Some Other Editor would see an inquiry on an article's talk page and also be willing to devote the resources to helping add a link (or improve the article) if it was appropriate ... hopefully, after processing the Top 40 as examples (and with our feedback), VAwebteam will not have to ask for opinions/suggestions Quite So Often ... every potential article:link raises its own questions, and since we're making this up as we go along (i.e., there is no established protocol which can be used), it's the "wisdom gained from experience" that we're trying to fast-track through an accelerated program based on already available article:link situations. BTW, my motivational imperative in this endeavor is "enlightened self-interest" ... I expect to come out of it a wiser, more responsible editor in the next fortnight than I would have become in the next six months by making unsupervised mistakes on my own, and with Much Less scar tissue to show for it. :-) 'Nuff Said! —72.75.100.232 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two examples of proper Wiki-etiquette

Click [show] to display contents

Hi ... I just did something that I thought I should share with you ... I made some edits to Fig leaf, and was going to add the VAM citation for the plaster fig leaf made for the statue of David (Michelangelo) to that article ... that led me to deciding that I should swap an image between two articles, in this case the other one was the one for Accademia di Belle Arti Firenze, where the original statue is on display. So, with a Major Edit like that, one MUST leave a comment on the Discussion page ... simply using the Edit summary is NOT sufficient. (You can compare the before & after for both of them, but "what" and "why" are academic to what I'm trying to share.) What I did was open a second tab in my browser so that I could edit Talk:David (Michelangelo)#Different image and Talk:Accademia di Belle Arti Firenze#Different image simultaneously (reading one of the posts would be a Good Thing, to see the level of detail in presenting the logic behind the argument for making the change) ... I composed the message in one, and when I was satisfied, did a copy&paste to the other one (changing the name of the swap destination, of course), saved one, and then the other the time stamps in my edit history show as one minute apart instead of the same minute, but it only took a few seconds to switch tabs and hit SAVE again, so it the clock must have rolled over during that interval ... I'm not enough of a mathemagician to figure the odds on that, but I'd say that there was a 1:4 chance that they would not have been in the same minute on the time stamps. :-) Anywho, that's the example that I wanted to share with you ... an example of Be Bold where you cover your ass all bases ... BTW, I have done similar kinds of things (change one or more articles at the same time), and Some Other Editor has reverted for reasons with which I totally agreed, once I had "facts not in evidence" at the time, with a "Hey, I'd have done it myself if I hadn't known!" response from the editor ... no harm, no foul ... I'd been a Responsible Editor, just acting from a lack of information that would have led me to a different decision, so no one complained of WP:VANDAL behavior. I nearly forgot to mention an earlier change, to Fig leaf ... there had been several changes since I restored your link last week, including the addition of although the female vaginal area was generally covered in art for public display That led me to look for something to link to "vaginal area", and I found Mons pubis, which is the technical term ... OTOH, even though Wikipedia is not censored, Some Other Editor might have found it offensive for younger, unsupervised readers to see (I mean, we are talking about an article devoted to the topic of Victorian modesty, after all), so I found groin as a sufficiently bowlderized replacement for both the link and the anchor, and left a comment in the article next to the addition, i.e.: although the female [[Mons pubis|vaginal area]] <!--anyone offended by this link may substitute [[groin]]--> was generally covered in art for public display That's an example of leaving an alternative for a change that you make that does not need to be mentioned in either the edit summary or on the talk page ... if Some Other Editor has an inclination to change it, then they will find it. BTW, I'm about half-way through adding to the Top 40 list of your edits going back to Christine Keeler @ 12:45, 7 May 2007, and should have all of them added to the To Do list when you arrive at your office on Monday morning ... I plan to add article:link pairs from the bottom up so that we don't get in each other's way, and we can meet in the middle. Final comment for now ... if you'll enable an email address at VAM for your Wikipedia account, then I can logon as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) and send you my email address ... that kind of asynchronous, off-line communication would probably be more convenient for some dialogs, especially if there is no need to have them archived as Talk page comments ... you can reply on this thread with any reasons why that would not be an viable option, like Official Company Policy, avoiding spam spiders that collect email addresses, etc. 'Nuff said! —72.75.100.232 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) D'oh! On second thought, just use the "E-mail this user" link on User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome to initiate First Contact with me … I forgot that it works both ways. :-) —72.75.70.147 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you so much for all of your help. I tried to get on with things today but was thwarted by wikipedia's servers. I'll try again tomorrow to get on with my first task. I'm doing Wikipedia work in my spare time so this is going to be a slow process!! VAwebteam 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I hit that same wall this morning, so I took a break and did my laundry then instead of in the afternoon as planned. :-) BTW, don't forget to indent your replies. (A power failure reset my modem yesterday, so my IP username has changed again.) —72.75.70.147 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Again, the servers were down when I tried to do some work!!! When I finally got in I tried your e-mail link but it wouldn't work. I think I've set mine up right now so you could try it....VAwebteam 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Some thoughts: 1) There is no equivalent of Category:Collection of the British Museum for articles on specific objects - I see Tipu's Tiger, the Three Graces and the Ardabil Carpet have articles, and no doubt there are others.

2) Applied arts are not my area, but I think ceramics, especially non-uk, metalwork, textiles, and Asian art are all areas where WP is not strong - Indian art coverage is certainly very weak.

3) Because of a peculiarity in American copyright law, WP is extremely well-off for photos of 2-dimensional works of art over a 100 years old, which are treated as not-copyrightable, but not for photos of 3-dimensional works, where photos remain copyrightable. So many articles on 3-D areas are unillustrated, and links to good photos on the V&A site are much more acceptable than they would be for paintings etc.

4) The main V&A article is very incomplete on the collections. Some areas are well covered, others have only 1 line.

Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 June 2007

Indeed ... that's exactly the kind of thing that motivated me to suggest that we should help VAwebteam become an autonomous, responsible contributor (their collection of images must be Totally Awesome) ... something to add to the "project" To Do list (or create another one) would be a list of articles that would benefit from images uploaded from the V&A website ... why don't you create a sandbox with a starter list, and maybe find one or two in their existing articles ... no need to upload and insert them yourself; just provide URLs for the pages where they can be found (like http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/british_galls/audio_talk_art/three_graces/index.html and http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/object_stories/ardabil/index.html for the carpet.) —72.75.70.147 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, wrought iron is, like virtually all metalwork articles I've seen, an art-history-free zone. Category:Genres of Indian art is very short of articles & most of them are very poor. Indian sculpture is barely present. Category:Chinese porcelain is certainly better, but still full of stubs. Finding the gaps in WP's coverage of applied art is not the problem, so I don't think I need to overload them with great lists. But if they aren't used to the categories, that is the best way to search an area - it's easy to pick up how to use them. I suspect they (he/she) has enough lined up for the present! Johnbod 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

• Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.

• Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi ... I see you're working on the To Do list ... in your edits, you should always leave an Edit summary (that little text window above the Save page button), even when it's a minor cosmetic edit ... see my Contribs for an example, and compare with yours (click User conributions in the toolbox menu underneath the search dialog box on the left of the screen. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, have added them since getting your tip.VAwebteam 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Sorry, I'm not in a position to contribute to this because of other commitments. However, I would make the point that it is always preferable to add article content and use the external link as a reference with an inline citation per the "Guide to referencing" above on this page. Tyrenius 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message for VAwebteam

Thank you for your note to me. I've replied on my talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've done several, & the rest are probably ok. Johnbod 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. VAwebteam 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful image

The Ardabil Carpet image you uploaded significantly enhances the article, great addition. — Athaenara ✉ 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Grasshopper, you are doing Quite Well! :-) ... I have been observing your activities from the shadows, but not actively participating ... you have truly become a Responsible Contributor. —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh shucks. I've had good guidance, just hope I don't let you down! Thank you! VAwebteam 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chocolatepot.jpg

You have listed this image as both public domain and copyrighted. This is not possible. Please clarify the status of this image before someone gets it deleted. Rmhermen 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning about deletion. I'd really appreciate some advice on this. I put this image down as being in the public domain because the artist died over 100 years ago and anyone could walk into the V&A and take a picture of this object and use it on wikipedia. However, this image was taken by the V&A's photostudio and if someone wanted to use it for a commercial publication or similar they would need to contact the V&A's picture library regarding permission for usage BUT for the purposes of illustrating wikipedia articles and anyone wanting to use it in their research etc it's ok to use it and the V&A's director has given his permission to do so. The image was taken from the V&A website so could be added to wikipedia by any member of the public, but as I work on the V&A's website I know a little bit about the history of the images and thought it best to add the copyright symbol. Does this make sense? By contributing these images to wikipedia the V&A is assuming good faith from wikipedia's users. Perhaps I could drop the copyright symbol and add a note in the summary for people to contact the picture library if they want better quality images for commercial usage? VAwebteam 08:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I have removed the copyright symbols from the images this applies to and hope this means they won't be deleted. VAwebteam 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working around prejudice

You've had a brusque introduction to Wikipedia, I see, but I hope you and the V&A team aren't put off by the resentment so confidently expressed here of educated, informed opinion. The way to get information you know to be correct and enlightening into Wikipedia articles is through ventriloquism: find a published statement from a "reputable source" (this, too, can bring problems when "reputable" is judged by a high-school senior in Idaho), work it into the article, and note your source in a footnote. Even professional commonplaces are read as "Original Research" by officious Wikipedians who've never had any contact with the field. If you get into a tangle with the trogs, call on me.

Photos you load to Wikipedia need to be your own, not official V&A photos, for which there are always copyright issues. Anything you can shoot from the English furniture or the Jones Collection (golly, or the Wallace Collection!) may serve to build an article upon: Ince and Mayhew David Roentgen etc etc. Be in touch. --Wetman 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yvessaintlaurent.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yvessaintlaurent.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jeanmuir.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeanmuir.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image additions

Hi, and thank you for your image additions. However, you must know that wikipedia does not accept copyrighted photos where freely licensed images could be created. I have noticed that you have uploaded several images under a fair use rationale, but this is not acceptable where the photos are replaceable--this includes images of objects currently on display in your museum. If you would like to add these photos to the articles, they must be licensed under a free license that allows commercial use and modification by any party. I am going to be flagging your previously uploaded photos as replaceable fair use, and they will be deleted within a week if you do not alter the license. You are of course welcome to only upload low-resolution images under a free license and include a link to a higher-resolution, copyrighted image. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:NONFREE for a primer on our non-free content policies. Calliopejen1 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have flagged Image:Chafingdish.jpg, Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg, Image:Mazer.jpg, Image:Chocolatepot.jpg, Image:Chrismatory.jpg, Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg, Image:Stsebastian.jpg, and Image:Lustreware.jpg as replaceable fair use. Calliopejen1 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Grasshopper ... if the images have a copyright problem, then just have a link to the Victoria and Albert Museum page that contains the image ... either a cited reference or an external link will do ... this editor (Calliopejen1, apparently knowledgeable in the area of Fashion design) has not seen the history of your COI intervention a few months ago, so rather than confront this copyright thing directly, its best to just circumvent the problem with links instead of images. <Heavy Sigh!> Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ideally you should go through whatever hoops you need to do to document the V&A permission to use a low res version for WP purposes, but they have to be aware that anything on WP is effectively available for anyone to use under the GNwhatever license. So links are certainly easiest. Johnbod 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on being late to respond to this issue. I've been talking to colleagues at the V&A about the use of the V&A's images. They are still very keen for them to be used on wikipedia but not happy about them being commercially available (hence the nonfree copyright tag). The V&A is very keen to share their images for non-commercial use as you will see from the Search the Collections section on their site. There are a few restrictions on using these images laid out on Use of Standard Web Images, is there a copyright tag in wikipedia that applies? Obviously these images were taken in a photo studio and any photographs taken in the galleries (permissable under a free license) would be taken through glass and therefore inferior quality.

Also, I've been reading on various discussion pages about the use of images to illustrate an article. I used an image of the Ardabil carpet to illustrate the article of the same name....does this fit under the nonfree license as the V&A owns this carpet and it's one of a kind? Any advice gratefully received. I know copyright is a complete minefield having dealt with it on the V&A's website for many years. VAwebteam 10:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an area Far Beyond my expertise ... sorry I can't be more helpful. —72.75.74.236 12:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy!

Hello, Grasshopper ... just thought I'd mention that I took a look over your shoulder, and I see that you've been quite the busy little beaver ... my own edits have been mostly of the "rvv" kind lately ... I tried using a few of my deletion warning protocols with the {{warn-editor}} and {{warn-article}} templates that I created a few months ago, but I don't seem to be in the mood for new pages patrol in this phase of my mood swings, although I have returned to checking my watchlist several times each day (especially if there's nothing good to watch on the old "boob tube") ... Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Bening image

Just to let you know, I removed the copyright sign on the nice V&A image here, & changed the licensing on the picture itself to "pd-old". I think I have mentioned before (oh yes - just above) that 2-dimensional images where the creator is dead for over 100 years are public domain in the US, and I believe Germany, which are where WP's servers are located. So UK copyright law just does not apply to WP - hence our excellent collection of older images. The 2d/3d rule is because US law does not recognise the photographer of a 2D object as using enough skill to obtain their own copyright (it is of course the photo not the miniature which has copyright under UK law). It doesn't matter what license is used by the uploader, anyone can validly change it as I did. The licence you used said it was a 3-D object btw, which the miniature clearly isn't (a photo of the whole book, if there is one, would be). Carpets are a bit tricky - either 2d or 3d could be argued. Equally anyone can upload a 2d image from the V&a website & claim a PD license regardless of copyright claims on the site, as I expect you are aware. So really, once it is on the website, it is available for PD use anywhere, if it meets the 2d & age conditions. But of course these are low-res images. Johnbod 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Hi. I see you are making good progress, and have been working positively with the wikipedia community in order to enhance our nice encyclopedia.

Since (and also before) our first encounters there have been several similar cases with 'archives' performing link additions only, and that still is a reason for concern. I have now tried to collect an essay on this subject pertaining why this is of concern, and, in the end, try to come with some solutions. I think the way your situation was handled is a good example for this (I do link to the separate pages discussing your work in the essay).

I was wondering if you could have a look through the document. I hope you can give some recommendations (on the talkpage), or even change some things here and there (feel really free to edit the document!). It is now still in my sandbox (here), but as soon as I am satisfied with it, and can think of an appropriate name, I will move it to Wikipedia namespace (next to the other essays). Hope you can find some time to have a look. Thanks already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL

Please note that material released under GFDL has specific restrictions. The GFDL licence must be reproduced along with material used under it. If the licence is not reproduced, then the person using the material cannot claim it is used under GFDL and it reverts to a normal copyright situation, i.e. a breach of copyright, which can be pursued as usual. As the GFDL contains a lot of text, publishers may well prefer to not take the GFDL option, but simply to contract for use of material in the normal way. This is the experience of certain photographers who have uploaded material to wikipedia under GFDL. Furthermore, some of them upload and license a low res image (a max dimension of maybe 600 or 1000 pixels), suitable for wiki's purposes, but no use for quality print purposes.

GFDL thus affords more protection than may be immediately apparent. The copyright still remains with the originator, who can put the normal copyright claim on the image upload page on wiki. The copyright holder is issuing a licence for use. The GFDL does allow for modification, in which case the originator and the modifier must both be credited. The modifier holds the copyright on the change they have effected (which they have also licensed under GFDL).

As you are aware by now, any image upload to wiki that specifies non-commercial use will be deleted. Also, as Johnbod has pointed out above, images can be uploaded to wiki under a fair use claim, and US law, which applies to the wiki servers, has not recognised any copyright for a photographer of a 2D image. Even when the 2D image itself is in copyright, fair use can be claimed and an image used.

Wikipedia seeks to limit fair use claims, and there are limitations imposed by the project, stricter than legal requirements, as to how and where such images may be used. It is thus highly preferable that images are ones released under GFDL.

I therefore urge you to seriously consider releasing appropriate images under GFDL. Reasonable protection still remains, as I have pointed out above. You are obviously aware of the reach of wikipedia to a worldwide audience. The advantage to the V&A of releasing images, as suggested, is that such items in its collection will gain considerable exposure. The image page text will show the origin of the image as being the V&A.

I should stress that TINLA and I don't represent the Foundation, but am speaking as an individual editor.

Tyrenius 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ceremonialmace.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Ceremonialmace.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 10:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linnaeus Tripe

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Linnaeus Tripe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/photography/photo_focus/tripe/biography/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, Grasshopper ... you can't just go copying and reformatting pages from another site ... the bots are ever vigilant, as you can see by the above ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 09:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardmans

Great pic. I've removed the window because the article was too cluttereed. Can you please go back and cut down the caption, which mentions Hardmans twice and the V&A twice. That's fine for a museum catalogue, but not necessary in the context of the article.

Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've taken some of the caption away. Please remove anything else you think not necessary. VAwebteam (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL releases

Some great images and a marvellous addition to the encyclopedia! I see you've added some very helpful text to the image pages. That would be the right place to put any further information, if you wish, maybe about where the specific example can be located in the museum for any readers who want to find the original. You are also welcome to link to the specific web page for the item on your site. I'm not aware of any other major museum contributing to wikipedia in this way before. You are certainly at the "cutting edge". Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For some great images! If anyone deserves this, I should think the V&A does! Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Victoria_and_Albert_Museum. Feel free to post there. Tyrenius (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

The usual repository for GFDL images is the "Commons" at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . This means that all the other language wikis can use them as well, whereas if they're just on the English wiki that isn't possible. GFDL images normally get transferred there anyway, so you might like to open an account at the Commons and upload directly. This is not obligatory though. Tyrenius (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - this would also have the advantage that they could be added to the Commons category there. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for what you are doing with V&A images on Wikipedia!! If you need help from someone outside, I have been working in fashion history, textile arts, Morris & Co., etc., and there are TONS of images that I wish we could use.

I am going to make a version of Image:Crewelwork.jpg without the white borders and put it in the Commons. If that's a problem, let me know and I'll delete it.- PKM (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to take off the borders of this image. Thank you for your message. VAwebteam (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did; the image is here: Image:Crewelwork Jacobean V+A.jpg. I've made a new subcategory for V&A Museum textiles in fond hope that more will appear. Thanks much. - PKM (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese art

Hi VAwebteam! It is very cool that you work for the Victoria and Albert Museum! I was wondering that if you could upload some images of Chinese art onto Wikipedia, especially I know that the museum has many high quality selections. Pictures of ceramic art (Chinese porcleain) would be fantastic! I would appreciate it if you could take time and upload some of them.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above, I wonder if you are open for requests in general. If so, we could give this some wider publicity to other wiki editors. Tyrenius (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucie Rie

As a recent contributor to Lucie Rie, you might want to comment on a proposal to merge Lucy Rie at its discussion page. Truthanado (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Copper snuffbox.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC) --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this. It's a bit heavy-handed. To put this to rest and avoid future problems, I wonder if you could arrange for the V&A to contact the Foundation as at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us to affirm you are entitled to give GFDL permission for images. Alternatively, if it is stated on the V&A web site that the museum web team contribute to wikipedia as VAwebteam that would be just as good, and it could be linked to from your user page. Maybe it would make a nice feature on the museum site that objects from the collection are now being featured in wikipedia articles. Tyrenius (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May Morris

Is is possible for the V&A to release the embroidery design by May Morris here (or som,ething similar) for use in Wikipedia? We could also use a photograph of May Morris as an adult. Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria and Albert Museum images

For all images from the V&A website that you upload to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, you are hereby authorized to place {{PermissionOTRS|https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1332999}} on the image description pages. This indicates that an agent from the V&A Museum has indeed confirmed the terms of the image licensing. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ping

Hello again, Grasshopper ...

Just stumbled across an old thread between us from last May on a previous IP talk page, and I thought to myself, "Self, you haven't thought of VAwebteam since before Xmas!" ... for a while I amused myself by making templates, like {{Oldprodfull}} and {{Anon-sig}} ... I've been a "casual" editor the past few weeks (I guess the post-birthday depression hasn't worn off yet. :-)

{{subst:Anon-sig}} → Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Isokonpenguin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Isokonpenguin.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 03:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)