Talk:Underneath the Lintel
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Plot details: Help!
[edit]Please help to fill in details of the plot, as I can't really recall them! Cheers, Jacklee 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, J.A., you recently uploaded Image:JohnDHuston.jpg to Wikipedia and used it in this article. You licensed the image to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-3.0 licence. Can I confirm that you're the copyright owner of this image? If so, I can transfer it to the Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used by other Wikipedia projects as well.
Also, the information that you inserted about the 2007 Fringe Festival of Toronto's production of the play has not been referenced. Could you add a citation? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- The reference is me ... I was there and saw the play! I am not adept at the process of citations and the intricacies of proper formatting (it's too complicated I think ... but whaddya gonna do?) If you visit either of the websites I added as reference material you will find links to Toronto entertainment publications that should serve as the citations that you are seeking. Please add them if its important.
- The photo is mine ... I shot it ... the copyright is mine. Please do not reproduce the photo anywhere else. I will look into this "Wikipedia Commons" and decide if I'd like to extend my work to this mode of reproduction. If I do, I will make these changes to its status myself.
- Thanks for your interest.
Hi, J.A. Facts that appear in Wikipedia articles needs to be referenced, so yes, it is important. see "Wikipedia:Citing sources", which provides information on how to insert footnotes using <ref> tags.
Thanks for confirming that you are the copyright owner of the image. However, by licensing it to Wikipedia under the CC-BY-3.0 licence, what you have done is to enable anyone to reuse the image for any purpose, commercial and non-commercial, as well as to make derivative use of it (for example, by modifying it or including it in a collage with other images). Images on Wikipedia generally have to be released into the public domain in this way, as it is a free encyclopedia that anyone can use. If this was not what you intended, I would suggest that you arrange for the existing image to be deleted and license to Wikipedia a smaller, low-resolution version of the image, or provide an image that you are happy to release into the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya,
- I'm not ignorant. References are important in many cases and I never said they weren't. However I am not sure at what point a "fact" goes from trustworthy as stated in understood good faith (as one finds in newspapers every day), to one that is obscure and possibly contentious and important enough to require careful referencing. I brought these facts to the article in good faith (along with external references to the facts), but am not really interested in learning the complicated mark-up language ... its too complicated and there seems to be an increasing number of ceaseless arguments and turf wars about petty issues on Wikipedia. I am finding adding to it more and more distasteful as I end up getting involved in time gobbling discussions of form or etiquette ... just like this one. If you have taken on the task of policing this article then please go ahead and fix the references in the manner I suggested in my first note, as you seem to have it all down pat, and the answers are still sitting exactly where I said they were. I seem to just make a mess when I try these complicated things, and an hour later it might be done ... but not correctly in some peoples opinion. So remove it, or take what I've done and makes it "correct" to your standards ... you can always just do what you want in Wikipedia until the next person comes along.
- Also, I was under the impression that as author and copyright owner I would have to be credited if someone re-used the photo. I also thought that the license was only for non-commercial and attributed reproduction, as I believe I once read here when I uploaded another image to Wikipedia using the same license ... if your goal was to have the picture removed ... then mission accomplished. I do not believe that by posting it I have given away all rights to the image. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if I am correct about this, then if (as you imply in your comments about the license and my photo) people here cannot be trusted to read the license and respect it then I guess the picture will be removed, as I hate having my work ripped off without even attribution.
- I don't think one should not have to type several messages to and fro with someone they don't even know in order to make a contribution to Wikipedia. These articles belong to everyone and no one, and I hate typing forever with strangers, some of whom seem to believe they "own" an article or entire subject (not to say that this applies to you ... but you know this exists), just to help add to a project that I believe rests on good faith. If you can make it better go ahead. I've done so in good faith, but don't enjoy all the behind the scenes typing about what I have done. I guess I'm through here.
- Best of luck with your work here.
Hi, J.A. No one is questioning your bona fides in inserting facts into the article. However, I disagree that only "obscure", "possibly contentious" and/or "important" facts require referencing. Wikipedia is used by a worldwide audience, and a fact that is obvious to one person may be obscure to another. Unless a fact is widely known, it can only be verified by someone else if a reference is provided for it. You did mention that the facts in question were referenced by links you had placed in the "External links" section, but it is your responsibility as the editor inserting the information to ensure it is properly referenced: see "Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence". If you're going to stick around Wikipedia I'd encourage you to pick up how to do referencing – it's not that hard! – but if you'd rather not do so you should at least place the source relied on after the fact inserted as shown below so that another editor can mark it up:
- This is the fact inserted.[http://www.underneaththelintel.ca]
If you don't identify which source goes with which fact, it may be difficult or inconvenient for other editors to figure it out.
It was not my intention to get you to remove the image. Why would I want to do that, unless the image was inappropriate to the article? I did not take any steps to delete the image from the article. All I did was to try and confirm that you were the copyright owner of the photograph, so that I could transfer it to the Wikimedia Commons as it had been licensed under CC-BY-3.0. When I realized you had misunderstood the licence, I felt I should let you know so that you could have the image removed in order to protect your copyright if you wanted to do so. I also suggested that you upload a smaller, low-resolution version of the photograph or an alternative image. As for the effect of the licence, I'm afraid you are mistaken about the effect of the licence. There was a link on the image description page of the image (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), and if you had clicked it you would have seen that by licensing an image under this licence you were informing other users that they were free "to copy, distribute and transmit the work" and "to adapt the work" so long as they attributed the original image to you.
Finally, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. A project can only be called "collaborative" if the people working on it are open to discussing matters with each other. Discussions are supposed to be conducted in an atmosphere of civility with participants dealing with each other in good faith in order to reach consensus. Perhaps other editors you've dealt with have not stuck to these principles, but I don't see why you feel it necessary to vent your frustrations in my direction. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
