User:D C McJonathan/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:D C McJonathan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
 Archives |
|---|
Your correction to my mom's (Phyllis Fraser's) article
Hi, Doc!
Many thanks for reverting my mom's birthdate to the actual, correct one -- and, indeed, for so generously posting an article about her in the first place! Our family is truly grateful!
As you suggested, I'll add the exact date of her birth (4/13/1916) to the article, too, and will probably add a few more salient facts as time goes on....
All best, ChrisCerf 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Phyllis Cerf
Hi!! I was going to ask why you rved my changes to her wikipage, but I just read the above from her son, and I understand why. I didn't know you ahd created the page. Congrats!!
However you also rv other changes besides her date of birth, most notably right now the fact that Vinton Haworth (later Hayworth) was NOT Rita Hayworth's brother, but her UNCLE!! (he married Jean Owens, you can also check IMDb). I am going to fix the Vinton Ha(y)worth stuff now, but I will leave the date of birth correct, b/c obviously her son knows best.
Thanks for listening.
216.194.2.76 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I wish the people whose pages I create would thank me, but that's a pretty small # compared to you anyway, I guess.
- It's on my list to check out the Hayworth information. The reason I rv'd all was I didn't have the time to check it out then, and because as an anonymous user, it is difficult to have dialogue with you or for someone to "thank you" for pages that you may create. There is also concern that your IP is a sockpuppet which could be another reason to be logged in. I'll be traveling the next few days, but I will get back to it. Doc 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni Agnelli
What Calton meant by unsafe is that we're dealing with an editor who made substantial and widespread additions of copyright-infringing materials. Feel free to improve the affected articles as you think best once the problems are cleaned out. --Michael Snow 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The history was removed for a combination of reasons, one being to try and avoid the situation where someone simply reverts back to the copyright-infringing version, as this editor persists in trying to get the article on "his" version. Another is that every revision available through the history is and continues to be publicly available, so in a significant sense merely reverting may not truly correct the problem of publishing copyright infringement. I trust that a lost category or two can easily be reconstructed; your contribution was the Agnelli family category and a reference to his daughter Susanna, if you care to restore that information. --Michael Snow 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2 userids
yes, so I discovered by accident, shortly after creating the 2nd userid. Any idea how I can get rid of hmains2 as it probably has no purpose for me? Thanks Hmains 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
ALL CAPS
The edit war was just tongue in cheek fun. Here is the reference Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS). The reference for the New York Times transcription project is in the link. When they transcribe their headlines, they reduce to the "Title Case".
It looks like we have a lot in common, we should stay in touch. We both like Findagrave and Wikipedia. I have been transcribing old cemeteries for 10 years now. Have you been looking through the new newspaper archives online for obituaries? You can find the obits for lots of famous people in the New York Times, even if you just get to read the first few lines for free. If they are older than 1902 you get them in the Brooklyn Eagle for free. See: Newspaper archives online. Sometimes I can't think of anything to add to Wikipedia, then i'll read something, or pass a building near where I live and be inspired and then spend endless hours researching the archives, and census, and Corbis.com (looking for an image).
thanks for replying
thanks doc for explaining about the Richard Avedon page...i guess that book would be better first (even though Cher rules...lol) thanks for returning the Kinski pic...so far the people i have chatted with on this site have been really nice & understanding...i hope it continues.Adomono 03:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Oscar de la Renta
Yes, but his name is Castillian so it's Óscar, maybe you can even find Oscar in Spanish texts, there was a limitation in typewritings and capital letters could not be accentuated, so some people say capital letters should not be accentuated, but this is wrong according to the RAE, so...Gaudio 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, do whatever you want, i told you guys the correct spellingGaudio 07:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- As i said in several wikipedias, you cannot consider this project as a national project or sth like that, because everybody in every countryside can read it; and people's names follow the rules of their languages and they are out of the rules of the language of a given wikipedia, except those which are not written with Latin characters in languages with Latin characters or viceversa, but you can of course input the name in its language and in the language of the English wikipedia.
- I saw you are a famous person and i didn't know, i realised when i was doing the categorisation of autodidacts in the Castillian wikipedia, you're a physician, right?Gaudio 12:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's something completely different, because you make no spelling mistake, mmm, but it's to you, if you don't want to have the article like that, it's OK. It's nice to dialogue with you too, but i recomend you not to encourage me to dialogue a lot, because i talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk...:) Gaudio 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I meant that that was a diminutive or a nickname and you can do whatever you want to do with it. I speak English, French, Castillian and a little German and Catalan and I can understand the rest of the Romance languages but Romanian, I learnt Latin at highschool, when I was 14 or 15, that was 10 years ago but I remember some declinations and aphorisms :)
- Yes, but that's something completely different, because you make no spelling mistake, mmm, but it's to you, if you don't want to have the article like that, it's OK. It's nice to dialogue with you too, but i recomend you not to encourage me to dialogue a lot, because i talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk...:) Gaudio 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I saw you are a famous person and i didn't know, i realised when i was doing the categorisation of autodidacts in the Castillian wikipedia, you're a physician, right?Gaudio 12:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm learning Mandarin right now, it's difficult, but I love it. I've made articles in French, English and Castillian and just a few in the Wikipedias in Asturianu, Aragonés, Catalan, Dutch, Esperanto, Galician, German ,Ido, Italian, Ladino, Latin and Portuguese. But I'm not that polyglot, people help me, in places like Asturianu wikipedia, they thank you a lot for all the contributions you can make, so if you're thinking of editing things in more wikipedias, do not hesitate and do it.
- And please, tell me about what you want me to see in French and Spanish, I'm looking forward to knowing your interests, I cannot e-mail you, but in theory you can, my e-mail adress is available when you click E-mail this user and i can't find yours :(
- You take care
- Gaudio 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Supermodel
OK. I just think LilFlip hates tyra bank. LilFlip has his/her own def of a supermodel having to have done vogue so he deleted many people's names. I think the models by nationality is relevant bc for class I needed this info to talk about racism in the modelling community, so other students may need this info. I am going to read thru the changes & revert. Thx for your calm response. 208.58.196.156 10:35, 26 June 2006
I don't hate Tyra Banks. I am like the biggest Tyra Banks fan ever. She just isn't a supermodel. Her career is COMMERCIAL. NOT HIGH FASHION. Supermodels are able to maintain both at the same time. Lil Flip246 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Souslevent.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Souslevent.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Maugham.JPG
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Maugham.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.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
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 fair use images 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. Abu Badali 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Edgar de Evia & Belle da Costa Greene
Edgar de EviaBelle da Costa Greene
I have already made these articles in the Castillian and French wikipedias and i saw that the pictures you input are copyrighted, if they are yours or whatever, if you want them to be in French wikipedia it's easy, but not in Spanish wikipedia, i'm tired of arguing with them, so my advise is this: you talk to Lourdes Cardenal [1], she's one of the Castillian wikipedia administrators. She speaks French, but if you have any problem, you guys can use me as your translator. She's not one of my favorite administrators (my favorite administrator is Rupert de hentzau), but i have to admit that she works so hard and she did lots of things about pictures and Commons and those things.
I hope you like what i did, i'll be a little busy but i'll try to continue with your articles soon.
You take care :)
Gaudio 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thx Doc! ( You moved my comment to LilFlip to where it will be read).
Lisa Fonssagrives
Lisa Fonssagrives was an early supermodel and the cover Image:LisaFVogue.jpg which is one of Lisa Fonssagrives' more than 200 covers on Vogue would be representative of a significant impact of the magazine on both the field of supermodels, her individual career and her impact of style on the magazine. If this is clearly stated on the image description and within the articles for all three would this in your opinion qualify for fair use? Thanks. This whole image business is getting to be harder work than it is worth for many users, which is I think unfortunate. Wikipedia and its readers in the long run will be the ones to suffer. Doc 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The magazine Vogue is discussed in the Supermodel article as is the relationship between Lisa Fonssagrives and Vogue and that this issue is representative of the over 200 covers of Vogue on which she appeared. I have asked for your input here several days ago and you have chosen to ignore this request. I am more than willing to discuss this and would welcome your input. Short of this, I have done my best to meet the guidelines required by Wikipedia. This cover is not for 'decorative' purposes but to be illustrative of the importance of the model to the magazine and visa versa and their mutual importance to the existence of supermodels. Doc 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Doc. Firts of all. I'm really sorry for not replying to your earlier message. Somehow I missed it. I usually reply to every civil message left on my talk page and your message was not to be an exception. If we had engaged in conversation at the time, this issue could be done by now. It was a mistake. I hope you accept my apologizes.
- About the image use, I may have misinterpretted something. It that the cover of the 200th issue mentionned in the text? Even if it's so, Is that image really necessary or just decorative? This question may be better put as: Without that image, the information would be incomplete, or just not so nice? As of my understanding, the information in question is the fact that Miss Fonssagrives has been more the 200 times on the cover of Vogue. I would disagree that on image of Miss Fonssagrives in some random Vogue issue would be more than just decorative for this information. I'm not completelly sure, but I believe that even if that is really the cover of the 200th issue, the image is still not necessary to the understanding of the information that "Miss Fonssagrives was more that 200 times on the cover". Am I missing something? What's the iconic value of that speciffic issue of the magazine and where is it disscussed? Best regards (and sorry againg for my earlier mistake), --Abu Badali 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
fisrt part
- It seems to me that all images could be considered decorative in some sense and that on that basis, if we should consider words adequate description then perhaps all images should be banned from Wikipedia. Images do, I believe help to define an article, and has been said many times "a picture is worth a thousand words." Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I strongly agree that images help to define articles. They greatly improve Wikipedia. But, unfortunatelly, we can't just use any image we want. We need to respect the copyright laws. I see no point in banning images from Wikipedia. We have thousand of free licensed images that can be (and are) used any way we pleased. But that's not the case with magazine covers. Magazine covers are copyrighted images. And as such, we can only use them if 1. The copyright holder releases the image under a free license (I had never heard of any case for magazine covers) or 2. We use the image under the fair use provision in the copyright law). But not every use of an Image may be considered fair. Wikipedia:Fair use contains the Wikipedia's policy on claiming fair use for some image use. There's even statements specifically on magazine covers.
second part
- The question here seems to me to be if we can meet the "fair use" standard, which, as I understand it requires showing the relevance to the article in question. The "look" and style of this model is pivotal to whole beginning of supermodels and the magazine and its relationship with this model, with that number of covers, is central to the magazines connection with forming future supermodels. While it might indeed be decorative to have a gallery of all 200+ covers, that would be unreasonable. I do believe that one cover can be representative of this mass and add more than words alone and as such qualifies as "fair use". Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I't not just "showing the relevance to the article in question". The image must be essential, and not just useful. A gallery of 200+ magazine covers would not be fair use at all. I disagree that this image "add more than words alone" to the article. The information "Lisa Fonssagrives have being more than 200 times on Vogue's cover" may be fully expressed with words and, one cover picked randomly from this 200+ set does not increment this information is any way.
- The question here seems to me to be if we can meet the "fair use" standard, which, as I understand it requires showing the relevance to the article in question. The "look" and style of this model is pivotal to whole beginning of supermodels and the magazine and its relationship with this model, with that number of covers, is central to the magazines connection with forming future supermodels. While it might indeed be decorative to have a gallery of all 200+ covers, that would be unreasonable. I do believe that one cover can be representative of this mass and add more than words alone and as such qualifies as "fair use". Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
3rd part
- If there is other or additional wording that I should add to the article, I am open to suggestion Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we should add additional wording to any article just to justify the use of some image. The image usage should augment the text, not the opposite. --Abu Badali 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- If there is other or additional wording that I should add to the article, I am open to suggestion Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
done
- In my opinion, the image does just that. It defines the look, which few if any pubic domain images will do. I was not suggesting additional wording to "justify" but to further clarify the relevance, as the image alone did not seem to do this for you. To me the image speaks for itself. Doc 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seem we have achieved a deadlock. We both agree on the interpretation of the policy but we do disagree on either the image adds to the article significantly enough to be used under a claim of fair use. I apreciate the civil way you conduct this discussion, I'd like all Wikipedians were just as civil. Back to the image use, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia's official policy Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. The las line reads:"As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above.". I believe that's the case with this use of this image, as it could be replaced by any other Vogue cover with Miss Fonssagrives depicted on it. The point is that the article is not talking about that issue of Vogue, so we hardly have a case for fair use here.
- If you still believe that Image:LisaFVogue.jpg is being used in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, we may need a third opinion. I may list this image for deletion, explainig the case, and the community as a whole would help us to decide this point. --Abu Badali 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I in fact did read that policy before my last post, and I do believe that it meets the criteria. In fact using the quick test that you quote, the only image that could replace this one with the same impact would be another Vogue cover, which I presume would meet with the same objection from you as on this one. Doc 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are 200+ other images that could replace this one and you still think it meets the criteria? I must have misunderstood the test. Doc, if this magazine issue were of any importance to the article's text, we would not be able to replace it for any other one. The fact that we can (replace it) is the indication that the image use is not important. The image is not iconic. It's just decorative.
- I'm either deeply mistaken or just unnable to explain my point to you. We need help here--Abu Badali 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I in fact did read that policy before my last post, and I do believe that it meets the criteria. In fact using the quick test that you quote, the only image that could replace this one with the same impact would be another Vogue cover, which I presume would meet with the same objection from you as on this one. Doc 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation
You keep reiterating that it is standard protocol to put a link at the top of the page instead of creating a disambiguation page. Could you please provide an example, because this is not what I've seen. Benjamin Bradley, Bryan Allen, Carl Adams, Paddy Agnew, Bill Aitken, etc. Honestly, I cannot find an example of what you're talking about besides what you've done with Erik Rhodes --Todd 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Give me some time and I'll add to the list, but here are a few pages that come to mind, the first is not a biographical name, but is the same disambiguation idea: Top Hat, Nordstrom, Byron, Bruce Weber is an example such as this where someone, added a second name and the decision was to leave what we have on Erik Rhodes now, with the name redirecting to the original and the DAB linked from the top of that page. There are now three Bruce Webers listed, but the redirect is to the most notable and original article. I'll think of some more with time and add them. Doc 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- For Nordstrom, Byron, and Bruce Weber, it directs to the most likely thing I would be searching for, although I could easily see a strong case for Bruce Weber linking to the disambiguation page. You say the decision was to leave the link to the original article, but it looks like you were the one who made that decision. Also, I would much more likely be searching for information on Top_hat than Top_Hat, and would be as likely to search for Top_Hat as Stack_No._4_-_Top_Hat; I think that one should almost certainly link to a disambiguation page as different people will almost certainly be looking for different topics.
Former Child Fashion Model
I too question the addition of 'former child fashion model' to Cooper's bio, and certainly in the first para. If you could point me to similar notables whose pre-teen careers as dogwalker, baby sitter, lawn mower or paper carrier is also highlighted in the first paragraph, I would be very interested to see it. The only exception should be those whose showbiz careers started as mouseketeers, for instance, or working models who began as child models.
I suggest its continuous re-inclusion in this page is the work of detractors (possibly even Aaron Brown) who feel Cooper is a journalistic lightweight and this is their way of making their not-so-subtle point.
Response
I have responded to your comments. We shall discuss. Bang Bang you're Dead 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Erik Rhodes
Hi, Doc. While it may have been better to ask before moving the page, I would not say that he did something wrong by moving it. Requiring consensus for every move would be a large burden because there are so many uncontroversial moves, which is why they are not restricted to administrators when there is no page at the new location. We expect people to use their best judgment and recommend that they discuss moves that might be controversial first. If people disagree with a move, Requested Moves is used to reverse it.
I do think the actor should be at the main page, with a link to the other page at the top, which is done when one person or topic is much more notable than the other. Unfortunately, the change did not gain consensus. I suggest waiting a month or so and then making a new move proposal, with a notice on the Miscellaneous page on the Village Pump asking for others to give their opinion. Make sure that the notice is neutral and that the case for moving is made on the article's talk page, instead. A notice on the article's page about the move request might be okay. If there is a complaint, just remove it. I've suggested that a notice be added to the article on a regular basis, but coincidentally it received no response on the Requested Moves talk page. I'd suggest something like:
:''It has been proposed that this article be moved to [[Erik Rhodes]]. Please give your opinion on the talk page.''
I nowikied the text above so that you can see the colon and apostrophes, used for indenting and italics respectively. I don't recommend contacting anyone directly about giving their opinion. In my experience, it is usually seen as improper. I think the argument given for the move is fine, you may just want to expand and refine it a little. Also, make sure it is clear what the result of the merge will be: Erik Rhodes (actor) will be moved to Erik Rhodes and a link the Erik Rhodes (porn star) will be put at the top of the article. If people don't understand that there will still be a way to find the other article, they might recommend against the move. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Doc. I appreciate your comments; I'm not so worried about the tendency for editors of a certain interest to "group together" on AFD, as that's only natural, and is countered by the possibility of broad-based input. As gay porn is not something I have a specialty interest or expertise in, I think a little bit of leniency on the WP:PORN general standards might be useful, if it ends up with a better product in the end (should it become apparent that niche/specialized porn types need a different standard of notability). -- nae'blis (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay
Nevermind :) Nookdog
Supermodels
Can you please tell me your reasons why you do not think the Firsts and Highest Paid Supermodels are unnecessary?? I am a big fashion fan. I know ALOT about the fashion industry. I believe that Firsts and Highest Paid deserve to be there. I am wondering what your reasons are.Lil Flip246 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc, Thought you might be interested in this burgeoning project for a WikiProject on Photography. Check out the linked discussion and join in if you want to. Ciao! Pinkville 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fashion models
We should make a seperate category for fashion models, so the viewer doesn't get mixed up. I went to the French models cateogory and they said this category was for fashion models. But half the models there were Playboy models and adult models. We should really seperate Fashion models from other types of models. We should make a category for fashion models, child models, and other types of models. Lil Flip246 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll check the cats out and give the categories some thought and get back with you. Doc 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- What do you think about the cats?? Don't you think it is best to seperate them. So child models will have their own cat..Fashion models their own..Foot models..Hand models..There are many different kinds of models. It is best to seperate them, so people won't get confused. As I mentioned earlier in the cat it said that this was a cat for fashion models. Yet half of the models listed were not fashion models. Lil Flip246 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I really don't see how anyone would get confused, that's not the purpose of categories anyway. The Category:French models has nothing to do with fashion per se anyway. It says that it is for models from France. Perhaps some broad sub categories for Category:Models but it needs to be thought through carefully first and perhaps have discussion on the talk page for Models. Doc 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- "It says that it is for models from France." That's because I changed it to that. Earlier it said fashion models. We need to make subcategories for models to seperate the models into the type of models they are. One category for foot models, one cat for child models, etc.. Lil Flip246 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I really don't see how anyone would get confused, that's not the purpose of categories anyway. The Category:French models has nothing to do with fashion per se anyway. It says that it is for models from France. Perhaps some broad sub categories for Category:Models but it needs to be thought through carefully first and perhaps have discussion on the talk page for Models. Doc 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- What do you think about the cats?? Don't you think it is best to seperate them. So child models will have their own cat..Fashion models their own..Foot models..Hand models..There are many different kinds of models. It is best to seperate them, so people won't get confused. As I mentioned earlier in the cat it said that this was a cat for fashion models. Yet half of the models listed were not fashion models. Lil Flip246 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Manhattan Lower West Side
Hello, I am sorry to bother you, but I thought I should explain my recent editing of the Manhattan template. I have been linking articles about New York City neighborhoods to both their boroughs and their corresponding templates. The overwhelming vast majority of these have been pages that already existed. Although some were simply stubs, many of those have been dramatically expanded simply because someone noticed that they had been added to the template and decided to put more text in about them in the customary Wiki manner. I have chosen to add a few undefined neighborhoods to the templates because I believed that their absence were gross omissions, including the Lower West Side. Although I work as a engineer, I admit to not being handy with Wiki and assume you are more knowledgable than me about both its writing system and New York City. Therefore, as I have learned from your Wiki user page that you have made significant contributions to articles here, I hope you might be inspired to create a spanking new Lower West Side page by the following links.
http://www.bluejake.com/archives/2004/04/19/lower_west_side.php
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4506
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/realestate/neighborhoods/features/2059/
http://www.boston.com/travel/getaways/newyork/gallery/west_side_neighborhoods/
http://www.cityshuffle.com/products/westside.html
http://www.culturebot.org/archives/2005/01/31/LowerWestSideFilmFestival.php
http://www.mcny.org/collections/abbott/lwspage.htm
http://www.geoffreystevens.com/new-york-nyc/Lowewestlist.htm
http://newdeal.feri.org/library/c82a.htm
http://www.citidex.com/7616.htm
These sources and others should help prove that the Lower West Side of Manhattan does in fact exist either as a neighborhood in its own right or as a collection of them (like the South Bronx or the Rockaways). As someone who lived in New York City for several years, I believe the Lower West Side is part of the social fabric and not just the latest neighborhood rebranding. Personally, I have heard of people using the term mockingly but have encountered it more lately in causal conversation without derision. So you know, I attended St. John's University (before I dropped out), lived in Brooklyn while trying to be a musician (before I stopped dropping out), and now commute to Manhattan from Connecticut (after I stopped dropping out and got an education). I have always been enchanted by the Five Boroughs and would live there if my family could could afford it. Please feel free to contact me on here regarding this matter or others that you desire. I hope this will be of some help to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.190.114 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 July 2006
- Know that another time the stub should be created first before a name is added to the template. Secondly if would be helpful if you would register, particularly when you use an ip that is shared by other users, it makes it difficult to communicate or respond to you which is why I will answer this here. Third, the better place for this information and where I will move it is to the template talk page where others too with interest may choose to help out. I may be able to work on it as I have lived part time in the city for the last forty years and for the better part of that time with an apartment in the Murray Hill area. Doc 23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
De Evia categories
Hi, I noticed that you included De Evia in the Pederasts category on the basis of his relationship with Denning. I'd like to include them both in the Historical pederastic couples article but I feel I need some more published sources for this info, especially since Denning is still living and I would not want to upset anyone. Is anything out there? Haiduc 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Difficult to make the claim just on a vague obit. No biographies of either of the two out there that would corroborate their relationship? Haiduc 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Fashion
I was wondering why you are interested in fashion? It seems like you're always editing fashion pages, yet nothing on your user page is evidence of it. I was also wondering how is it that you find time to edit. It seems like you have all day to edit. Lil Flip246 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Virgil Fox
You mentioned on the Virgil Fox talk page that you knew him! Have any stories to share? Themeparkphoto 05:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about that one. I did not know him well, but attended several parties at his home in New Jersey. Doc ♬ talk 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you swim in his indoor pool? Themeparkphoto 06:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
RUDE
A user titled "hottie" has told me to shut up, and has made numerous unnecessary changes. He has made a category for Paris Hilton, and has inserted all articles mentioning her into it. I removed them because they were unnecessary. Now he is made at me, and being rude. I was wondering, how do I report him?? Lil Flip246 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I actually made a mistake. Sorry for the interuption. The user was not doing something wrong. But he did tell me to Shut up, when I said nothing rude against him. Lil Flip246 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Follow up
Further to our discussion on my talk page, I have posted our suggestion on Lil Flip's talk page. Agent 86 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
User created images must be uploaded under a free license, please either release the image under an appriopriate license, or if you really don't want to do that, let the image be deleted. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Gisele's page
I don't know why your are changing the page of Gisele. I am not adding anything unreal and i am giving you the correct sources. Plus: even the pictures were made by me, by capturing from TV and editing on my computer. I'm doing what must to be done and every time you change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andnanso (talk • contribs) 17:18, 9 August 2006
Gisele Bündchen
Glad I'm not the only one fighting this. I came close to violating 3RR the other day. I don't think 3RR applies when dealing with blatant vandalism, but in this case I think Andnanso does seem to think he's enhancing the page. I've attempted to communicate with him numerous times and he doesn't reply. I'm sure between us we can keep the article in a decent state. Soo 23:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out on the page also. It seems like Andnanso is changing the page to his personal preferences and in my opinion he's blatantly ignoring other editors by not responding and not using edit summaries when he's been told several times to do so. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Alphabetical order
Thanks and huh? I appreciate your intervention, but I'd like to know where you got this information. I couldn't find any references to it anywhere in Wikipedia: namespace or at Wikipedia:Alphabetical order/m:Help:Page name. It's my understanding that connectives like:
- au
- de
- di
- la
- van
- van der
etc. are not a part of the last name, but proceed it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Troubling Well, until I get a more concrete source, I'm going with my gut. I'll keep my eyes open, though. Let me know if you find anything. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ligatures I responded with an e-mail to your message on my talk page regarding Latin characters with ligatures. As I said there, if there is a standard of some kind, it's not applied universally right now, so I'm not sure what to do. I decided to go with the names as is for two reasons:
- It is actually the person's name, rather than a degeneration of it (barring that, it is a more precise Latinization of his name.)
- There are characters for which there is not a Latinized equivalent (such as Þþ), so the only way to be consistent is to leave the name as is.
- As a `happy coincidence, most of the categories are pretty empty (Czech engravers, Romanian landscape painters, or somesuch), so you can still visually process the information pretty easily, and find the person for whom you are searching. Again, if you find any standards or conventions, please point me in that direction, but as it stands, I'm seeing inconsistencies, and at least my edits are consistent (unless I'm mistaken.) I've also decided to skip Chinese and Japanese names; they are inconsistently categorized, also, but I don't want to deal with the headaches. Thanks for your input, and feel free to contact me here or via e-mail anytime. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ligatures I responded with an e-mail to your message on my talk page regarding Latin characters with ligatures. As I said there, if there is a standard of some kind, it's not applied universally right now, so I'm not sure what to do. I decided to go with the names as is for two reasons:
Male erotic photography list thing
I didn't mean anything as a criticism -- I had never heard of that other page for reviewing prods and probably wouldn't have noticed who prodded it initially either -- the article just seems a little out of place to me. I have replied on the AFD page on what I think the best way to progress would be but you've convinced me that this is an important subject worth discussing. Recury 19:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry about the whole Gisele Bündchen thing. I didn't realize that it was considered vandalism. Sorry for wasting your time; I just took away the things I thought unecessary. loulou 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I am starting to think you are a Satanist!
Mr. McJonathan: The work of Dr. Garguillio is a serious issue and should not be the subject of yet another childish "deletion/edit war". Please stop all harassment and vandalism of the page NOW!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.2.44 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 August 2006
- We apologize if you found our previous comment a bit brusk. It was not our intention. We have not harmed you in any way and only respectfully request that you stop your harassment and vandalism of the Dr. Garguillio entry. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.19.138 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2006
- First I have neither harassed or vandalised anything. You on the other hand have now vandalised my talk page twice (by placing both messages at the top of the page, then removing the one message), the AfD 3 times, first by placing your initial reply at the top of the page, second by removing my comment and placing it at the top of the page a second time and lastly by removing my second comment, and the namespace article on Dr. Garguillio by defaming my name as vandalising that page, when in fact you removed something another user had placed on the page and has since restored. We now have a second anonymous ip under which you allege to be the same person perpetrating the above cites of vandalism. Doc ♬ talk 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for the above comment. It was not intended as anything other than a respectful request (with the "Satanist" comment as a bit of humor). We shall not trouble you further.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.19.138 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 August 2006
- First I have neither harassed or vandalised anything. You on the other hand have now vandalised my talk page twice (by placing both messages at the top of the page, then removing the one message), the AfD 3 times, first by placing your initial reply at the top of the page, second by removing my comment and placing it at the top of the page a second time and lastly by removing my second comment, and the namespace article on Dr. Garguillio by defaming my name as vandalising that page, when in fact you removed something another user had placed on the page and has since restored. We now have a second anonymous ip under which you allege to be the same person perpetrating the above cites of vandalism. Doc ♬ talk 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Aristocrats alphabetise their names not by the "de" or "von," but by the thing they are of...in this case, Baron de Gunzburg is alphabetized under Gunzburg. Only the lower classes emphasise the preposition in the title. —ExplorerCDT 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Phone books are so lower-class. I encourage you, in common usage (which does not have to be mutually exclusive from Wikipedia's policy on accuracy) to look at the Social Register as a greater indicator of "usage" in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but the social register is a more appropriate, and I would think more substantive guide than say your local yellow pages. Especially with regard to social norms. The problem is that there are no established norms on this regard, and even if a norm is popular, it does not make it correct. Last I checked, accuracy seems to be more important around here. Just because some social climbing arriviste emphasises the "de" in their name to toot their horn by saying "hey, my name sounds aristocratic", does not mean that they should be incorrect by thinking their last name starts with "d." Beaumarchais was one of those social climbing arrivistes, adopting and emphasising their title and we still find him under "B." Do not presume that American usage is the only English usage. Further, I find your accusational tone with regard to "tooting my own horn" to be indicative of an unfortunate pattern of incorrect arrogant presumptions on your part. —ExplorerCDT 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Responded to your incorrect reversion by correcting it and offering my justification on the talk page. This is petty of you, and your argument is specious. You are WRONG WRONG WRONG! So stop categorizing this subject by alphabetizing him incorrectly. —ExplorerCDT 03:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Doc, I'd recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, especially that part about Montesquieu and Beethoven which applies to the Baron de Gunzburg. —ExplorerCDT 06:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Did you not get the point...he applies to the section on Montesquieu and Beethoven, who are alphabetized in category by their last names (Beethoven, Ludwig van and Montesquieu, Baron de). Geesh, I'm beginning to think you like being wrong. Reverting. —ExplorerCDT 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I cite:
- People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example:
[[Categorie:Nederlands voetballer|Basten van Marco]];[[Category:A.C. Milan players|Basten, Marco van]]→ [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]]
Exceptions:- Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example: Beethoven, [[Category:Classical era composers|Beethoven, Ludwig van]]; similarly: Montesquieu, [[Category:Enlightenment philosophers|Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de]]
Stop changing the categorization when you are plainly in the wrong. —ExplorerCDT 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not vandalism. Cool it! Kim Bruning 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, so categorise it under both. Personally I'd expect the name to be under "G" as well, not under "D"; but seriously, it's not worth fighting over. If in doubt, how about just putting it in both categories. That way everyone can find it, at least. Kim Bruning 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:EdgarStudent.jpg
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:EdgarStudent.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.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
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 fair use images 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. Abu Badali 23:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
RfC
Hello Doc. This user conduct RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan did not meet the threshold for 2 users certifying an attempt to resolve the dispute in 48 hours, and has been deleted. -- Samir धर्म 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Merida.jpg)
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Merida.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:TimeLifeCookbook.jpg)
|
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:TimeLifeCookbook.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Jennie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jennie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lisa Fonssagrives
Thank you for your well written article, well referenced on Lisa Fonssagrives. Another user tagged some information as "citation needed", aparently because you didn't cite the exact page. If you could cite which of the references you used for each of the "citation needed" facts the article would ook more definitive.
I agree with you that the article and Wikipedia suffers because the Vogue cover was removed by a fair use deletionist. Not all images of the same person are as effective. It's visual tone deafness. Ghosts&empties 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:RhinelanderPoloRL.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RhinelanderPoloRL.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)