Jump to content

User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ponce Massacre

Ay, how ironic that even LMM recognized the importance of the photo: ""This photograph is remarkable in that the policemen are not shooting at the uniformed nationalists but at a terrorized crowd in full flight." It blows my mind we still discussing the deletion of this iconic image. --Jmundo (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Old Pr baseball game poster.gif

Tony, I have the utmost respect for you as you are one of the best contributors to this project, period. I do question the need for this image though. It really is not discussed in the article. You state in the keep rationale of the deletion discussion for this image that it is an event that is associated with the migration of Puerto Ricans to New York, yet this is not discussed in the article. I trust your knowledge, but the knowledge isn't expressed in the article. This leads me to lean towards delete, regardless of the questionable copyright status of the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of the Ponce Massacre picture from various articles

Tony, I have noticed you have removed the Ponce massacre photo from various articles, such as http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=History_of_Puerto_Rico&curid=19283151&diff=331177020&oldid=330532588. Why is this happening? I don't mean to play dumb here, but exactly where did we get the notion that this was the thing to do? Never mind the fact that the image is tightly linked to the issue under discussion at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Requested:_User:Damiens.rf_multiple_JPG_deletions_and_related_matters, which in itself is enough cause for any reasonably-acting demanding editor to tolerate a temporary freeze of any potential removals until after the matter has been decided there. But what's going? If I had to guess (and much to my surprise, given that I've known you for some time now) it would seem to me that you are playing into the poor logic presented so far by the questioning editor Damiens. (please forgive my frankness I am not intent into offending here). Can you tell me if anyone has established that the image IS, in fact, still under copyright and that therefore it has to go. If there is no evidence the image is under copyright, it should stay in ALL the articles where its addition was judged beneficial by previous editors before. Whether it is directly relevant to the article or not so directly relevant, indispensable to the article or not so indispensable, useful to clarify a point or not absolutely labeled as that useful,,, if the image has not been determined to be copyrighted it should then be a moot issue, right?,,, such rationale should not be the basis for the removal. I point out that, unlike the Venegas image http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Venegas.JPG which was clearly labeled copyrighted from the start, and thius did not qualfy to stay in only marginally related articles, there is no such indication from anything or anyone yet that the Ponce Massacre image is today still under copyright, so why the removals? Exactly what criteria have you used to determine the image IS copyrighted today, if the law clearly states a 28+28 yr rule? Last I checked that was 56, or 1993. Have you explained the rationale anywhere other than the limited summary would does not do justice to the removal given the current state of affairs. And two, and although it might be unnecessary to ask the obvious but, why not let the bickering editor do the dirty work of the removal herself? This would be the morally (if nothing else) right thing to do. Thanks for responding. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

1.Why do you say the copyright issue isn't the issue any longer? 2. What in your view is the issue 'now', and why?. And 3. "Issue" in what sense? I mean, I saw you making deals with this bickering editor, just as I was finishing up my ANI submission. I say the issue at that point became the civility of the power-hungry, bickering editor, but as an overarching issue, not as one to replace the copyrights issue. 4. What makes the image a non-free image in your view that leads you to say "However, one the main requirements for non-free images is that they..."? 5. Why care about a withdrawl of the nomination? That is, why be at the mercy of 1 single individual when her/his character, has already been brought judged no good by so many in and out of the PR prject? Of course s/he will continue to move along your path so long as you have bones to feed him/her, but what when you run out of bones? then what? Also, how much do you know about the Puerto Rico Encyclopedia. http://www.enciclopediapr.org/ing/article.cfm?ref=06102005 It is a serious copyrighted site that wikipedia is afraid to copy from (there is a BOT that check's your additions against a listing of all of the PRE's content and will not allow copying from there). Yet they have a pic of the massacre w/o any copyright notice on it. So much for Damiens's "welcome to the internet" (which in itself assumes no good faith for Internet-anything. PRE wouldn't do this if the image was not free (there is no 'used by permission of' credit line either). I am convinced the image is PD. I am sure there are also plenty of printed books with the pic in it (and w/o a credit notice). I can't get to the 5th avenue library or the Ponce museum right now to get final proof of my suspicion. Called the museum to put them thru my usual research lines but they appeared closed. I am convinced the image is PD. Why continue to take all this bickering? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for digging out that link, that has been my logic from the start of this whole submission: the photo is in the PD based on simple math: 1937 + 28=1965, and, even if we gave this whole thing the benefit of the doubt and assumed that El Imparcial filed for a 28-year extension) 1965 +28 (maximum allowed copyright before falling into PD)=1993.COPYRIGHT-EXPIRY. Why is this so paramount? Because

  • (1) In 1993 there was not 3rd extension (there has never been anyway)
  • (2) The law provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost "for any reason." Thus 1993 is furthest expiry date, "no matter what".

There is just one exception to this: The copyright law was updated in 1976, so that copyrights in their second term on January 1, 1978, (which the photo would had been if it can be proven that the photo's copyright was indeed renewed) such copyrights were automatically extended up to a maximum of 95 years, without the need for further renewal. This provision would in fact extend the copyright to 1937+28+67=2032.

Thus the provision allowed for a 2nd extension of 67 years (for a max 95 years), instead of 28/56. However this exception is possible only if the copyright holder applied for and extension between March 22, 1964 and March 21, 1965. Knowing what you and I know, the nominating editor is in an uphill battle to prove that -- given the documented economic status of the Island in the mid 60's, the paper's signs of wear by the end of the 1960s (see EncyclopediaPR), and the paper's collapse a few years later (1973) -- that the paper is in fact likely to have been in the 15% of holders who applied for a copyright extension. This is the only thing the nominating editor can hang on to to make her case, the only leg she would have to stand on. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Latinos in World War II

Greetings, Tony!

I think you should consider a rename of Hispanic Americans in World War II to "Hispanic and Latino Americans in World War II". It would mean a lot to the many (millions, dare I say) of Americans who prefer "Latino"/"Latina" over "Hispanic"—whether we always find their reasons to make sense or not. Really, it's a big issue; I'll get you some sources if you'd prefer to read more about it.

Meantime, you wouldn't mind if I added more mentions of "Latino" to the article, would you? For instance, right off the bat I'd like to change the first sentence from "Hispanic Americans fought in every major battle"... to "Hispanic and Latino Americans fought in every major battle"... SamEV (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tony, I understand your point of view, though at the same time I totally disagree with it. And although I won't insist on my proposal, I just want to explain why it is that I disagree.

First, it's clear that renaming some articles could be controversial. And I understand how any article's rating could be affected, negatively or positively, by a name change. After all, if we insisted in titling the article "The best darn fighters in World War II", I can hardly imagine the article's making it anywhere near featured status—even though the title describes the truth!

J/K

But in this case, Tony, where the idea is to have the title match that of the ethnic group's own main article ("Hispanic and Latino Americans", of course) I really have a hard time imagining why there would be any significant opposition, or even any opposition at all. Honestly, I can't.

In regards to the various endonyms that Hispanic and Latino Americans use, you're right: there's a plethora of them. But these two—"Hispanic" and "Latino"—are the ones that the United States Bureau of the Census has chosen as "the" ethnonyms. They're the ones you see here: [1], and here: [2], and here: [3], and here: [4], and—well, you get the picture. What I'm saying is that those are the two official terms, and that they're the ones preferred by the majority of the community, by far.

Anyway, Tony, thanks for considering my idea and replying. SamEV (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Venegas.JPG

Hi, Marine. Could you fix the source for this image? --Damiens.rf 14:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems as if ICPR source isn't working, therefore added alternate source with thier public domain claim. Please help with the PD tag. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why are images from that side in the public domain? What makes you believe so? --Damiens.rf 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you say about this image. COuld you please fix the source and/or licensing or just delete the image? --Damiens.rf 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Image request

The only thing she needs to do is send an email from her company's email system to OTRS stating what she already stated, and the image will be approved. Does that make sense? MBisanz talk 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Negroni

Hello Tony -- Regarding the negroni article... You mention that you are acting on the the behalf of the Negroni family. Isn't that against the point of wikipedia? One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is neutral point of view. I would be happy to leave the article alone if you posted verifiable sources for the claims. As of yet, there have been no reliable sources posted for the claims that Pascal was the originator of the drink. What has been posted is biographical information that was written by a brother of one of the editors and random blogs which mirror the vague claims of the editor. The biography that is a self-published source, which is questionable as far as WP is concerned, doesn't even address the claim that Pascal Negroni is the originator of the drink, just his history as a general. I also noticed that you have written the article for this brother, as well as other Negronis, and I was wondering if there were any WP:COI conflicts of interest that you would like to disclose in this situation? I realize that you are an admin and you have the ability to stop me, but I think that without solid references I am acting fully within the intent of wikipedia as all articles must have verifiability which has not yet been demonstrated. I have attempted to find published accounts of the Pascal claim, but have been unable to do so. As far as the Camillo claim, I have found three published accounts and verifiable accounts. Personally, I would like to maintain a WP:NPOV and I am committed to seeking outside editors for this, and have done so by posting a RfC, as well as asking leaders of the wikiprojects to review the article. I will seek other admins for their thoughts on the matter. If you review the history log you can see many other editors have removed this claim on the basis of no references. I'm sure that once there is a solid reference the information will stay.

Cheers - Chromatikoma (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Smooth

You sure did skylight File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg to one of those image fascists. When somebody says "we need to delete/reduce A", showing them B will always make B thier next target. Sigh.

Christmas is coming up... do you have any special plans? I'm still gonna be in recovery. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was blaming you. I just get so frustrated by editors that seem more interested in deconstructing the encyclopedia rather than expanding and improving it. God, I want to claw my eyeballs out, and not just from frustration--they hurt like hell! Email me some rum or vodka, will ya? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Venegas.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Venegas.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 13:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLV (November 2009)
Project news
  • The Academy Content Drive concluded on 31 October. The first place Golden Wiki went to TomStar81 for 13 entries; the Silver Wiki was awarded to YellowMonkey for 11 entries, and Patar knight was presented with the Bronze Wiki for 3 entries. All other entrants were awarded the WikiChevrons or a barnstar for their contributions. Thank you to everyone who fielded an entry! All editors are encouraged to check out the newly expanded Academy.
  • A discussion about the notability of military people has resulted in an update to our in-house style guide. Prompted by some recent "articles for deletion" discussions, members felt that we should provide clearer guidance on the types of person that are most likely to meet Wikipedia's biographical notability criteria. The resulting advice, which you can see here, should be very helpful in both future deletion discussions and in deciding where best to focus article-writing efforts.
  • Our Task Force housekeeping discussion is now coming to a close. In October a number of proposals were made for rationalising our extensive list of Task forces. Although a few areas remain to be decided, project members have approved the changes summarised here. These will be enacted shortly, so if you haven't yet had your say, now's the time!
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Cologne War
  2. Nikita Khrushchev
  3. Operation Teardrop
  4. SMS Derfflinger
  5. SMS Lützow
  6. John Lloyd Waddy
  7. Ton That Dinh

New featured pictures:

  1. Turkish heliograph at Huj

New A-Class articles:

  1. Arrow (missile)
  2. Battle of Bardia
  3. Canadian National Vimy Memorial
  4. Collins class submarine
  5. Frederick Scherger
  6. Iven Giffard Mackay
  7. List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS
  8. USS Chesapeake (1799)
  9. Walter Peeler
Contest Department
  • The contest department has completed its thirty-second month of competition; its third month under the new scoring system. A total of 52 articles were entered by seven editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 168 points, followed by Ian Rose on 51 points. They are presented the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (31), Ed! (26), Abraham, B.S. (26), The ed17 (17) and Piotrus (7). All editors are encouraged to submit any articles that are working on for next month's contest.
Awards and honours

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

l'Histoire militaire de Porto Rico

Wonderful traduction de l'Histoire militaire de Porto Rico en français. Peut-être que vous pourriez traduire cet article l'immigration française à Porto Rico. Tony Santiago

Thank you for the compliment! The only thing that bothers me is that most of images from the article were deleted on commons, therefore the french version lacks of pictures.
I will begin translation of French_immigration_to_Puerto_Rico at the beginning of 2010, hope I will translate faster than Military history of Puerto Rico!Le sotré (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG

I has asked for a deletion review of File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Damiens.rf 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, see User talk:John Vandenberg#PD question. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas & what's up with Ada Perkins' photo?!?!

First of all, Feliz Navidad! As I sit here in LA,CA thinking about my family back in Dallas and my memories of Puerto Rico during this holiday season, I tried to 'psych' myself into being somewhat stoic since it didn't feel like Christmas. Then I was sitting here last night and I went to youtube and checked out el Villancico Yaucano sung by Placido Domingo and I wept like a 'Magdalena'. I could not help it. What lovely lyrics!!! Damn it. Hope you are having a better holiday than I. Ok, what's up with the wikipedia people deleting the Ada Perkins photo? What's going on? Just seems to me that they are being counter productive when it come sto information. Can you find another one? I don't get it. Hope all is well. Christian Crcam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Ada Perkins Photo

Well, that's strange! There are soo many pictures here on Wikipedia that I am sure are not public domain and are not questioned. Here's what I know about the picture that you had: The photo was actually the cover of a magazine called 'Angela Luisa' there were a number of other pictures inside of Ms. Perkins. I saw the original on a webpage about Miss Puerto Rico under the link of www.voy.com/211389/. There are anumber of other pics on flkr.com as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcam (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article negroni, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please find a reference that adheres to the WP:V policy. Self-published webpages, comments in a forum, blogs are not considered verifiable sources. I am trying to improve this article and all material added to wikipedia MUST be verifiable. I am only following the guidelines of wikipedia, and it is CLEARLY NOT vandalism. Thank you. Chromatikoma (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of Negroni

I came to the above article from a post to WP:RSN. User:Chromatikoma is acting quite properly in removing poorly sourced information, so there is no need at all for article protection. Could you unprotect please? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, there's a discussion of this issue also here. [5]. Unfortunately nobody ever responded to your post on WP:EW where you left it. --Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also request that you unprotect the page, and provide a reliable reference to the claim you have made. That's all. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the view that you should not be restoring poorly sourced material. I would also add that this makes you an involved editor, and therefore you should not be acting as an admin there. This is basic stuff, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Héctor Andrés Negroni

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Héctor Andrés Negroni. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Héctor Andrés Negroni. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

File:JuanoHernandez.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:JuanoHernandez.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


File source problem with File:FRiefkolh4.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:FRiefkolh4.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Replaceable fair use File:JuanoHernandez.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JuanoHernandez.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uploads cleanup

Hi, Marine. I took the time to review your uploads, since it's not that uncommon for you to misinterpret our non-free content policies. I hope you take no offense on that and I have no interest in engaging in personal discussions.

Please check today's FFD discussions. I have nominated the following of your uploads:

Also, the following files was tagged as missing source information

Thanks, --Damiens.rf 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Images from random websites

Marine, would you consider stop uploading images you find on random websites like this this file you just get from a fortunecity.com webpage? I expect you to understand what the problems with these images are at this point. --Damiens.rf 01:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact of publication in a 1994 book proves nothing much from a license point of view. The only way you can justify a {{PD-old}} license is to know who the author was and their date of death. I would believe that {{PD-art}} applied due to the date of the painting but that isn't what you're saying. I also had a look at the page that image is used on and now I am wondering about the license on File:FMQ.jpg as well. Did I miss the public domain notice on http://www.circuloderecreo.org/ perhaps? If not then I don't understand why it would be {{PD}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the oclc reference to the image. Great work, Chromatikoma. For a moment I though it was one more image fixed, but Angusmclellan points to valid concerns... --Damiens.rf 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marine_69-71/Archive_30&oldid=1141475482"