User talk:Tim1965

Archives

June 2006 - December 2006 January 2007 - June 2007 July 2007 - December 2007 January 2008 - June 2008 July 2008 - December 2008 January 2009 - June 2009 July 2009 - December 2009 January 2010 - June 2010 July 2010 - December 2010 January 2011 - June 2011 July 2011 - December 2011

We have someone looking at this for FAC preparation. Casliber is commenting on the article talk page. PumpkinSky talk 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Pre-FA_nom_round_of_edits. If you can great, if not, not a problem.PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be a free image since AFAIK jewelery is considered art and you'd have to upload it as FU, but you probably know more about FU that I do.PumpkinSky talk 11:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think if I focused on a just one Yogo in the piece, that would suffice under fair use (as illustrative of the use of the gemstone). It also depends on when the piece was created, if the copyright was renewed, and all that stuff. I'll check on that. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this article appears to be fairly well fleshed out. Have you ever considered putting it up for a Good article nomination? Sadads (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no experience promoting an article to GA status in the Literature category. Do you know of someone who would be willing to do a pre-GA pass on the article to identify problems? - Tim1965 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi, friend. I just bumped into some of your stuff today and I just wanted to drop by and congratulate you on your excellent work as a content contributor. An Old School barnstar for Old School quality work... Carrite (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT pic of Conchita Yogo and fair use rationale! Thanks for taking the trouble to take the photo. See talk page about my sad efforts. PumpkinSky talk 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am astonished at the problems with getting FA status for this. But I have become cynical about Wikipedia in the past six months, and therefore not surprised. I have had similar problems with getting articles into DYK. I just gave up on that. I improved the article about Ben-Hur and the National Christmas Tree, and refuse to seek DYK status for these five-fold expansions because it's just become so bureaucratic. People who never contribute to articles are passing judgment on articles. It's not about generating content any more, it's about exercising power over others and applying rules. I've stopped trying to get work recognized, and just generate content now. - Tim1965 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the view of many. See all the row on WT:FAC over restructuring and changing leadership at FA cabal. To me it's more about power and the status quo than improving wiki. I sympathize with you. I would like to get Yogo to FA because it is distinctly and uniquely MONTANAN! PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So would I!  :) I wish I could spend my entire day just researching Montana articles and getting them to FA status. I'd redo that Charlie Russell article first. (His artwork is in the public domain!) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's stuff is PD? Because pre-1923? Ah, they say author+70PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right! He died in 1926, and from the biography I've read he did very little work in his last year or two due to illness. So I'm guessing nearly all his work is PD now. "Last of the Five Thousand" definitely is! That "Author+70" only applies to works created after 1923. (Besides, even if it didn't, author+70 equals 1996! PD!) - Tim1965 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the tags on Charlie's paintings are wrong and we should change them to PD-1923? maybe we can make charlie FA after Yogo.PumpkinSky talk 01:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all the tags. The key word is "published." Not all of Charlies paintings were published during his lifetime, although a lot were. Many were not published until the 1950s, which means that they fall under the "author+70" rule. And even then, if renewal of the copyright was made, another 28 years could be added (meaning that the works would not come into the public domain until 2024. But many of the paintings were never copyrighted, because copyright law at the time required that famous © symbol. I doubt any of Charlie's works have that. It would take a search at the Library of Congress to determine when each painting was first published, and when the copyright will run out.

For example: I'm going to take photos of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial nearby. But the question has arisen about when the artwork (murals, paintings, statues, etc.) inside the building were created, when they were published, if they were copyrighted in the first place, and if that copyright still exists. I can take photos for my own purposes and post them to Flickr or whatnot, but to get them on Wikipedia means I have to research each one at the Library of Congress. Not gonna be fun. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

...and if you do not live in the Washington, D.C. area, please forgive the intrusion and you can delete this invite! Sarah (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tim1965. Thank you for writing up this article about Charles White. I have nominated it for DYK. The nomination template can be found here. Please feel free to post alternate hooks there. Please also be encouraged to perform a peer review of another wikicontributor's DYK nomination on the nomination page. Thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Big Gay Musical is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Charles M. White at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles M. White, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Republic Steel executive Charles M. White authorized the spending of almost US$12,000 on tear gas and handguns in 1935, the year workers at one of the company's plants voted to form a union? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles M. White.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.36 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]