User talk:Carptrash/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

You have the luck of finding an administrator whose adopted hometown is Dearborn. I have worked on a lot of Detroit area articles (I even have the Museum on my to-do list -the one I never get around to actually doing) To uploaD pictures go to "Upload file" on the toolbox on the left hand side of the page. It will ask you for a location of the file, to provide a summary description and to check a box verifying that you are the copyright holder. Once the files are uploaded you should go to their page and add an explicit copyright notice like "I took this picture and release it under GNU-FDL" or for the old picture {{PD}} will give the public domain message. I have already put a picture of a Ford Model T in that article which I took at the village and a photo of the Wright Cycle Company in that article. My pictures from inside the Museum did not turn out. Good luck. Rmhermen 14:44, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Einar,

no problem with Parducci - copy/paste moves can relatively easily be undone (by an admin, that is). And hey, I only posted it to Cleanup: no big deal, really.

Now for images: uploading is easy. Now that you have an account, you should have an "Upload file" link in the sidebar when you're logged in (in the default skin, it's in the bottom sidebar box). Click it, and it'll take you to and upload form. Click the "Browse" button and select the (image) file you want to upload, then enter a brief description in the "Summary" field. Then check the copyright box and click the "Upload" button.

The finer details:

• For image files, use PNG or JPG formats.
• Do not upload copyrighted material, unless you can make a good case for fair use. See Copyright. Thumbnails of scanned album covers are fair use even though the cover art is copyrighted. I usually stick to public domain or GFDL images, occasionally, I also upload images the author has marked as "free for noncommercial use", with an optional "provided the author is given credit".
• I also include in the upload summary an image tag clarifying the images license status. A summary might read "A foo in the process or baring. Image from [site].<br>{{tag}}", where "site" would be the URL where I found the image (if it's not one I took or drew myself), and "tag" would be one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
• Give additional info on the image description page. The image description in all cases should at least contain the source of the image and an appropriate copyright tag. If you took the image yourself, state so, and decide under what license you want to give it to Wikipedia. I use GFDL for my stuff, but might want to place your stuff in the public domain, or use a permissive Creative Commons license, e.g. cc-by-sa. If you scanned it from a book, either use the image credits given in the book to determine whether it may be used on Wikipedia, or check the book's copyright. And state on the image description page, which book (including ISBN) you got the image from.
• Try to keep the file sizes below 100kB. The system allows larger files to be uploaded, but will ask you about it.

Ok, that's all I can think of now. Hope it helps, and don't hesitate to ask again if you have more questions. Happy editing and uploading. Lupo 19:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Sculpture

There aren't many Welsh sculptors, I'm afraid - though there are some. My book is unillustrated, but you might try to get hold of something by Peter Lord, who is a very interesting presenter of Welsh art history, and is himself a sculptor. Deb 11:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash,
You seem to be exceeding your "one sculptor a day" target. Good work!

By the way, I'm guessing that you are deriving these articles from a handy reference book or other web pages. If you can, it would be a good idea to include a 'References' or 'External links' section, so that others can verify dates etc if/when conflicting information is found in the future.

Thanks for your stirling work in bolstering the information on American sculptors. -- Solipsist 19:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Solipsist:

I have been including some sources, but most of it is coming from research that I have done over the past 25 years. Much of what I'm posting was done building by building, sculpture by sculpture. Hence the freqent reference to Unpublished Manuscripts The books that I use are all ones that i have in my own library, seeing as I sort of in an out of the way spot in New Mexico [USA].

But thanks for the feed back. I , sort of like the DJs that you sometimes hear at 3 AM who muse, "I wonder if there is anyone out there hearing this?'" find myself wondering the same. Not that it matters too much. At some point someone will want to know about Charles Keck, and here it will be. -- Carptrash 20:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

most of it is coming from research that I have done over the past 25 years - Wow, even better. That's impressive.

DJs that you sometimes hear at 3 AM who muse, "I wonder if there is anyone out there hearing this?'" - at which point they no doubt play Pink Floyd's The_Wall, Disk 2 trak 2. -- Solipsist 20:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you have recently been active in editing articles in the visual arts. Can I also encourage you to join the categorisation discussion at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 22:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash,

You are steadily increasingly my interest in Audrey Munson - good job. Could I suggest moving the images around the article a bit. In particular, biography articles benefit from having a picture aligned on the right, at the top of the page. I guess you might have an actual photograph on Munson waiting in the wings, but in the meantime the winged angel figure could make a nice lead. -- Solipsist 07:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am still very tenative about picture placement - have just learned one ofr two ways to do it - but have enough of an adventurous streak in me to be goaded to try new things. Also it is almost 2 AM here, now, so . . . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

All the pictures that I have of Munson are from the recent book American Venus, so there is a copywrite issues. --Carptrash 07:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, copyright... I guess there is a chance there's a pre 1910 picture somewhere. In the mean time, I'm happy to move a couple of the images -- Solipsist 07:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

well how is this? Better, I think [feel?]

Definately better. But I was still looking for a picture at the top, so here is another try (the grouped fountain was tricky.) -- Solipsist 08:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought the date was 1923? I hope so ! Carptrash 07:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, that's what it says on Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. And if you are still awake at 3am now, you might need this ;-) -- Solipsist 08:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some possible photos are [1] and [2]. But it is not so easy to access the full images or checking copyright.

Aha - found a good one here -- Solipsist 10:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically, I'd just advise some wikification within the article, and to possibly space out the picture placement a bit more. All in all it's a quite good article. I would have moved the pictures myself, but it's not really one of my strengths. Hope I didn't offend. Rhymeless 02:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Essentially, what I'd meant was the layout. Because the pictures seem to bracket the page on the top and bottom, it looks a bit awkward. So if it's possible to space the photos a bit more around the text, that would be awesome. Thanks. Rhymeless 03:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I have just nominated your Lee Lawrie for featured article, I think its brilliant. I hope it makes it (it's the first page I have ever nominated) and does not just bring you a load of trouble. I think the picture layout is great, and also eye-catching, a good burst of images at the beginning encourages people to read on - (well it did me!) Giano 12:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the images around a little. But it may still be premature to put this article on to WP:FAC, I would expect it to get refered to Peer Review pretty quickly. It currently would fail FAC on several technical grounds, such as 'no lead section', but the feedback can be useful. Critism can be brutal over there, but don't take it to heart. -- Solipsist 12:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it looked better before pictures moved about. I hope you don't think I've been presumptious putting it on WP:FAC, if you want I will remove it, but I still think its better than half the stuff that does feature! Giano 13:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, that's OK. The article can stand on its own two feet (is that a mixed metaphor?) - I was just mentioning it as a forewarning. The basic problem with the pictures is that there isn't enough text for them to float around. I'm not too keen on my rearrangement either, so if anyone else can find a better solution, edit away. -- Solipsist 13:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I became worrying when so many did not like the arrangement, as I thought that was one of the things that made it stand out! Not a lot of room for new ideas here, for all the talk they seem a conservative bunch! Not many of my articles have pictures as I can't do it, tried once and was told off as someone else had to sort the mess out. I think Lee Lawrie is agreat page though, one of the best. Giano 06:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, its a problem I have three sons playing rugby, (youngest only touch rugby)but in 11 years only had one in hospital with a dislocated finger! However the youngest has been inspired today bt Amir Khan in the Olympics, now that has given my wife something to worry about.

I see what you say about not being flashy and wikipedia being creditable, but I really did not think the oroginal layout was flashy or incredible, just eye-catching. I don't realy write 'in depth' articles tending to pounce on one full of errors (architecturally) and set them straight, but like you I tend to use books not other sites as otherwise the whole project is rather pointless. I started on British architecture (as this is the English speaking site) but then realised I had probably quite a lot to offer on Italian architecture (I hesitate to say we inspired many of the Brit's greatest buildings! - allthough I could not help putting in a hint about Buckingham Palace on Giacomo Leoni)I thought some-one may edit it out, but I think it's still there. I've spent so long in England I feel half British anyway - Anyway, you have inspired me to try and put an image on again, I'm going to try right now at Montacute House just as soon as I've air-brushed three Italian children out of the frame! - so long Giano 17:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for that picture of Shelley's grave you left on my talk page! It's a wonderful image and I see you added it to Shelley's article, where it goes very well. See you around. :) Lizzie 04:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excellent images! now this entry can get started! Good ones for Lee Lawrie too! You can't explain this stuff without pictures...Wetman 04:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash,

I've just put up the page Glossary of sculpting terms and thought that you might have some useful input. In particular I have't defined 'relief' yet. And if you have any pictures of sculpting techniques, that would be great. -- Solipsist 00:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well I am back home in NM and have just spent a pleasant bit of time rooting through my sculpture library and putting together some references for your sculpture technique article. it turned out that I had quite a few. Anyway, I'll try for some terms later. "Lost Wax Casting", for example. I also ran across something in your "discussions" from some poor fellow who had tried to do the right thing with Lee Lawrie and was worried about how I'd feel, waking up in America the next day. the only trouble i have waking up in America involves having a war criminal as the Head of State. And since this is clearly a POV, I can't even exorcise it on the wikipedia. Carptrash 21:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Glad you are back - hope the op went well. There is already a fairly good description of Lost Wax Casting at Casting along with a rather good photo, but it isn't organised that well and I'm sure there is more to say.

I started Glossary of sculpting terms in order to clear up some of the red links on my Henry Moore article which recently got through WP:FAC (with luck my photo will pass also on WP:FPC this week too). Arguably the Glossary should be broken up into individual articles as the sections are expanded (or kept as a summary with links to the full articles), but some of the items like maquette are bordering on dictionary definitions and might not expand much further. It might need some more thought to sort out the best organisation. It is also as well to be aware of Wikipedia:Sculpture basic topics, which is part of the list of basic topics which every wiki-language-encyclopedia should have, yet still has a fair few red link in English.

I reckon your Lee Lawrie article should be a good topic for a featured article eventually (the connection to the Rockefeller Center alone makes him interesting), but it needs to grow a little first in order to balance the text to photo ratio. From what I've seen, Featured Articles and Featured Pictures can be a bit of a bear pit. Never-the-less it was quite nice to see the article grow from the additional attention. Peer Review is gentler, but is often so sleepy that it isn't obvious anything is going on. -- Solipsist 22:07, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...

I'm rooting around to get some pictures for a Henry Moore in America - two or three anyway, unless you think I should wait a bit. Carptrash 08:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Moore in America would be excellent. I really like the Japanese sculpture that is there, although the colour is rather weird.

I spent a fair bit of 1999 working in New York and have the impression that I saw a monumental Moore sculpture infront of a major bank's towerblock. Many Manhatten banks and corporations seem to have a 20ft tall sculpture in the foyer or next to the main entrance, and it was partly a result of satisfying these sorts of commissions that made Moore extremely wealthy. So an example of a Moore in Manhatten would be a good illustration. However, I've tried various Google searches and can't find any references, so I may have been mistaken.

I'm also looking for examples of early direct carved sculptures. I recently saw some good examples at an exhibit at the Dulwich Picture Gallery, but I only had a friend's rather poor mobile phone camera and in any case photography wasn't really allowed. Most other photos appear to be copyright by the Henry Moore foundation. Its not too urgent, as I will probably visit Much Hadham in the spring and get a chance to snap some more examples then. -- Solipsist 08:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I have a Moore picture of an arch in Richmond Indiana that looks very much like the one in Japan. I am rather looking forward to comparing them, and the dates involved. Then I have Princeton NJ, and Milwaukee WI, and I've seen others, but might not have photographed them. I was never a BIG Moore fan, being moore of a figurative sort. Much prefer Eric Gill, for example.

Well Moore largely caught his direct carving and truth to materials mantra from Jacob Epstein and Eric Gill. I've probably got a poor photograph of Gill's wind for 55 Broadway London. I could recognise Moore's wind - however from the other three winds, I'm not quite certain which one is Gill's. I could make a good guess, but would rather have independent confirmation before posting it. I've since read that there is an small exhibit in the foyer of 55 Broadway which most likely sets the attributions clearly. To be honest, my favourite Gill's are his fonts. -- Solipsist 20:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you send me your email address at eeklon@yahoo.com I will send you a scan from Aumonier's "Modern Architectural Sculpture" which identifies the eight winds [who knew?] on the building, and their sculptors, including one by author Aumonier. Carptrash 22:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eight winds! Someone's been eating beans. Curiously they are only ever refered to as the four winds, but I guess that is based on the points of the compass and each wind is duplicated on the building. Actually that makes sense, because the upper floors of Charles Holden's 55 Broadway are on a cruxiform layout so would have eight faces (well 12 if you include the short sides), although four of them are tucked away looking out on back streets and so would be difficult to see. The bottom floors have a triangular plan, with Epsteins controversial sculptures above the two main entrances. It makes me wonder whether there is another entrance around the back. -- Solipsist 22:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info from Aumonier. I've pulled it all together at 55 Broadway, London. If you could check it that would be great - I wasn't sure I could decipher the name of 'Allan Wyon' for one of the East Winds. I take it that the author of the book is related to the same Eric Aumonier who did one of the South Winds. Interestingly I found a reference claiming that his archer is the only 3D sculpture for the London Underground - although to be honest it really looks like a double sided relief, a technique that Gill also used as a stepping stone to true 3D. - Solipsist 21:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a few pictures of Henry Moore scuptures that weren't in England. I remember when I lived in San Diego there were a couple of Henry Moore scuptures there. One I think is at the Salk Institute, and I think there was another near the Art Museum in Balboa Park. I also seem to remember that the LA Museum of Art has one or two Moores in their sculpture garden. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 18:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A range of copyright tags can be found at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags - there is a link on the upload page. A very useful recent tag is {{PD-art}} for clearly tagging non-creative photographs of copyright free 2D artworks. At the moment, someone appears to be going through all the {{PD-USGov}} tags and subdividing them into organisation specific tags.

I currently licence my own photographs under one of the Creative Commons licence, usually {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. In many ways it is functionally similar to the GNU {{GFDL}}, which also requires attribution, but my guess is that most people don't realise that and the Creative Commons license makes it clearer.

The copyright status on photographs of sculpture is rather confusing.User:Raul654 raised an interesting comment onf WP:FPC with respect to the copyright status of my photo for Image:HenryMoore02.jpg. The {{PD-art}} only applies to effectively non-creative reproductions of 2D art where the artist died more that 70 years ago. But it doesn't apply to to recent photographs of old sculptures, where the choice of angle and lighting are seen as sufficiently creative to make the photograph itself copyright (of course if it is your own photograph you can still freely licence it on GFDL or whatever).

Where it gets tricky, is with a recent photograph of a recent sculpture. It seems that the US now extends copyright to include statues (and buildings) even when they are in public spaces (see [3]). Which means that although you might own the copyright on your own photograph, you can't distribute it without getting a licence from the original sculptor or the sculpture's current copyright holder. In the UK, it looks like sculptures are not covered by copyright law. I guess that copyright applies to where the art work is created, rather than where it is displayed. -- Solipsist 20:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Nice Victoria Park pictures. Are you from London? (If I had a camera I would have taken some myself, so it's nice that someone is finally doing it!) Adam Bishop 22:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, you could post those too, I'm from London so I might be able to recognize them. (There are a couple of other Londoners here too.) Adam Bishop 17:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could also try posting them to the new Wikipedia:Pictures_needing_attention page with whatever information about the image you can remember. Although in this instance you might have better luck with a targetted audience of Canadian Londoners. -- Solipsist 18:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, I identified the London buildings you added (well, I'm not sure what the government building and the bank building are actually called, but I know the churches). I scattered them throughout the article instead of putting them all at the bottom - it might just be me, but the bottom of the page is screwed up if there are images there. Oh well, I hope it looks alright now! Adam Bishop 19:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you happen to take any pictures of the University of Western Ontario? It has a great Gothic revival tower, and the article could use a picture. (Unfortunately I don't have a camera to take one myself!)

Re: the photo: Do you know the name of the ship? It looks like a Liberty. I am interested because, in my other life, I am heavily involved with Project Liberty Ship. To date, I have never come across any merchant mariners who manned the 3in and 5in weapons. I am not saying that they never did, but in would have been very unusual. On some ships the USMM manned the 50 caliber Oerlikens. Some USMM also acted as ammunition passers for the larger guns. However, on the whole the USNAG were very possesive of the larger guns (my toothbrush - sometimes; my wife - maybe; my gun - NEVER.) Regards Oldfarm 00:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, to me, American means "from the United States." This is apparently what it means to Americans and other Canadians, but everyone else seems to think it refers to the whole continent...this has come up numerous times since I've been here, but it never solves anything. You might want to talk to User:RickK, he feels the same way but is much more passionate about it than me. Adam Bishop 06:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And to me the citizens of the USA are all Yankees, or Yanks. Of course it is a personal thing, based on mostly positive influences like 19th century songs: "A yankee boy is trim and tall and never over fat sir, at hop and ball, dance and all, he's nimble as a rat sir". I have a lot of sympathy for Frank Lloyd Wright's attempt to use the adjective "Usonian" instead of "American" but it never caught on. And yes the Southerners and sometimes Westerners do not like to be called yankees, but that's how things are around the globe, and it is just too bad for people who are too brittle.

Hey there. What you're after is disambiguation. I've done it for you so that you can see an example of how to do it. The process I went through was:

1. Move The Searchers to The Searchers (movie)
2. Create The Searchers (band)
3. Edit The Searchers to link to both of them, including the {{disambig}} template
4. Check for and fix any pages that link to The Searchers but should now point to the band or the movie (using What links here)

Hope that helps. violet/riga (t) 10:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've been just now starting to do a lot of editing of music entries too, like you, only I have not yet added any images to mine. I just learned of you because you added a comment to an admin's site (CatherineMunro) where I had also left a comment for her and when I looked, I was very interested in the information you gave about a wiki tag for album covers being in the public domain. Then I looked at your Manfred Mann site design in Edit mode to see how you formed the tags for the images you'd uploaded. I really need to learn all about that since music is one of my specialties here too as a newbie. Is there some particular faq you read that helped you with the image upload thing? I guess I need to sit down and read the images discussions carefully. But if you learned some of this elsewhere than the faqs, let me know. Bebop 15:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hiya Carptrash (and Bebop!)

The critical thing to remember -- our use of album covers hinges on the US Fair use doctrine, which is difficult to summarize, but in essence means that we can use a low-resolution public-but-copyrighted image (like an album cover, book cover, or movie poster) for the purpose of illustrating an article. A high-resolution image, suitable for purposes other than illustration/education (such as, say, printing bootleg CD covers), would not be considered fair use and would quickly be put up on Images for deletion. Album covers are copyrighted images -- they are NOT public domain and should NOT be tagged as such -- they are considered "fair use" in America (and I believe in the UK), but possibly not in other jurisdictions. You should always use the tag {{albumcover}}, which identifies them as such. This is very important, because it allows users in the Wikipedias of other countries (such as Serbia or Indonesia), which may not have fair use laws, to avoid inadvertantly copying an image from the English Wikipedia that is not legal for them to use. It also allows downstream users (those who legally copy and re-use our content under the GFDL) to filter out images which are fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but not for whatever their own project might be -- there are many commercial uses that are not covered under the fair use doctrine. (Do you think I used the word "fair" enough times in that paragraph? I'm fairly sure I did.....)

To answer your questions about uploading and tagging album covers, here's the steps I follow (and things to consider while you're doing it):

1) Aquire an image of the album cover. Use JPG format for photographs. It's best to scan it yourself, but many people copy them from fansites, All Music Guide and others (I personally avoid using Amazon's images because they seem more likely to embed metadata identifying it as coming from their site).

2) Upload the image file, using Special:Upload. I give the file a long, descriptive file name such as "Albumcover_ManfredMann_GroovinWithManfredMann_Fairuse.jpg". This makes it as easy as possible for someone looking through a list of image titles to know what the image is without clicking on it. (Giving very descriptive titles also minimizes the chance you'll accidently try to create a filename that already exists.) Personally, I also try to include the copyright tag (PD, GFDL, Fairuse) within the filename, also to make it easier for others to use/reuse if they save it and then don't remember where they got it -- only do this if you're certain about the copyright status.

3) When I get the "Successful upload" message, I click on the link to the image description page -- this is the one that contains the word "Image:", in this case it would be Image:Albumcover_ManfredMann_GroovinWithManfredMann_Fairuse.jpg. (If I'm not certain what image tag will be best to use, I will first right-click on Image copyright tags and open that list of tags in a new window, then click on the Image: link.)

3) Now I'm at the image description page. This contains the "File history", identifying me as the uploader and the time it was created, and "File links", which tells me what articles use the image. I click "edit this page", and enter everything I know about where it came from, wikifying links where useful. For album covers, it's usually sufficient to simply enter the tag {{albumcover}}. This expands (upon save) to a box which describes the "fair use in the US" concept, and places the image into Category:Fair use images. (If it's another type of image, I'd provide as much more information as I can, then find the appropriate image tag on the "Image copyright tags" page and copy-and-paste it here.)

4) Place the image into one or more articles by using the syntax [[Image:filename.jpg|caption]]. Don't forget the caption -- it will be used if the image is thumbnailed (see Image syntax, below), it will display as a hovering yellow tooltip (in IE) if a user hovers their mouse over the image, and it will be used as alternative text for blind users and browsers that don't support images.

See also, for more detail:

• Wikipedia:Uploading images
• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image description page
• Wikipedia:Extended image syntax

Bebop, those links should give you plenty to go on.

Carptrash, you can fix the entries you marked as public domain by clicking "My contributions" -- either at the very top of the page or in your sidebar. This will give you a list of every article you've edited and every image you've uploaded. Go back through the list, click on "Image:" names, and edit the image description page to change {{PD}} to {{albumcover}}. If you have any questions about other images you've uploaded, feel free to write me, or leave a list of them on my Talk page (use a colon before the image name like this: [[:Image:filename.jpg]], to make a link to the image instead of putting the image itself on my page.) I will be happy to help you or tag them properly myself.

If you would like to replace your large images with smaller ones, you can deliberately create a smaller, lower-resolution file with the same filename, and upload it again. You will be asked if you want to overwrite the existing image, and you do.

Thank you very much for making the effort to create and upload these images (we ALWAYS need more), and to tag your images to the best of your understanding, and to be conscientious about following up on learning and understanding about it. Copyright/free licensing issues are complicated, but it's very important that we get this right so some corporate lawsuit doesn't come back to bite Wikipedia just as we are really growing strong. You're a great contributor, please keep up the good work! [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 18:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Some pictures, such as Image:MyGeneration1.jpg, may be too big to comfortably fit in "fair use" guidelines (although I haven't seen a useful numerical gauge for that) -- would you consider making it smaller? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 20:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hi, I'm working on the image tagging project at the moment and I've come across this picture of yours wikiguardian.jpg, that you took but you haven't attached a tag stating under which licence you're releasing it. There's a list of templates here Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, please tag this image and any others that you may have uploaded. Many thanks --nixie 02:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was Image:WikiGuardian.jpg, you had attached the GFDL tag, but there was a problem with spacing and it didn't appear - and I didn't notice it the first time, doh. I'm not sure if I can comment on the dual licencing stuff for content, it seems overly confusing, when I finally get some images up I'll just be licencing under GFDL. --nixie 22:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: [4] Its with a long E. ~leif ☺ _HELO