User talk:Austex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Welcome to my talk page. Please place all new comments at the bottom of this page with a new section header, or under a previous section if appropriate. Remember to ALWAYS sign your comments with four tildes. ~~~~ Notes: Please be constructive, and be nice. Please "assume good faith" before making other assumptions. Don't attack me or others and I will do the same for you. Yes, actually I do sometimes make mistakes! So if I've screwed up please just let me know in a post below or email me privately and I'll do my best to fix it. ...

Welcome to my talk page.

Please place all new comments at the bottom of this page with a new
section header, or under a previous section if appropriate. Remember
to ALWAYS sign your comments with four tildes. ~~~~


Notes: Please be constructive, and be nice. Please "assume good faith" before making other assumptions. Don't attack me or others and I will do the same for you. Yes, actually I do sometimes make mistakes! So if I've screwed up please just let me know in a post below or email me privately and I'll do my best to fix it.

Close


As of July 11, 2010 my signature changed to: AustexTalk  
For my own editorial remarks I use "North Texas Green" color #059033


My quick links for edits:
R.Rock   G.Town   L.F.   My Edit Count
Wi-DM  DMPA SandBx  
WmCo   Aus  Travis   List of Colors  
BLP   Text   Backup 
COIN
EAR
RFF




Texas


Old Comments

(archived 24 August 2010)

Start new comments below here:

File:Antlers caboosses.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Antlers caboosses.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. Kelly hi! 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kelly - I don't understand the problem. It was properly licensed as CCA-SA 3.0 There is some incorrect langauge in the caption about who took the photo but it is I who took the photo and licensed it as the uploader. What is it that needs correction, please? AustexTalk 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Could you change the license to {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}? That would fix it. Kelly hi! 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Will do. I have never seen the "Self" license and probably should have been using it all along. Will make the change. May take a day or two for me to figure it out and get it done. Thanks. 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have re-submitting the original image through Creative Commons with a proper license. Image then was added to article Antlers Hotel (Kingsland, Texas) I hope this solves the issue. AustexTalk 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:McConico.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:McConico.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

At my request, the actual publisher/owner of the image sent and email to OTRS to license the image under a CCA-SA 3.0 license, as is noted in the image history summary and it was accepted by OTRS with the notation "This media was proposed for deletion as a replaceable non-free content. The result was to Keep the file, as no adequate free-licensed file exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this file at the time deletion was considered." The image appeared in the Round Rock, Texas article on Wikipedia and will be added back. It also appears on my page at Austex as a temporary holding placemarker to add it back to the Round Rock page. This license superceds the previous limited license and a true and correct DCA-SA-3.0 license is on file with OTRS as noted on the File:McConico.jpg page. I went to considerable trouble and a fairly extensive amount of time to get a fair use license from the publisher as this is an importnat iamge relating to Round Rock's history as the first black City Councilman. Obviously I myself cannot provide a license as it does not belong to me, but the publisher/owner of the image provided the proper license. Please let me know if you have further questions, or suggestions as to how to perfect this license, or if I have not done this correctly. Given the above I think it is no longer a non-fair-use image. AustexTalk 20:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Several issues - There is no OTRS ticket number, which is always displayed when they get the appropriate releases - can you cite to the ticket number for this? Second, there is still an incorrect license on the image description page (thus, the Orphaned noticce). If that is incorrect, it should be updated (incorrect license removed). I would hold off doing this, however, until you are able to put the OTRS ticket. Third, the "proposed for deletion... keep..." is inaccurate, there was no discussion, you simply removed the deletion tag (03:26, 25 July 2010) and put the rationale for it on the talk page. Skier Dude (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the necessary experience to deal with this. As far as I honestly know it was not I who removed the proposed for deletion tag and it would not be my practice to do so, and I have no OTRS ticket number and don't know why I would have kept it if I had one. I was not even the licensee. I've never even heard of an OTRS ticket number and have uploaded many images. Isn't there a notation, as I recall, from OTRS re approving the image and confirming thta they received his email license? It was the publisher and image owner, not me, who licensed the photo at my request (as was noted by OTRS on the image page). Given that this involves arcane matters such as keeping an OTRS ticket number on something that I didn't license, I supose you just ought to do what you want with it. It seems to me like these technialities are a distinction without a difference and your comments are unfortunately indeciferable to me(although I am certainthat you mean well) as to how to solve it. This is way over my head and my only interests were in recognizing a major historical figure in the Round Rock history that I was writing. This is the only known photo of Mr.McConnico and is an image that cannot otherwise be created. And it's Fair Use was licensed under CCA-SA-3.0 by the owner/publisher of the photo(not me). I truly don't know what else to do. I am just a normal editor trying to do a fair job. I don't understand why the urrent license is not sufficient. As for being orphaned, I removed it from the Round Rock site when the licensing issue irst came up. I am happy to re-add it if that helps solve the problem. AustexTalk 03:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
To solve this, if you are certain that the actual (C) holder has sent an e-mail to OTRS is simply to wait for them to put the ticket number on the image. Even if it deleted before the ticket is added, the ORTS staff has administrators that can restore the image. Without that, it could easily be challenged down the line as a replaceable fair-use; to allay that problem, let ORTS do their job & have patience - they're not normally as fast as the admins/sysops are here on the en.wiki site :) Skier Dude (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am absolutely certain. It is noted on the image site: "Copyright from Community Impact Newsletter released July 26, 2010 by Publisher using CCA-SA-Ver 3.0 per email sent to'[email protected]'." And it was released by OTRS on 8/8/2010. That's more than a year ago. Do I need to track down the publisher and have him re-submit this again? AustexTalk 04:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Image has been re-licensed as McConico2.jpg. AustexTalk 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Image has been deleted. Have you not received a proper email form from John Garrett, Publisher, providing a CC-AS-3.0 license for this image? AustexTalk 21:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You're going to have to contact WP:OTRS; Admins (including me) here don't necessarily have access to that database, someone listed on their page will be able to answer your questions. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hooray! License was finally receved by OTRS and they issued a ticket as follows: Ticket#2011081610019755 File:McConico2.jpg User:Skier Dude Can you assist in merging the ticket with the image? I don't know how and from my reading its look like it probably has to be done by an admin. Says to forward the ticket number to the admin who first contacted me and they will forward to OTRS. (Or does OTRS do this eventually themseleves?) I am guessing that I need the photo undelted so that the ticket number and permission can be added. Glad to get this resolved after 13 months. Thanks very, very, very much. AustexTalk 00:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The image has been undeleted and is back live. See final discussion HERE
Skier Dude See note on your discussion page re McConico2.jpg Also, please ignore me if this idea is inappropriate. I have NEVER asked for something like this before on Wikipedia, and I don't know if it is kosher to ask, but given that I worked for nearly 14 months (it starts in my Archive 3)on this one image alone, trying to get it cleared, getting the publisher to write three time to OTRS with a proper permission form (and the image was cleared briefly last July then deleted again so perserveing through it all), is it appropriate for you to consider awarding a barnstar of some sort for perseverence in the face of adversity or such? If not appropriate to ask, please delete this section and I will understand AustexTalk 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about "Archive" citations

A number of my citations come from the Austin American-Statesman's paid "Archive" section. In other words, you have to have a valid paid account to get full text of articles and the orginal url. If I cite the archive url I get a huge, long, multi-line url which includes my username and password, which is obviously not appropriate. So I'm currently just using "url=statesman.com (Archives)" notation. It does not link at all to the article itself, but it gives a publication source (not not th article) plus I am providing the article title, author and publication date, etc.. But you cannot get to the article itself without paying. Two questions: (1) Is there a place I can store a full article on Wikipedia and refer to it there? (2) What is the proper form for such difficult and perplexing citations? AustexTalk 14:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer #1: definitely notthat would be a copyright violation. For #2, you don't have to include a URL, as WP:V is satisfied if you include the metadata. If the articles have identifiers such as DOIs, OCLCs, or BibCodes, you will want to include them to help identify the article. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate the help very much. You guys are always quick and helpful. Many thanks. AustexTalk 15:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Follow up re the above. On a BLP I got a ton of flack by editors saying that they didn't know if the BLP person was only "mentioned" in the news article, or if the article was about them specifically. Makes a big difference re establishing notability (in fact the case in particular was deleted in a AfD for lack of proven notability despite excellent news articles that could not be properly cited from the paid archive of the Austin American-Statesman. Yet I cannot use the archive's url. Suggestions? (PS - where is the metadata?) AustexTalk 22:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Who is the subject of the article in question? CapMan07008 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Is was a BLP that was deleted by AfD in 2010. But I have had it come up here a time or two on other articles. I have not been using the longer url because it has my account name and password in it (see url). Here is an example [1]
My substitute for that url is footnoted here, but the critique is that you cannot read the article to see if it conveys notability. [2]
Truth is you can't read the article with either one, hence my wondering if the article could be pdf'd or the unformatted text placed (in my sandbox perhaps, or special page) somewhere to be referenced?AustexTalk 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is the article metadata referred to above? I know about metadata in photos, but not newspaper articles.
Take a look at the URLs themselves: from the first one: "docid=0EA07856E73E6565"; "dlid=DL0111020402395432054". I think that might be what is referred to, though I have no idea if those are internal ids only for their database, or refer to some more broad cataloguing system. Meanwhile, let me check whether Austin American-Statesman is in newspaperarchive.com. Regarding the notability issue, if I averred that the article contained substantive treatment of the topic, I would expect to be taken at my word, but since I'm also a realist, what I would do it write the content that shows notability, citing each part to those sources that verify the information. It that got deleted because people demanded to see the content itself, I think you would have a very good basis for overturning at WP:DRV. In any event, if you have the subscriptions and can personally download copies of the articles, then you could offer to provide by email copies of the pdfs. Whether this would violate the terms of use of the website is an issue, but I don't think you would be violating any copyright in doing so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not in their database:-(--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful ideas. I do pay for the archive so I could take the relevent information and provide it by email, or for that matter on the discussion page for future reference. Thanks. AustexTalk 01:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


Requests for Peer Review (2 September 2011

See also=

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI