DW

More discussion related to DW (as Angelique): /Quebec issue

Most wanted:

The Club of Rome;
Hudson Think Tank
H.L. Hunt and sons
J.Paul Getty family & museum

DW, it is Wikipedia convention to include a complete sentence i nthe first line of every article. Please don't go around changing that. -- Zoe

Look at all of the articles written by anybody else. Do you see them doing it the way you're doing? I will continue to change them if you put them back the way they were. -- Zoe

DW -- I showed you mine -- Now why don't you show us yours? JHK

I don't see very well what makes you think I have any knowledge in politics. But I'll see what I can do user:Anthere

Hey, DW, I've been following the List of Famous Canadians "debate" and I just wanted to put my two cents in.

First of all, if you are truly trying to change the tenor of the "discussion" by signing in under a different username and pretending to be someone else, then that alone is, in my mind, enough to warrant a temporary ban as it shows a basic disregard for the principles of cooperation and scholarship. It is deceptive and lowers the threshold of morality for the entire Wikipedia.

Secondly, I have taught five-year-old children who have responded to arguments more intelligently and with greater maturity than you have shown. I don't know how old you are, but if you are, in fact, older than twelve, I suggest you think long and hard about your response to disagreements.

Thirdly, you seem to be placing an awful lot of importance on an article that, in my eyes, is not too important at all. I can not think of any reason why I might ever want to look at a list of famous Canadians and I believe all such lists are useless, but I do not interfere and attempt to delete them. Your repeated vandalism of the page, and I don't see how it could be characterized as anything else since it violates the obviously agreed upon community standard, is shameful no matter how many other wonderfully written and edited articles you have written.

Fourthly, your ad hominem attacks are irrelevant and silly. Even assuming Jeronimo espoused actual racist beliefs towards Americans, this should not be barring him from writing an article on Canadians (which are not the same thing as Americans, as I'm sure you know if you are, in fact, Canadian). Similarly, your statements that no Dutch person would name himself Jeronimo may or may not have any basis in fact whatsoever. I have had no luck in deciphering exactly what the problem with the name is, however it is most certainly not evidence of any quality that he is not Dutch. My understanding is that the Netherlands is a diverse land with many different positions and viewpoints, and I certainly hope there is enough cultural acceptance there to allow any citizen to go by any name. And for the record, I do know two born-and-bred patriotic Americans named Benedict, and one named Arnold.

In light of all these things (and the comments on your user page and talk page), I must conclude that if I had the power to, I would have banned you (and all your aliases) several days ago. I hope you never get involved with any of the articles I am working on, and I would not be sorry in the slightest to see you leave Wikipedia permanently. I don't believe the Wikipedia Community needs or wants contributors like you.

Tokerboy 18:03 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ahem, excuse me <just clearing my throat, I have a cold>. DW's squabble with Jeronimo about whether a given musical group are "famous" enough -- is not actually vandalism. Deleting the whole page and writing KEWL is vandalism. There's no way Jimbo is going to ban him, simply because you (and maybe me) think he's on the wrong side in an edit war. Now, let's go back to Talk:List of famous Canadians and hash this thing out. --Ed Poor

One man's vandalism is another man's graffiti art or direct action protest.

I didn't mean to suggest that Jimbo or anyone else will ban him because he's on the wrong side in an edit war, but because of his immaturity and unwillingness to compromise. I simply stated that I would, if I could, ban him, or at least seek a community acceptance of banning him. I have no problems with anyone discussing the meaning of the word "famous," I simply believe that DW has shown that he is unwilling to discuss anything and would prefer to use deception and pigheaded stubbornness to convince everyone to give up and leave him alone to do as he pleases. Any attempts at discussing this with him, Ed, is welcome and well-meaning but will probably be useless. Tokerboy 18:35 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

I posted some questions at Talk: Politics of Canada--a few sentences are very confusing right now, and some important details are lacking. You seem to know a lot about the Quebec independence thing, so maybe you can help? Tokerboy 21:39 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

I thought the accepted disambiguation format for movies was to use the title then (movie), or the title then (year movie) if there are more than one? --KQ

See Talk:Blue (Kieslowski movie)

Do we have permission to use the image at Juliette Binoche? --KQ 02:14 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)

Of course! ...DW

DW:

Please don't scribble on my user page. My talk page will do just fine. I will also get notified if there's a message for me there.
I already answered you on the above page.
"You were told already..." - did you become owner of wikipedia? I wasn't notified of that! Apologies, your majesty! ;-)
As far as I remember (and I'm with wikipedia almost since the beginning), a maximum width of 350 pixel for images was agreed upon, so an image won't be too large even on smaller screens.
What is it with your "2.5 inches"? Are you talking about screen width or resolution? Or do you mean image size in terms of byte??

Magnus Manske 20:49 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)

DW, you are correct in one point: it is 250, not 350 pixel (Wikipedia:Image use policy). And, with my mentioning of being here a long time I was merely trying to point out your attitude, which is a little absolutistic ("...images are too large...","...you were told..."). Well, maybe the NPOV is finally getting to me ;-)
You still haven't told me what you mean with "2.5 inches", though... --Magnus Manske 22:21 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

DW I wonder if the images you've uploaded are really free of right ? Ericd

Hi DW,

Could you put some information about the source and copyright status of the Golda Meir image on its description page please? Thanks. Mswake 12:16 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

DW Your answer in Talk:Front de Libération du Québec was your first answer on a talk page. I think it's a good thing. Can you also give some answers to questions about source and copyright status of the images you've uploaded.

Thanks.

Ericd

DW,

You have produced a lot of good work in the Wikipedia, and I'd hate to see us develop hard feelings. If you really feel that the Wikipedia consensus is wrong, please discuss it either on the mailing list or at the Wikipedia:Village pump page. It's not my standards that I'm adhering to, it's what the Wikipedia community in general have decided. -- Zoe

DW, I just discovered that you actually *replace* my images, instead of uploading your smalled version to a different name (e.g., "xx_small.jpg"). An example of that is media:Peter Paul Rubens.jpg. Please link to that larger version from the image desctiption via the media namespace, as I did above.

Also, do that for all the images you already have "overwritten".

Thanks, Magnus Manske 21:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Re my talk page:

By shrinking my images, information is lost. While that might be not a real problem on the screen, it starts getting ugly when someone tries to print such an image. So, usual practice (you can find many examples of this in the image list, just search it for "small") for shrinking an image "xx.jpg" is to

either upload the smaller image as "xx (small).jpg", and change the link on the page,
or to upload the large image as "xx (large).jpg", and upload the small image as "xx.jpg".

In any case, on the image description page of the small image should be a media: link to the large one.

Yes, I know the large image is still in the "history" list, but it is unlikely to be found there. --Magnus Manske 22:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

I wish you would quit abusing other contributors; I'm embarassed for you to see the things you say. We're all here because we believe in what wikipedia stands for, other people just as much as you, and friendliness would go a long way towards making everyone's time here pleasant.

DW, what image are you talking about? It would be nice to know exactly which sin you're accusing me of, I lose track ;-)

While I'm at it, you are (still) in error about image sizes in pixels and inches. Let me phrase it in bold text: There is no relation between the size of an image in inches and pixels. Find an image, look at it on your screen when set to 1024x768, take a ruler and measure the width. Now do the same again, but at 640x480. Then do both of that on a screen with a different physical size. Then save that image, open it in Paintshop (or whatever). Set it to 75 dpi and print it. Then set it to 600 dpi and print again. Notice a pattern there? All of them are different sizes in inch, but the same size in pixels.

Got it? --Magnus Manske

DW's latest threats have been placed on the Wiki list and sent around, as requested by some other members.

DW, sorry to do this but at Jimbo's request I have blocked your ability to contribute to this website as a "signed-in user". --Ed Poor

Others have weighed in on your userpage, and I must agree that I find it offensive and silly. Assuming you are really DW's widow, I should certainly hope that you realize that no one on Wikipedia murdered him, and I resent the accusation otherwise; of course, if you have serious reasons for believing that Mav or Zoe or someone else actually murdered him in any relevant meaning of the word, then this doesn't apply. Otherwise, I request that you change your user page as it is unnecessarily inflammatory and misleading.

With regards to your late husbands comments re: my comments in the edit window of Brion Vibber's talk page (I did an illegal search query -- cuz I am a bad ass) and another user, the specific complaint of which I am currently unable to find, I note that your late husband has left the following comments in the edit comments box:

02:53 Jan 30, 2003 Amedeo Modigliani (Fixing yp an article which morons keep changing to an arbirary policy that they falsely call a Wikipedia policy. This is the tenth+ time I have fixed their mess )
21:23 Oct 12, 2002 . . DW (Hopefully, final deletions of American hater Osama bin Jeronimo's work)
02:59 Jan 30, 2003 User talk:Jtdirl (Note to a mental midget )
(cur) (last) . . 22:41 Jan 20, 2003 . . 64.228.30.101 (putting back my photos that idiot, Ericd removed without reason and a severe lack odf brains...DW)
I don't understand the morons who think they are making a contribution with half-assed material that is of little interest or benefit to anyone except the retard who posted it. I had not intended, but will get around to doing this one properly.....DW (Talk:Anouk Aimée)

While I can understand DW's apprehension about his daughter being exposed to my and someone else's comments in the freely accessible Recent Changes page, I should certainly hope that he (and you) can/could/will differentiate and explain the differences between something that uses foul language but is obviously meant to be a joke (such as my note to Brion) and your late husband's hate-filled attacks on other contributors. If his (and, presumably, your) daughter grows up not understanding the difference between these two ideas, then I hope she leaves home as soon as possible to learn the difference between off-color humor and speech expressing vicious hatred towards another person. This, of course, includes comparing, without any noticeable proof, an individual to Osama Bin Laden -- as far as hate speech goes, this about as hateful as possible and I, for one, find it imeasurably hateful as it trivializes bin Laden's evil by equating with what is, at most, a disagreement over what qualifies as a famous Canadian. I certainly hope, for your daughter's sake, that you understand the difference between a statement of hatred and the humorous use of a word commonly perceived as impolite.

Tell DW I said wuzzup Tuf-Kat

Text from user page moved here

This space here at the top is where users normally put in some information about themselves, eg. qualifications, experience, or just plain personal data. It would be nice to know more about you, DW. I'd hate to think that there is nothing to know. Best regards, Deb 10:06 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC) P.S. Woof!

Welcome, DW! May I recommend the Welcome, newcomers article to your attention? As well as outlining Wikipedia standards on the neutral point of view, it should point you to the standards and instructions for adding images to articles. Hope you enjoy contributing! -- April 08:40 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, welcome. Do you have a better picture of the Arrow? We don't use BMP here since that's a Microsoft-only format, and anyway it was really badly dithered. Do you know where the original came from? I'm sure we can produce a better picture from the original. --LDC

Actually it's not a Microsoft-only format (GIMP handles it well), but it's not well compressed, nor is it widely supported in web browsers. -phma

Yes, I used GIMP to convert it, but the format itself ws designed by Microsoft for Microsoft Windows, and is particularly suited to the Win32 API. Sure, a few folks have nonetheless figured it out and can use them on real computers :-), but it's still primarily a Windows thing, and I don't want to have to repeat that whole last paragraph every time I tell someone not to use it. --LDC

Welcome, DW. Might I suggest that you also check out the Naming conventions article? And, if you like, tell us a bit about yourself! Enjoy! JHK

DW -- Regarding linking the Carolingian Dynasty article forward -- it will not be done until there is proper material added to the list for non-French Carolingians and an explanation that they aren't exclusively a part of French History. At present, I believe there is a link in History of France to Carolingians which is much more comprehensive and explains more than a bunch of names. If you are concerned about this, or would like more of an explanation, I suggest you read my extensive comments at Talk:Carolingian Dynasty. Thanks JHK

DW -- please not the format we use for alternate language names, perhaps by looking at an article on a Holy Roman Emperor or Polish City. You will note that we place the alternate, usually non-English, names in parentheses after the name of the language in italics). Just because you want everybody to use the French names doesn't mean you should go through and write them all in French, except for the article title. If you are truly attempting o expand knowledge, then you should write as if your audience knows very little -- you might think it a natural conclusion for people to see Henri throughout an article on Henry I of France asd figure it out that Henri is Franch for Henry, but it isn't really that way. Many people will just be confused. JHK

DW -- generally, we respond to people's comments -- is there a problem with the way we've been doing articles? If so, you should perhaps offer alternative ways of doing things. You're putting huge amounts of interesting info in, but it's looking very cribbed from other sources (are they PD) and there is perhaps more genealogical info than is necessary in historical biography. I say this because people often see a list of names and decide they should link to their own articles, which is not always a good idea. We often know so little about younger daughters, etc., that there's no point in an encyclopedia, althought there would be in a dictionary of biography -- but wikipedia is not a dictionary. JHK

DW, I'm rather confused at what you are attempting to accomplish here at Wikipedia. The project succeeds only because people are willing to work with each other and establish common conventions. Those conventions are certainly open to change, but coming in as a new contributor and unilaterally changing them is not the way to go about it. Why not work with the other contributors here, instead of chnaging things as you alone see fit? If you want to work on Wikipedia, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Naming conventions for a start. --Stephen Gilbert

Yo, DW. I like a lot of your ideas, and so do others. But please try not to be so antagonistic.

You wrote, to Magnus, "Instead of trying to be a hero and getting people like Zoe to stroke your ego, slow down and do things properly. Looking at a page with your kind of minimal input and poor quality, overwhelming photos, is what turns people away from Wikipedia."

You also wrote, to Zoe, some interesting, if rude, words about marketing expertise.

It occurs to me, and I hope you'll reflect on this and take it to heart, that you might apply some marketing expertise to your presentation of your self. Regard the rest of us as potential customers for your ideas -- and sell those ideas to us in an appealing package, rather than yelling at us.

--Jimbo Wales

Hey DW!

Thanks so much for being here. You seem so knowledgeable about so many things (so few of us are!). I wish you liked us one-tenth as much as we like you.

Arthur 01:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

DW, It is imperative that you stop being mean to people. Your work is generally good, why are you doing this? Please email me: jwales@bomis.com, and let's chat about it. I hate to ban good people, but if you continue to insult people, I'll have no choice. --user:Jimbo Wales

DW, I thought you made a good point about putting a country of origin next to a person's details. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. For example, nation-states were born with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Prior to that, the concept of countries was quite fluid. City-states were more often the norm (in areas that had advanced beyond tribalism). I'd like to see Zoe explain better whether she wants this to be an iron rule or a guideline to be used as appropriate. Anyway, you've poisoned the well a bit on this one by editing the George Washington page directly rather than by using a Talk: page, which would have been more diplomatic. It's hard to take your side to the extent that you engage in ad hominem attacks. When someone's ideas are mistaken, it is more effective to attack the ideas than to attack the person. Attacking the person here is likely to end in banishment. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like your work. M Carling 21:34 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's not my policy.
Of coure it isn't useful in cases where there is no advantage in using an arbitrary nationality. As I've said elsewhere, when I wrote the Laurence Harvey article, I said he was "Latvia-born", not "Latvian". -- Zoe

The french wikipedia might find benefit in knowing precisely the reason why that user was hard banned. It is not clearly mentionned in the user page.

We understood it was related to image use, which could be under copyright. We would like to know more. Also, we would like to know if some pictures, uploaded by this user, and still on en:wikipedia, may be consider safe or not. example : File:EBeart-A.jpg.

Anthère

Article Licensing edit

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 1000 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:

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:

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)

Unverified images edit

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images edit

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:GeorgesBizet.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images edit

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:LaBourdaisiere.JPG

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 06:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified: Image:Olga.JPG edit

Thanks for uploading Image:Olga.JPG. You wrote that it's public domain, but as there is no information on its source to confirm that, I've marked it as {{unverified}} for now. If you can verify that it is indeed public domain, could you please document that on its description page and supply the most appropriate PD tag from the list of image copyright tags? Thanks! Kbh3rd 00:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User Ted Wilkes edit

I haven't got time at the moment to investigate your accusations, but I suggest you put a copy at WP:AN/I where other administrators will be able to see them. Thryduulf 13:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unverified: Image:Saumur.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading Image:Saumur.jpg. I've marked it as {{no source}} for now. If you can verify it's source, could you please document that on its description page and supply the most appropriate tag from the list of image copyright tags? Thanks!

Image:WBlakeGrave.jpg edit

Image deletion warning

The image Image:WBlakeGrave.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Image source/licensing for Image:Brancusi.JPG edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image you uploaded, Image:Brancusi.JPG, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image:Robert II.jpg has been listed for deletion edit

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Robert II.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

Image:Seberg.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image that you uploaded, Image:Seberg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information. Thank you.

--Wikiacc (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image copyright problem with Image:Bonnietyler2.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Bonnietyler2.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. The JPS 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:1909 Hupmodile.jpg listed for deletion edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:1909 Hupmodile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

The image is an orphan -Nv8200p talk 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging Image:IsadoraDuncan.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:IsadoraDuncan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging Image:Bugatti EB110.jpg, Image:HenriLaurens.jpg, Image:GaleStorm.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading these images. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Matt 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging for Image:TommyBurns.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:TommyBurns.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.

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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image Tagging for Image:SValadon.jpg edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:SValadon.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.

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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Savery and Papin edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the article on Denis Papin, you claimed that Savery copied Papin's design. I find this very difficult to believe.

For one thing, the two designs appear to work in completely different fashions. Papin's uses steam pressure to force a piston down, thereby pushing water out the bottom of the cylinder. Savery's uses the vacuume created by condensing steam to pull water up into the cylinder. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it basically means the two types were completely different in concept.

To demonstrate the difference, note that Edward Somerset's design that was built at Raglan uses the same operating cycle as Savery's, and differs primarily in having two cylinders instead of one. It long predates either Savery or Papin, and is located not far from Savery. If Savery did copy the design from somewhere, it appears much more plausible he did it from Somerset!

Moreover, it appears that Papin did not move to London until some unknown time after 1685. Additionally, his works were not published until 1707 at the earliest. I can't imagine how Savery would even come to know of Papin or his work until then at the earliest, and even then I would not be surprised to hear he had never heard of it at all.

Do you have a source for this claim? Without further information on Papin's patents, or a direct linkage of the two men, I believe this claim is in error.

Maury 17:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply