User talk:Lquilter/Archive 013

URGENT - need help

Following your suggestion, I have created a template in replacement to the Down Beat category which had just been deleted. This user has deleted the Template I had created as a replacement and after spending many hours in the process. Could tell me, in plain English, what is wrong this time. Better yet, could you restore this template? I am starting to get very angry and frustrated. Jazzeur (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to warn you that I have just re-created the templates. I am in shock. Please explain, my motives to the 2 users that are responsible for this savage deletion and tell them to refrain from doing so in the future. The world of Wikipedia is insane. Jazzeur (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now we are here. I need your assistance. Jazzeur (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

category edits on orgs

Hi Carlaude -- I reverted two sets of category edits you've been making on Category:Organizations based in the United States. First, it appears you're depopulating Category:Organizations based in the United States by subject. Can you explain why you're doing that? Second, on some of the categories, you did other things that aren't helpful; for instance, on Category:Medical and health organizations based in the United States, you deleted Category:Medical and health organizations by country entirely. What's going on? --Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit on Category:Organizations by country and subject. The convention on categories like this one is to have both "by X and Y", and "by Y and X", and have them cross-listed. If you have some concerns about the structure, I suggest you talk about it on the specific category talk page first. If you are still concerned, then WP:CFD is the appropriate place for discussion of categories. In particular, the REDIRECT magic word that is appropriate for articles is rarely appropriate for categories; category redirects are done very differently. The organizations in particular have been difficult to get organized, and still need lots of work; however, it's unhelpful to have people working in different directions. Collaborative editing is particularly useful in category schemes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Organizations by country and subject‎" in an empty category except for the "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" and "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is totally redundant with much larger an more used "Category:Organizations based in the United States" These category are not needed and WP will be better with out them.--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is WP:fork with "Category:Organizations based in the United States" how is it better to have both?--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a fork; that applies to contents of articles that are controversial. The "orgs based in the US by subject" is the beginnings of an effort to diffuse the category, along the lines of Category:Organizations more generally. This is normal categorizing practice. ... Since you're interested in working on the organization categories, and have opinions, it would be great to have your help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Figuring out how to categorize organizations has been a long-term process, and it's still ongoing. ... Another thing that would be incredibly useful would be diffusing the contents of Category:Organizations based in the United States into the various subject-specific subcategories. --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also, please leave my comments together, as I posted them. Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• For a more fleshed-out example of a similar category tree, see Category:Companies by industry. That might help you better conceptualize the structure. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No-- "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." It is not just a controversial topic. If you wan to diffuse the category (Category:Organizations based in the United States) you should work with that category , not make a new one.--Carlaude (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what diffusing means. To diffuse the contents of a category, you move articles in that category into subcategories. In some instances, the subcategories exist; in some instances, we create them. Also, please note that fork discusses "articles", not categories. Categories are organizational schemes; automatic indexes. CAT and WP:CATFAQ explain more. You might also be interested in looking at the template Template:Parent cat, which applies to categories that are used solely as indexes and cross-references for other categories -- such as the category you were trying to depopulate today.

I realize that it may not be wholly intuitive, but again, I suggest that you look at Category:Companies by industry for an example of the sort of cross-referenced category that we are establishing in Category:Organizations based in the United States. See also Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Organizations by location. --Lquilter (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebooting WikiProject Fictional series

Hello...WikiProject Fictional series is in the process of getting a new start by attracting task forces. I am currently getting things set up for this and other project building areas. Please stop by and take a look. Your suggestions will be appreciated. - LA @ 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

fundamental discussion of categories

which may interest you, at [1] DGG (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Template:Cfd-notify

Hi Lquilter, I just discovered that you ran into a slight problem with Template:Cfd-notify a while back, due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I often just hand-write a note, since it's friendlier and I often want to explain the specifics anyway. But sometimes I template and it's good to have it usable for sloppy users like me. --Lquilter (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada

Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – GreenJoe 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Museums WikiProject

Hi! You expressed an interest in a Museums Wiki Project and after working in a number of articles and wanting to add a template that didn't exist, I went ahead and launched the project:

I'd appreciate any feedback you have (this is my first project} and any help in project related 'stuff'. Thanks TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look into it -- I'm a little busy right now. In general I'd suggest new projects focus on doing useful things, like developing best practices, or categorizing, relevant items, rather than spend a lot of time developing cute templates. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No worries, I just wanted to extend the invite since you'd said you were interested. We'll be there when/if you're freed up and want to work on it. We're off to a good start with assessment and categorizing so I think we're entitled to some play time ;) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the wrong invite template as your talk page was showing up in the list to be assessed.— Rod ^talk 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay villages

I seem to recall from an old CFD that you were interested in generating a list of gay villages so I wanted to point you towrd List of gay villages. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Tx Otto! --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:sexism

Maybe you've seen this[2] but as that thread is naming you directly I thought it appropriate to let you know that this has been posted about you. I mentioned it User:BrownHairedGirl earlier as well in regard to User:Blackworm's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is directly related to a convo he had with myself and BHG at WT:GS[3]--Cailil ^talk 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Cailil -- looks like BHG is on the job! That editor just needs to understand that wikipedia articles reflect the balance of study and work in other fields; not our own interests. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Lists and Categories

Hi - I don't want to clog up the CfD on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_15#Category:Association_of_Theological_Schools_in_the_United_States_and_Canada. and I'm not ready to !vote there yet. So here is my question: Although I'm very comfortable in AfDs, CfDs and categories in general are mostly new to me (but it's time that I jumped into that pool) and I need to better understand the pragmatic differences between categories and lists. I can understand your point about policing cats, and that makes a lot of sense and leads me to think that your argument may be the more compelling between you and Orlady. Can you either explain the other differences, or point to/explain elsewhere? I'm also going to read elsewhere, including Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. I !voted to relist this CfD more on procedural grounds in the DRV based on good reasons from Orlady, but they may not be sufficiently good to keep here after seeing your arguments. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Becksguy -- I'll be happy to talk about this more.

The first place to start is WP:CLS, which distinguishes between categories, lists, and series/infoboxes. To my mind it's not as good as it could be, and I think it would be great to hear from you what you find unclear, contradictory, redundant, etc., on that guideline -- it would give us some good starting point to work on revisions.

Second, if you want to more or less follow what I did -- just as one approach -- I basically started reading the policies, trying to apply them, and then got pulled into CFD by someone who proposed (and succeeded) in deleting a category I created. I followed discussions more than contributed for a while, and over time began contributing more frequently. And having lots of side discussions with people! And sometimes when CFDs don't find consensus, so the category continues as is but with some unhappiness, I start discussions on that category talk page to try to has it out. So that's been my approach and what has informed my thinking about how categories are used. I admit that I have perhaps a bit of an advantage, in that I'm a librarian and interested and knowledgeable generally about methods for organizing information.

Another thing that I've wanted to do for some time is write an essay that clearly sets out the differences between categories and "tags". Many, many people come to wikipedia and become editors, thinking of categories as a type of tags. Their functionality is pretty different, though, and that causes a lot of confusion with editors who first start trying to delve into the categorization system.

--Lquilter (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Dear Lquilter; Awadewit suggested that you were the right person to ask the following question: for the article general relativity, we are considering using the image Image:GeneralRelativityTheoryManuscript.jpg, which was taken from these sites:

• Einstein Papers Project
• Einstein Archives Online
• Leiden University - Einstein archive

The manuscript that is photographed is certainly old enough to be in the public domain. But does that mean the photograph of the manuscript is also in the public domain? I know that something like that is the case for two-dimensional art; we're just not sure whether that applies to (scientific) manuscripts as well. Many thanks in advance, Markus Poessel (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Markus -- To my knowledge, there is only one firm case in this question, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and that found that a simple duplication of a work would not be sufficiently original to be independently copyrightable. Bridgeman certainly supports your use, and if anything is stronger for a copy of a text than the images at issue in Bridgeman: in your text, all or virtually all of the copyrightable content is in the text itself, not the cursive writing.

That said, let me just take a minute to explain the status of Bridgeman: This is a US District Court case (not a Circuit Court of Appeals case or a US Supreme Court case), so it's not binding authority on any other court, and no higher court has ruled directly on the question nor reviewed Bridgeman directly. So it would be incorrect to say that Bridgeman is definitive; the best you can say is that it's influential, persuasive, established the standard of practice, etc. Bridgeman has in fact been relatively influential in practice -- museums and libraries and photo businesses pretty much take it as settled law. As for other courts' acceptance of Bridgeman, no other court has addressed the same issue; however, when courts have addressed similar issues (e.g., photographs of 3-dimensional objects), they have taken pains to distinguish Bridgeman -- a sort of approval by negative inference. ... Anyway, in the absence of any other case law on the matter, it's quite reasonable to take Bridgeman to support use of photographs of 2-dimensional works (texts or graphics).

All that said, while I imagine most copyright lawyers wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the use, Wikipedia policy is sometimes aimed at something even more extreme. So, while I imagine it would be fine, you might want to check at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. And, of course, this isn't legal advice, yadda yadda ya. <g>

--Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

399 to go

We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick and Category:Christian writers

I've invited you to a discussion about this topic, here. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your great comments. I've listed the article for peer review and would greatly appreciate your input and suggestions for improvement. Thanks again for your time. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your last comment and I've left you a question about C. S. Lewis. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but given your knowledge about books and biographies in general, I'm wondering if you could comment on how to best represent the religion of an author through their personal life and their work. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#Emma Goldman. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not orphaned. I put it back in the article where it belonged. --Lquilter (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worker rights categories

Hi Lquilter,

I've nominated a couple of "Worker rights" categories that you created for possible renaming. It's only a slight change, but of course I want to see what you have to say about it! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NGO Cats

Hi again, This isn't my CFD, but I spotted it and thought you'd want to know about it. Cgingold (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger Discussion Page

Long time since we've talked. First of all, I replied to your comment on the Merger Discussion page. That page is one thing I set up when I restarted WP:24. Along with the Article Drive. Have you seen Martha Logan by the way? Also, you will be interested to know, I've made a truce to Lucy, and hereby am shielding her from the tiresome attacks she gets. Surprise, eh? Awaiting your reply, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear of your help to lucy. i'll check out the page. --Lquilter (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for looking. Decided to take a stand against her being attacked, it's uncalled for and against our policy. Say, would you mind joining our project? I could use someone who has a balanced head on their shoulders, one who is neutral. I'd also ask, about the current mergers, that they be delayed until we can find references for the remaining articles. Lan Di has found quite a few for Chase Edmunds and Edgar Stiles, I just need time to rewrite th articles. And I understand that these have been proposed for ages, however, I've had little time to rewrite these articles, and I brought Martha Logan to GA status practically by myself. Is this OK by you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I don't think I'll join the project, since I'm not likely to be able to commit any particular amount of time or effort to it. However, I'll continue to look in on 24 related articles as time permits. Good luck with your work. --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know as an administrator you would have little time on your hands. But the request for, well, some time, as the situation stands, is that OK with you? I just need some time, doing things mostly myself isn't easy. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

fan fiction

Are you still interested in the fan fiction project? deepsack (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Are you still interested in the Fan Fiction category? deepsack (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but I'm on a bit of a wikibreak for a few months dealing with family stuff. --Lquilter (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Queer studies

Haven't seen you around CFD of late, thought you might want to join the discussion on Category:Queer studies. Cgingold (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, it looks like it worked itself out! I'm off doing my own queer family stuff these days - probably be a few more months before I'm back with more than casual edits. --Lquilter (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawyer joke...

I laughed at this statistic (you probably hear it all the time) ...

99% of lawyers are giving the rest a bad name. TunaSushi (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

... you can never hear too many lawyer jokes. that's why whenever anyone asks what i do, i pause for a long time, and try to figure out if there's any other appropriate answer, and then i usually end up settling on lawyer ... Lquilter (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Peer-to-peer charities

I created this category, you suggested renaming it, and I just got your message. Plz check out my definition here [4] --Karl.brown (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism Task Force

Hello! :) I think I contacted you once about the Feminism Task Force. I am reviving the task force page and the portal. Thought I'd let you know. --Grrrlriot (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you happen to visit Wikipedia before the fall....

Your opinion has been suggested as valuable insight in a re-name/merge discussion occurring at Talk:Lesbian science fiction. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page

I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent .

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Women's media and publications

Category:Women's media and publications, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

This is just a simple rename, not a big deal, L. Cgingold (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• OMG -- maternity leave?!?!?! -- WOW. How on earth did I miss that??? :) Cgingold (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear Lquilter...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question

Hi, I read your user page and see that you are an IP lawyer, so I had a question for you. I know that transformation (law) is one of the four main factors in determining whether an unlicensed work can be fair use or not, and I understand that transformative uses do not always guarantee fair use, but I was wondering if you knew of any cases where the usage was deemed to be fair when the work in question was not transformed in any way. My gut feeling is that it's highly unlikely, but I thought I should ask someone more knowledgeable about the subject. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. There are lots of such cases; one important one would be Sony v. Universal, aka Sony Betamax. Timeshifting copies of copyrighted works was a fair use. ... But you should know that transformativeness is not itself the first factor; it is one of the ways to hit the first factor -- the "purpose and character of the use". Other ways would be nonprofit or educational use. --Lquilter (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again. I have a bad feeling that a lot of what we claim as fair use here on WP is actually not. After reading [7] I'm concerned that our overuse of non-free photos of deceased individuals doesn't come close to being fair use: Edward Boyd (one article that I worked on a bit), for example. Although WP may be non-profit, I think we might fail the first factor in that the use is not transformative, and being in the top 10 sites on the Internet means a small copyright infringement is visible by a large number of people kind of makes the non-profit aspect moot. Anyway, I'd like to get your thoughts on it when you have time. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the top 10 / visibility has any impact on non-profitness. Regardless, whether or not the use of a photo of an individual to illustrate an article is transformative (and a recent Second Circuit decision lends fair support that it is; see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley (2nd Cir. 2006)), fair use depends on a balancing of the four factors. I'd also like to point out that it is very much a case-by-case, fact-intensive issue. So a photo use in Article A might be fair use, but not in Article B. Jon Benet Ramsey presents unique issues on both sides of the argument: (1) she was in a modeling career and the photographers may well have market value in the copyrights; but (2) she's also the subject of a major media story. --Lquilter (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that our top 10 status creates competition to commercial sites that actually pay for their usage of copyrighted content, and thus gives Internet users less incentive to visit there when we have the copyrighted content here (thus depriving those sites of lost revenue due to ad impressions or whatever). Anyway, I've read a summary of BGA vs DK -- that was the one where the DK was reproducing the concert tickets, right? That was declared to be transformative because it was the artwork on the ticket that was being discussed, IIRC, so I don't see how that's applicable here. And yes, I'm aware that fair use is case-by-case; I was looking for a general statement for the case of non-free photos for dead people solely for identification purposes where free alternatives cannot be created. "Generally, it is the case that ... is not fair, but details such as ... may make the usage fair." But you're saying that the devil is in the details, and the lawyer in you probably doesn't want to give a general statement that can't be applicable across a wide range of cases ... I understand, but I'm hoping for legal guidance in how we define our WP:Non-free content criteria; I'm of the opinion we are far too liberal in our usage and we need to cut back (both in terms of legal liability and project mission), but I happen to be interested in copyright/trademark law in general (today's LA Times had a great article about Steamboat Willie and how it might actually be PD because of the vagaries of the 1909 Copyright Act). howcheng {chat} 22:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Lquilter/Archive 013, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with gender studies related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Patients' organizations

Category:Patients' organizations, which you created, has been nominated for merging with Category:Patient advocacy organizations. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. And I hope "things" are going well, Lquilter! Cgingold (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perspective

• User:Lquilter/respect

Came upon this by accident. Thank you for your thoughts, that very nice to read. (I suppose I can only chalk it up to those who I respect, who probably helped influence my perspectives.)

On days when things may not be going so right, I may have to read that again as a reminder : ) - jc37 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• my pleasur! hope things are well with you. see you back on cfd when i get back! Lquilter (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear Lquilter...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian science fiction

Hey Laura, could you please have a look at Talk:Lesbian science fiction, along with the merge of Lesbian science fiction into Homosexuality in speculative fiction and let me know what you think? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

CfD nomination of Category:Lists of theologists and religious scholars

Category:Lists of theologists and religious scholars, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Regards, and I do hope all is well. Cgingold (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Anchors adrift

Hi, Lquilter!

I notice that last December you made a number of edits in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations page, including this one. That edit broke an internal link, namely, Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations#Task forces (in the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations#Members), which is how I found out about it. I'll fix that link; but since I haven't seen this page before, I do not know if you incidently broke other links.

If you have some time sometimes, perhaps you could check this yourself? Best, JoergenB (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Care to collaborate? I have my eye on Loving v. Virginia to bring to FA. It's fairly good right now, and although I'm confident that I can get the sources and writing to the right state for FA, I need assistance with the legal language. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I can possibly help out periodically but as you can see I'm not on every day! New baby keeping me busy. --Lquilter (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

Hi there! Sorry I never responded to your work on the organization category structure, but I'm sure you got that all worked out. I've been doing some work on LGBT related categories and would love some feedback. User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. Could you take a look and give me some feedback? Scarykitty (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Anthropology films

I have nominated Category:Anthropology films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Ethnographic documentaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization and collation

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Chinese non-fiction literature

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Chinese non-fiction literature, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Chinese non-fiction literature has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Chinese non-fiction literature, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Laura Quilter

User:SatyrTN has remove the above article from Category: LGBT writers from the United States, stating that it's not supported by the article. You might want to comment on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (see you at WisCon?)

Err -- thanks, but I'm staying off that page altogether. Don't even want to remotely raise COI issues, and don't even want the entry. (Yes, I'm going to try to get to WisCon; registered, but $$$ is an issue.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Lquilter/Archive 013, thank you for your contributions to articles related to feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Women and/or Gender in SF

Hey, after seeing your sig on a few talk pages , i was wondering if you were interested in doing a collaboration on the women or gender in science fiction articles? I have the encyc. of Sf and of fantasy, and google books have a lot of viewable stuff, so i think getting to GA is simply a case of putting the info together. I started on Gender with organisation and some sources, but don't mind switching to any article in the Sex (inc. Gender) in SF series i made up.

I've done 5 featured lists, a featured topic and a GA in the series so far, but it's slow going with only me working on them, and my terrible typing :). But with so few editors, there is also very little warring or stress!

btw, Congrats on the Sprog! :D YobMod 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

hey -- happy to work on it. but, it's difficult to commit to any certain amount of time. Probably at this point one could rely on me most for particular assignments -- e.g., "review this" "copyedit that" "can you find sources to support x" -- that sort of thing. Because otherwise I will mean to go to the page & then boom it will be a month later.

Thanks for the invitation! and the congrats. it's the most fun, ever. (even more fun that editing wikipedia.)

Lquilter (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - and looking at your user page I think we have a lot of interests in common. Looks like good work! --LQ

Cool. I have a long term plan to work all the articles in the {{sex in SF talk}} template up to GA. There is a lot to do on all of them (some don't even deserve the C grade they have), so it will take a while. Concentrating on Gender in SF at the moment, i'll give you a buzz when i think it is near GA level, for a second oppinion.YobMod 13:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Trade Union IP vandalism?

Hi, my IP must be a shared one or something as I haven't made an edit wile not logged in (until now) and yet I've received the warning. Just thought I'd mention that. 90.192.170.63 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

note to self

Alabama Cooperative Extension System per collectonian / Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations

Lquilter - I wanted to draw your attention to an error on the IMF article. Under "Alternate Governor" for Australia - it lists "Ken Henry". The Wiki link here takes you to the page of an American ice skater instead of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Henry_(Australian_public_servant). Apologies for posting here - I couldn't work out how to correct the error myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rax1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Labor / Worker's Rights project

I recently drafted a proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)