User talk:Robbiegiles/Archive 2 (2005/2006)
Back to Current Talk Page
2005/2006 Archives
Please note - I think I was abducted by Aliens in 2006, as I did little editing and had no talk on my page. 
Question from a newbie edit
Hi, i noticed that you made an edit to the Walla Walla article, which i'm thinking about creating a related new article for. I also noticed that you've created some articles yourself, so I thought you might be able to help me out.
Basically, I just want to determin if it makes sense for me to start this article and if so, how to properly source it. I'm doing a research paper for a class and my book has in its appendix a great article from the "Army and Navy Journal" Nov. 1st 1879 and it is about the "Walla Walla Massacre." I was thinking about summerizing it as a new article. What do you think? schwael 7:17pm 29 Jan 2005
Thanks for the good advice! I posted the article and managed to find a second source as well. Research is fun! Schwael 05:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Robbie - nice pic, but . . . there's a bit of a problem with this (and all forestryimages.org) pics: the non-commercial restriction makes it an invalid license for use on wikipedia. However, it is possible that the non-commercial restriction is invalid; if the photo was taken by a USFS employee in the course of their official duties, then the pic is in the public domain, and the restriction placed by UGa on its use is invalid. But if the pic was taken by a USFS employee during their own private time, then it is not in the public domain, and the restriction can be valid. As a general rule, it is best not to upload photos where there is any doubt over the unconditionality of the license - MPF 22:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your point, however the [1] site says the images are available for non-commercial use with attribution. Does Wiki have a license that covers that? In this case the person is a USDA staff member. How is this different from the images at The PLANTS Database National Plant Data Center (USDA)? Thanks in advance. Robbie Giles 00:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Robbie - sorry for the delay in replying - The USDA plants database is helpful in that they give clear usage guidelines that are distinct for each pic; for some (e.g. [2]), this is "This copyrighted image may be freely used for any non-commercial purpose. However, any use requires notification of the copyright holder, and commercial use must be disclosed to and conditions of use negotiated with the copyright holder. Use by non-profit organizations in connection with fund-raising or product sales is considered commercial use. If you want to use this picture in any way, please contact ..."; this is a restrictive license and can't be used on wikipedia. For others (e.g. [3]), it gives "This image is not copyrighted and may be freely used for any purpose. Please credit the artist, original publication if applicable, and the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database". This is public domain, and can be used on wikipedia. The ForestryImages pics however all have the same restrictive non-commercial license added, making them unusable on wikipedia. I suspect that in some cases at least, this restriction is added incorrectly (illegally? - if it is public domain, they have no right to restrict any license on it), but telling which are public domain and which aren't is not easy, maybe impossible. Generally, it is safest not to use them. Maybe one day I'll pluck up the courage to write to ForestryImages and query the legitimacy of their restrictions, but I've not got round to it yet! - MPF 09:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What "official" spelling? The two links supplied in the article are weak in content, and only show that the on-line presence of the tribe is accent-less, most likely due to americanisation rather than a conscious decision to drop the original accent (in any case, I'm 100% sure the Nez Percé call themselves something else entirely in their language). This smells like one of those spelling issues that just can't be resolved, because there are not enough sources. I believe both forms are acceptable and should be presented as such. What's your take on this?
Urhixidur 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The people of the tribe call themselves by the name Nimi'ipuu, which means the "real people or we the people." The official comment refers to the spelling the tribe uses in all its public documents. If you visit the Breeding Program of the horse in Lapwai, ID, there is no accent in the title Nez Perce. The early French explorers of the area erroneously called the tribe by the French term for pierced nose. Yes, the spelling has been Americanized but it is how the tribe spells it. I believe that the presence of the accent in the name for the horse is not and never has been correct. When the program was begun the By-laws of the organization used the name Nez Perce Horse Registry. This is not anecdotal, but rather a legal name. Hope this helps. Robbie Giles 13:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)