Hi there, this is about Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg, the map that you uploaded for the article on Redwood City, California. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain. Dr Zak 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Jessemonroy,
I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer. It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately). The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category. The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix. Good work! -- Robth Talk 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here for you convience.
==Blank Comment==
Does this really work? How cool... -- Bookgrrl 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MontereyClipper-Kristina.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know, if you had not noticed, I've been putting stubs and categories on all the blue links. It's a good idea to at least put a stub tag because if the deleters see it, and it looks too short, they will give it a Speedy Delete -- meatclerk 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've revisited that article and can see that no one is willing to sort it out. If I listed for deletion, would you back me up? It is far too narrowly focused to be of much use, it's too NPOV by description and no one wants to improve it. What do you think? John Smith's 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I was surprised at how many instances I found when I started looking. No doubt there are more, and maybe some legal eagle can add a historical section explaining how/when it started being used as a prosecution tool. -- Bookgrrl 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to Deadend pages. There's no need to annotate entries such as "rewrite, wikify, xlink, stub, cat" or "cleanup, wikify, external links, stub, cat, tag=not verified". Just go ahead and remove them from the list (PRODs and copyvios are sometimes useful to annotate, but these can be removed from the list too). The annotations just get written over when the list is regenerated anyway. Which is supposedly eminent now. Whitejay 251 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. Canthaxanthin is no longer used in the production of food. Astaxanthin is almost exclusively used in the production of salmon, eggs and other food product. Canthaxanthin was taken out of production because it cause human eye problems. In both europe and in the USA, it has been banned for some years from food production. If you read astaxanthin, you'll find almost every line footnoted. I know I wrote it.
I have not re-written it because I have no interest in it. If you would like to correct it, feel free.
As for the article you pointed to, it is sheer speculation on the author's part. I read that article early on and did not include it. Far too many errors and inconsistencies.
Any question? meatclerk 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been asked to intervene on the basis that referenced material as stated above has been removed from the article. Please study WP:VERIFY, which shows quite clearly the use of verifiable secondary sources to be mandatory. Why has this material been removed? Tyrenius 12:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I've seen Tree Frog Trading Company stuff in all sorts of stores, and had heard of the World Animal Foundation before stumbling on the Wikipedia article on it, but a quick google search didn't uncover any published references. However, a "quick google search" isn't exactly quality research. I'll see if I can find time to visit the library and do a better search, and if so I'll work on re-writing the article to sound less like an ad and more like an encyclopedia article as well as asserting notability. It might be a few days or weeks before I get around to it though.
A look at their website, www.WorldAnimalFoundation.com (go figure), indicates to me that they encourage people to set up local groups to promote their cause and provides local animal rights groups with assistance and support; so probably the majority of press coverage they would have would be in the form of coverage of local organizations and events that would name the local group, and not necessarily use the name of World Animal Foundation.
At any rate, I'll see what I can find. ONUnicorn 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, this is about Image:RWC-NaturalFeatures-Pg.21 519px.jpg, the map that you uploaded for the article on Redwood City, California. The faint notice in the bottom right corner seems to say "City of Redwood". It looks as if this was scanned in and then re-colored by yourself. You can't do this and then say the image is in the public domain. Dr Zak 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Jessemonroy,
I have a picture of the current Mayor for you. I will post it. It is my own work so no copy issues. I will also post others in my file. Contact me via my e-mail. PEACETalkAbout 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response--I've been away from the computer. It's great to hear that you've been tackling some of our cleanup backlogs--we need all the good people we can get working on that (I've been away from it far too much myself lately). The Monterey Clipper article looks good, especially in terms of how well-referenced it is--that's generally the thing that Wikipedia articles are worst about, so it's great to see an article that really shines in that category. The prose needs a little work, but that's the easiest of the problems an article can have to fix. Good work! -- Robth Talk 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here for you convience.
==Blank Comment==
Does this really work? How cool... -- Bookgrrl 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MontereyClipper-Kristina.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know, if you had not noticed, I've been putting stubs and categories on all the blue links. It's a good idea to at least put a stub tag because if the deleters see it, and it looks too short, they will give it a Speedy Delete -- meatclerk 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've revisited that article and can see that no one is willing to sort it out. If I listed for deletion, would you back me up? It is far too narrowly focused to be of much use, it's too NPOV by description and no one wants to improve it. What do you think? John Smith's 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I was surprised at how many instances I found when I started looking. No doubt there are more, and maybe some legal eagle can add a historical section explaining how/when it started being used as a prosecution tool. -- Bookgrrl 11:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to Deadend pages. There's no need to annotate entries such as "rewrite, wikify, xlink, stub, cat" or "cleanup, wikify, external links, stub, cat, tag=not verified". Just go ahead and remove them from the list (PRODs and copyvios are sometimes useful to annotate, but these can be removed from the list too). The annotations just get written over when the list is regenerated anyway. Which is supposedly eminent now. Whitejay 251 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. Canthaxanthin is no longer used in the production of food. Astaxanthin is almost exclusively used in the production of salmon, eggs and other food product. Canthaxanthin was taken out of production because it cause human eye problems. In both europe and in the USA, it has been banned for some years from food production. If you read astaxanthin, you'll find almost every line footnoted. I know I wrote it.
I have not re-written it because I have no interest in it. If you would like to correct it, feel free.
As for the article you pointed to, it is sheer speculation on the author's part. I read that article early on and did not include it. Far too many errors and inconsistencies.
Any question? meatclerk 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been asked to intervene on the basis that referenced material as stated above has been removed from the article. Please study WP:VERIFY, which shows quite clearly the use of verifiable secondary sources to be mandatory. Why has this material been removed? Tyrenius 12:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I've seen Tree Frog Trading Company stuff in all sorts of stores, and had heard of the World Animal Foundation before stumbling on the Wikipedia article on it, but a quick google search didn't uncover any published references. However, a "quick google search" isn't exactly quality research. I'll see if I can find time to visit the library and do a better search, and if so I'll work on re-writing the article to sound less like an ad and more like an encyclopedia article as well as asserting notability. It might be a few days or weeks before I get around to it though.
A look at their website, www.WorldAnimalFoundation.com (go figure), indicates to me that they encourage people to set up local groups to promote their cause and provides local animal rights groups with assistance and support; so probably the majority of press coverage they would have would be in the form of coverage of local organizations and events that would name the local group, and not necessarily use the name of World Animal Foundation.
At any rate, I'll see what I can find. ONUnicorn 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)