This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cleaned May 2, 2005. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page. - DAVODD 16:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The proposed policy has been discussed and is now a formal draft. It is now up for a vote on talk. Please vote. - JCarriker 06:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The vote has ended. You can find the results here. Please feel free, to participate in a follow up discussion. Thanks for your participation. Also thanks for not opposing my candidacy even though you object to the policy. - JCarriker 06:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

-- Yongxinstudy 10:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you feel up to making a standard series of U.S. regions maps to replace the current grab-bag images? - JCarriker 11:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare categories, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. Thanks. - JCarriker 19:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Reason: Tagged as pre-1973 Soviet public domain but the photo is taken 1986 or later when the Soyuz TM program was introduced. No source available. Thuresson 23:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!-- Fenice 08:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please review and commetn on the example of the new maps and display on the project talk page. Thanks. - JCarriker 13:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Poeny-botanical-drawing.jpg. I notice 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, 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 image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{ fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, 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 going to "Your contributions" from your user page 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. Thanks so much. -- Pak21 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The new maps are now available at Map page. Please review them and my post on its talk page. Suggestion and comments are highly encouraged. - JCarriker 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently came across your page on ISD. A discussion has engaged with respect to plagiarism of the article from the cited NIH website. I backtracked through the history and found that you initially started the article in 2003 by importing directly from the website, which explains the heavy plagiarization present in the article. I understand that it is posted on a government website so it is in the public domain, but I was wondering how this applied to posting it on a website that operates under the GFDL, particularly without directly citing the article as what it is apart from the history. I understand that this is an unaviodably common practice on wikipedia, but I felt there must be some official policy on copying material like this: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." I admit, this is a topic of which I am fairly unfamiliar. Your contribution to the discussion as the source of the issue as well as an admin would be appreciated. Shaggorama 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Although I admire the effort you put into this argument, there is no violation of any Wikipedia policy or copyright law. Public domain, by definition, has no recognizable "author" since it equally belongs to everyone. This is also the reason why it cannot be plagiarism. Please refer to Wikipedia:Public domain resources on Wikipedia's policy of pulling in content from public domain sources. Thanks for your care in making Wikipedia a more reliable information resource. Davodd 06:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I appreciate the page on wikipedia policy. This whole public domain deal sure will make writing articles easier :-p Shaggorama 08:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)