imported>Drew R. Smith |
imported>Pat Palmer |
| (569 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Archive box|auto=long}} | | {{Archive box|auto=long|box-width=30em}} |
| {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-7}}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR> | | {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-8 }}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> |
| | ==Milt== |
| | Milt was a great contributor to our project who invested a lot of his own knowledge and time in it; Citizendium is much poorer without him. He was highly trusted and respected, previously serving as the project's Treasurer and on the elected Management and Editorial Councils. However, we were a small part of a long life: Milt completed his degree in 1944, but his graduation was delayed while he saw action in Europe during the Second World War. Decades of experience in both chemical and environmental engineering followed, and he would become a well-published authority on various aspects of these fields, as recognized by his Fellowship of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. His daughter also tells me he liked to apply his engineering approach to everyday life by collecting recipes and carefully replicating dishes he'd enjoyed. Milt stood firm against pseudoscience and other nonsense, as we at Citizendium can attest, and was a strong proponent of the science and the facts. I am sure I speak for those who knew him here when I say that we will miss him. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. He was a nice gent. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] ([[User talk:Ro Thorpe|talk]]) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. [[User:JeromeDelacroix|Jérôme Delacroix]] ([[User talk:JeromeDelacroix|talk]]) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC+1) |
| | :RIP Milt. You embodied the true spirit of Citizendium at its best.[[User:Roger A. Lohmann|Roger A. Lohmann]] ([[User talk:Roger A. Lohmann|talk]]) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP MIlt. As a collaborator and colleague, he will be missed. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] ([[User talk:Russell D. Jones|talk]]) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Just archived my last Talk page (Archive 6)==
| | Milt had an abundance of wisdom, passion and knowledge. He was with Citizendium from the early days, and embraced fully the spirit and idealism with which Citizendium was launched. He made an enormous contribution to the project. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] ([[User talk:Gareth Leng|talk]]) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| So things look a bit bare here right now. I don't think that will last long. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| | I have missed Milt ever since he needed to leave the project, and I will always remember him fondly.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == NDOTW & AOTW == | | == Milt's productivity as chemical engineer == |
|
| |
|
| Hi Milt,
| | Let us temper our sadness in the passing of our esteemed colleague with a celebration of his achievements in his field of endeavor. Google Scholar has tabulated 111 articles he published between 1951 and 2005, with links to them and to all the articles that cited them. |
| sorry for causing confusion, and thanks for being blunt. The reason I did that was that the AOTW as visible on the Welcome page then did neither link to the approved version nor to the draft, it did not contain an image, and the "read more" started right after the text, with no space in between. Since I cannot edit approved articles, I did a temporary fix and thought I'd marked it clearly as such in my edit summaries. If not, please excuse, and I will pay more attention in the future. However, I honestly hope we can integrate the preparation for transclusion into the approval process (and clear the backlog for those approved so far). We are waiting for Larry to approve the proposed solution via a dedicated Transclusion subpage. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Daniel, the real point is that all of us do not understand how templates are coded. So when a template is revised temporarily, the revision should be removed as soon as possible ... or an explanation should be provided as to how others can remove the temporary change. Anyway, I am happy that Caesar fixed it. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | | See: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kBHMSC4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra MR Beychok] |
|
| |
|
| == [[The Canterbury Tales]] ==
| | [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | |
| Hi, Milton, I fear you flatter me: I certainly do have the time, but the expertise is lacking. I never read much of Chaucer, nor of his contemporaries [[William Langland]] and the [[Sir Gawain and the Green Knight|Gawain poet]] - they could perhaps be included, but wouldn't related articles require a lot of background on England in the Middle Ages? I'm no historian, but if there any concrete ways in which I could help out, do let me know. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Specialist supporter ==
| |
| | |
| I thought it was a routine editing matter to change a vote of an Editor in a relevant workgroup to Specialist -- that's the essential definition of a specialist. In this case, since it involves a new Editor, he might not have known the distinction (an aside -- one reason why I don't think people should be Editors from Day 1). If it bothers you, it can move back. I suppose there's a certain level of proceduralism that makes me uncomfortable that we are more worried about appearance than content. Certainly, I think we've gone far beyond that when a minor edit suddenly makes it impossible for an Editor to do a single Approval. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : I accidently saw this. Allow me to comment it: I did not add my name as a specialist supporter because the rules on the page say: "Add your name in the Specialist supporters column only if you are an editor who is an expert about the topic in question." It says '''expert about the topic'''. For me topic is narrower than "workgroup". When I noticed that Howard changed this, I assumed that it should be interpreted as "workgroup", when you changed it back I was puzzled and realized that the rules might be a matter of interpretation. (This probably should be clarified.) May I add that it is a rather minor and quite unimportant risk whether a new editor votes with his full power or not. (There might be other risks.) <br> On the other topic mentioned: It really should be clarified when an editor loses the right to approve an article single-handedly, in particular, since active editors seem to be extremely rare. I think that some contributing should be allowed. And one should be aware that suggesting edits on the talk page may have the same effect as editing the page directly. The criteria should be independent of such manipulations. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::(fixed formatting) I hadn't thought about the topic vs. workgroup, since I had always read it as workgroup. Article/draft of the week are fairly minor things, so I'm not too worried, but the granularity of "workgroup" remains a problem. I remember a noncontroversial item a while back, in an article under the Religion workgroup, citing a news item about tear gas. When I simply commented on the talk page that neither the chemical or the grenade worked that way, I wasn't doing so as a Military editor. In like manner, any of us might be an expert on a specific topic outside a workgroup.
| |
| | |
| ::Joe Quick, I believe, has been thinking about ways to use outside experts simply as reviewers. This is one possible way to deal with the situation where there is one active Editor who is also the author. There are times where an Author Citizen is an expert on a particular topic -- I remember an occasion when I was writing generally about a piece of military electronics that another Citizen had operated and maintained. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I agree with both of you that the interpretation as to the meaning of "specialist" (in the context of Article/New Draft of the week) is a minor item. What made me uncomfortable, Howard, was the fact that someone other other than Peter changed Peter's vote. I think that voting changes should only be made by the person who voted. I would not have been the least bit uncomfortable if Peter had changed his vote himself. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: Well, it was ''changing'' my voice only if I may choose to vote as a specialist or not. If not, then it only was "putting my vote into the correct urn". I still don't know what is case. If "specialist"="editor in the workgroup and if one is supposed to vote as such then I would change it myself. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::: I can only express my opinion. I do not think that an editor in a particular work group is automatically an "expert" in every subject included in that workgroup. For example, I am an editor in the engineering workgroup but my academic degree and all of my experience is in the field of chemical engineering which is but one of the many fields of engineering. I do not consider myself an expert in civil engineering or electrical engineering or aeronautical engineering. I am also fairly sure that a medical doctor who has 30 years or more experience in dermatology would not consider himself an expert in brain surgery. As another example, my good friend Howard is an engineering editor but I am fairly sure that there are many fields of engineering in which he doesn't consider himself an "expert".
| |
| | |
| :::::I have stressed the word "expert" because "specialist supporters" of Articles and New Drafts of the week are defined as "an editor who is an expert about the topic in question". I don't see how that can be interpreted other than as I have done. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::: So my first interpretation of the rule is also your interpretation of that rule, and I do not consider me as a specialist. (However, I shall probably nominate the article for approval, sooner or later.) [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Joule-Thomson effect ==
| |
| Milton, please read my comments on the talk page of [[Joule-Thomson effect]]. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Glad to copyedit ==
| |
| | |
| Thanks for noticing; I'm glad the project has grown large enough that occasional copy editing is of service. [[User:Jesse Weinstein|Jesse Weinstein]] 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Thanks for archiving Talk page [[Chemical elements]] ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, thanks. Can you give me a brief summary on how to archive. Much appreciated. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Regarding references speaking for themselves ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, you say references speak for themselves, and I agree. But I disagree no copy from the reference should accompany its citation. Including copy, such as an abstract or an excerpt, has several values that contribute to the quality of the article:
| |
| | |
| # It improves the content value of the article itself by providing pertinent textual informational not contained in the Main Article text.
| |
| # It provides that additional informational content without requiring the reader to link away from the Main Article, interrupting the flow of the Main Article.
| |
| # It renders the article more encyclopedic, in the sense of comprehensiveness. The reader gets a bigger picture from the article without having to get that bigger picture through chasing down the references.
| |
| # If the reader wants to contribute as a collaborator, having that bigger picture may open new areas for them to help develop the article.
| |
| | |
| I could spell out other values of the practice particular to particular instances.
| |
| | |
| I prefer to keep the annotations to the references, for those and other reasons, both practical and scholarly.
| |
| | |
| Thank you for considering this. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Anthony, I think that one or two brief sentences (and I do mean '''one or two brief''' sentences) as annotations are okay. But I do not believe that extensive extracts or excerpts should be used. And I strongly object to including a "publisher's description" of a book or article ... those are just hype to promote purchase of the book or article.
| |
| | |
| :In my own articles, if a reference contains useful information that is pertinent the articles, then I work that content into the main text of the article where it is relevant ... rather than annotate the reference with an extensive abstract or excerpt.
| |
| | |
| :The way to render an article more encylopedic is to do make the main article text more comprehensive ... rather using the references for that purpose.
| |
| | |
| :The whole idea of linking words to another article is what makes an online encylopedia more interesting and easier to use than a printed encyclopedia. If each article tried to avoid word links by explaining words via reference annotations, then we would soon have a number of articles (written by different authors) all explaining the same word or words in a different manner ... which really would confuse readers! For example, there may be dozens of aricles using the words "chemical reaction". If they all link to the same collaboratively written and agreed upon article entitled "Chemical reaction" ... then they all provide the same information as they should. However,if each of those dozens of article attempts to explain "chemical reactions" by a footnote or by an annotated reference, then readers will have dozens of different explanations of "chemical reactions" ... which is not as it should be.
| |
| | |
| :In closing, I just looked at a good number of articles by David Volk, by Daniel Mietchen, by Paul Wormer and one article that was contributed to extensively by Sekha Telluri, David Volk and Daniel Mietchen. None those included annotated references or "further reading" sections by more than 1 or perhaps 2 sentence. In fact, most of their references had no annotation at all. So it is fairly obvious, that I am not the only one that doesn't believe in overly extensive annotation of references or footnotes. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Milton, we seem to have a difference of opinion, each strongly held. I believe we also have a difference in pedagogic style. Neither emerge rarely in collaborative writing projects. Nevertheless, I understand your points, and consider them valid from the perspective you offer. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Thanks, Anthony. I hope we are still friends. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Grand Trunk Railway ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, I just nominated [[Grand Trunk Railway|this one]] for approval. Please look it over. It's in the engineering workgroup. Thanks. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Russell, I responded on the article's talk page at [[Talk:Grand Trunk Railway]]. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| Russell updated the version of [[Grand Trunk Railway]] to be approved to the most recent revision and the article is just about ready to go, but we need you to have a look over those changes and let us know whether you also agree with them. Once we've heard from you and Milt, Hayford or Matt can make it official. Thanks much. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Screaming Lords and Generals ==
| |
| | |
| I removed my nomination, somewhat sadly, of [[Screaming Lord Sutch]] so I wouldn't have two nominations in NDOTW. The former is still transcluded; I didn't see it gaining support and felt I had a strong new offering. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I'll remove the transcluding this evening. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Diaper ==
| |
| | |
| Did this catch your eye, for editing, since it's so involved with accidental releases? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Howard, I repeat what I have said before, you would make a great stand-up comedian! [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::P.S. That article did link to the [[UK Environment Agency]]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Articles on books... ==
| |
| | |
| I'd like to write an article on a book I recently read, ''The Age of Ra'' by James Lovegrove, and I wanted to take the time to ask a couple people about the mechanics of articles about books.
| |
| | |
| # Are plot summaries ok?
| |
| # Are lists of Characters ok, main characters or otherwise?
| |
| # Is it ok to take a picture of the front cover to use as a picture for the article?
| |
| # Is it ok to include an average retail price?
| |
| | |
| and finally
| |
| | |
| If included, should any of these things be put on a subpage?
| |
| | |
| Thanks Milton - [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Drew, the only books I have written about are engineering textbooks ... no plots and no characters. As for photographing the covers and uploading them into CZ, I think you would most definitely need to obtain permission from the publishers.
| |
| | |
| :It would be my opinion that you definitely should not include any retail prices ... nor do I see how that information is needed in a book article. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Mauna Kea Transclusion tags ==
| |
| | |
| I know alot of work goes into running NDOTW and AOTW, so I want to start by saying I'm not complaining or griping at you. Actually, I want to show you something.
| |
| | |
| If you look [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mauna_Kea&oldid=100534608 here] you can see a bit of white space between the subpages and the lede. Since the coordinates template was there I neither worried about it, nor did I realise that it had anything to do with the transclusion stuff. If you look [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mauna_Kea&direction=next&oldid=100552987 here], you can see it without the coordinates (which I moved to the infobox), and the white space is still there. I looked at the source for the page (which can be seen [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mauna_Kea&action=edit&oldid=100553001 here]), and found that when you added the includeonly tags around the picture it also added some white space. The solution can be seen [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mauna_Kea&action=edit here], or [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Mauna_Kea&diff=100553012&oldid=100553004 here]. So, if you need to do something like that in the future, you now know how to avoid the extra whitespace. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 22:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks, Drew. I usually do manage to eliminate any extra white space. I do most of the transclusion stuff fairly late in the evening and I guess I missed eliminating the white space on your article. Sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::No problem. I assumed that having to add the extra image within the includeonly tags is what threw you off. As you said, you usually do eliminate whitespace. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Barometric formula ==
| |
| | |
| Hello Milton, I read the US report on atmosphere and I see how one can derive (without Boltzmann) your two pressure equations in [[Earth's atmosphere]]. I'm considering writing [[Barometric formula]], but since it may interfere with your [[lapse rate]], it seemed better to me to synchronize it with you first. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Paul, I am not sure how your [[Barometric formula]] article would interfere with the [[Atmospheric lapse rate]] article I am writing. You can see my article in progress at [[User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox]] and judge for yourself. I am about 75% finished with it. I might even finish it today. As I said above, I am no expert on atmospheric science or meteorology ... I just thought the [[Earth's atmosphere]] and [[Atmospheric lapse rate]] articles were needed to fit in with my air pollution dispersion modeling articles ... so I wrote them. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I had a look at your sandbox and see no interference. Basically all I will do is give the derivation of your two equations. (If we had plenty of articles the derivation could go well as an addendum to [[Earth's atmosphere]], but since everybody always uses the # of articles as a criterion, it is better to make a new article out of it). --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 15:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Reply ==
| |
| | |
| I have replied to your question on [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|my talk page]] [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Thanks for doing the transclusion for Zionism. I was at work when it was nominated. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Is this concept used in your engineering disciplines? ==
| |
| | |
| Would you take a look at [[separation of concerns]] and see if it's familiar in other engineering disciplines, perhaps adding a note if so? Thanks. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Howard, I have never heard of that concept nor have I ever read about it, but keep in mind that I retired about 10-12 years ago. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Images ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Milton, following your request on the forums regarding copyright checking, I looked through your [[User:Milton Beychok/Gallery3]] and turned up some minor issues, which should be fairly easy to resolve.
| |
| *[[:Image:RIVM_building.jpg]]
| |
| :You stated that the image is copyrighted but may be reused. I have searched the website you gave as a source, and can find no copyright information. Can you please point me to where you found the copyright information?
| |
| | |
| *[[:Image:Reliance Industries Ltd. Refinery.jpg]]
| |
| :You stated that the image is in the public domain. I searched the website you gave as a source, but found no copyright information. Can you point me to the copyright information?
| |
| | |
| *[[:Image:German Petrochem Plant.jpg]]
| |
| :You stated that the image was used by permission. However, I think some of Caesar's changing the upload forms removed or hid the permissions for the image. Could you please point me to the permission page, or re-make it? If you can't find it, I can send out an email re-asking for permission.
| |
| | |
| Also, I noticed on some of the images you created yourself you didn't color in the holes in the letters, as seen [[:Image:Petrochem Feedstocks.png|here]]. If you want, I can fix those for you.
| |
| | |
| I will look through the rest as time permits. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks, Drew. As for [[:Image:RIVM_building.jpg]], this statement is on their website at [http://www.rivm.nl/cib/disclaimer/ Disclaimer] in the last two sentences:"The materials contained in the web site may be downloaded or copied provided that all copies retain the copyright and any other proprietary notices contained on the materials. No material may be modified, edited or taken out of context such that its use creates a false or misleading statement or impression as to the positions, statements or actions of RIVM."
| |
| | |
| :As for the other two images, I'll look into them later and let you know. As for coloring holes in lettering, go ahead and do it if you think its needed. In most cases, that is not discernable enough to worry about.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Drew, as for [[:Image:Reliance Industries Ltd. Refinery.jpg]], as noted on the image file, the source was a website page of the U.S. Export-Import Bank which is a .gov page. That page in its entirety is "a work of the U.S. government" and, as far as I could determine, the website does not contain any statement that prohibits using any of the photos. As a work of the U.S. government, that whole page is in the public domain. Also, I did credit Reliance Reliance Industries for the photo.
| |
| | |
| ::There are other public domain photos in my other two galleries that also came from public domain .gov websites. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Drew, as for [[:Image:German Petrochem Plant.jpg]], it came from Flickr and it was the work of Volkan Cordan (as seen on a photo [http://www.flickr.com/photos/swissbusiness/ here]). He is a lawyer in Switzerland. I remember sending him an email (I believe by Flickr mail) and receiving an okay from him (unless my memory is playing tricks on me). However, I don't seem to have saved our exchange on my computer. Is there not any way to find the CZ "Permissions" page associated with the image files so that I can see exactly what I wrote there?
| |
| | |
| :::I would be embarrassed to write (or for you to write) and ask his permission a second time. I would rather just leave things as they are. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Ok Milton, I've verified the three images in question. For the second one I didn't realize that the website was a U.S. government project, and I did find, and added a link to, the permission.
| |
| | |
| ::::As for the filling in holes, it isn't really noticable unless you open the image file, so I leave that up to you. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Actually, thats part of what I've been trying to do. I'm basically going through all the images we have and checking the copyright information. For the ones that are used by permission I make sure that there is a link to the permissions page. Also, once the copyright info has been verified I add <nowiki>{{copyright|DATE|NAME|http://www.LINK.com}}</nowiki> which adds a small statement below the copyright info saying something along the lines of "''This image's copyright information has been verified by NAME on DATE. The copyright information can be found [http://www.LINK.com here].''" If it's PD old, or self made, or for any other reason doesn't have online copyright info, I just omit the entire second line. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Wow! That's a heck of a big project, Drew. Good luck with it. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 04:14