User talk:Atsme/Archive 34

Let's upload pictures to Commons Atsme Talk 📧 23:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like to come to your page, for obvious reasons (=it's likely to lead to rude removals and/or attacks by you and your enablers), and you don't like to see me here. However, accusing JzG of "misogyny"[1] because he criticises you and you are a woman — you give no other evidence or even argument that I can see, other than empty words about 'denigrating and patronizing a female editor' — is an unconscionable personal attack. Lashing out indiscriminately in such ways is not going to improve the impression you make at WP:AE, and if you continue making personal attacks you may be blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC). The tone of JzG’s writing sounds patronizing to my ears as well. Not everyone might pick up on the tone, but not everyone can hear a dog whistle. And speaking in tones that denigrate isn’t appropriate for anyone. Ratcheting up the drama with subtle WP:BAITing isn’t helping. I think the wisest course of action with these assorted dramas involving Atsme is for people who are neutral to step in, and for folks who are the usual suspects to step out of the situation (this includes JzG, as well as you, Bish) and let others handle it. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I've questioned JzG's diversions and opinionating more than once lately and that didn't come easy for me as he and I once were strongly aligned on several fronts. But no doubt, I found his comments there off topic to some extent and full of sneering bait. I will say though at this point I would encourage Atsme to vacate the ARCA request and after some time, reach out to AWilley and engage in a private discussion as I believe that will prove fruitful to finding a solution.--MONGO (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Oh brother, Atsme points out blatant sexist comments and then she gets admonished. Thank you Atsme for supporting women who are not afraid to speak their mind even when they are told that they obviously do not have one. Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Indeed, but least it is fine to see he considers her "delightful", and "lovely, a delight to be around when not on a hot button issue". That sort of banter sounds more like "a woman's place is in the kitchen" kind of garbage. Reminds me of a scene in the movie There Will Be Blood, when the menfolk needed to discuss business matters and of course the womenfolk had to retire to their chores of dish cleaning and etc. Course, that film depicts a period in the early 20th century rural America, a time we supposedly left long ago? I would have preferred JzG refrained from sneering half-platitudes and his off topic baity nonsense. Such antics do not amount to a man.--MONGO (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Montanabw, It's not patronising. I genuinely like Atsme whenever she is not in bull-in-china-shop mode. We have had calm and civil discussions many times on issues unrelated to, say, GMOs. I could go and dig out the comments from Atsme on my Talk basically thanking me for being patient over the Griffin article. Delightful and lovely are terms I use indiscriminately to denote disposition, not gender. Most men, alas, are not lovely or delightful. Especially me. I am a grumpy fucker. In the same way as few white people in the West are truly free of racism, I don't suppose many men are completely free of misogyny, but I do not recall being accused of it, and have in fact fired people for being disrespectful of female colleagues. I meant what I wrote. Atsme has a POV that she does not check at the door. We all do, but I don't think she has enough awareness of it, and the topic ban is an inevitable result of that. When you have strong opinions on several topics, and those are at odds with the body of empirically established fact, that is a recipe for tension. I genuinely believe Atsme would be happier overall if she was not engaged on these articles, and I would be pleased by that, because a happy Atsme beavering away on fauna articles makes me smile. Guy (help!) 22:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I took a look, and nearly got an edit conflict with Guy, but I'll give my take fwiw. Guy's comments do come across to me as insensitive and demeaning. I think that if I were to call Guy "lovely, a delight to be around", it would elicit no small amount of wtf. That said, I don't think that Guy intended it that way. In any case, I agree with the advice that Mongo gives above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC) It occurs to me to add that, were I to compliment Guy as being "a man's man" in his admin actions (outside of friendly banter, said instead as a serious argument at a noticeboard), it would also be inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC) JzG...Comments like "because a happy Atsme beavering away on fauna articles makes me smile."..is about as patronizing as can be and indeed it sounds just as I have described it, that you only respect her for her unmanly efforts. Sorry if I come across as less than passive aggressive, but we know each other pretty well and in this case I am very disappointed with your ongoing badgering. I want to note that I only linked your name so you knew I was here talking behind your back and that it wasn't an invitation to double down on your silly notions.--MONGO (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC) (edit conflicts) Atsme, I can see that he means well and no amount of trying to help him will do any good. It is sad to see because I know that his life would be so much happier if he could only see his own narcissism and consequently not feel a need to try to help others find happiness. Gandydancer (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC) And that's patronizing too. This goes both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC) "This goes both ways." Well I should hope so! That's the point. Gandydancer (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not go deliberately looking for a fight as there are plenty of those in life without even having to look.--MONGO (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe I had a visit from Confucius disguised as a 500 lb gorilla, and the message is....Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste waste, and remember what peace there may be in silence comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof. — Ched (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

FTFY. (Deteriorata) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you were wise to remove that comment. In passing, white supremacy doesn't mention the Republican Party either, and neither, I think, does white nationalism despite there being a white nationalist in charge of immigration policy right now. The Klan article, however, does mention the Democratic Party, and the articles on Southern Democrats and Southern strategy explain the switch. It's alarming to me, as a Briton, how many Americans are unaware of this history and are still susceptible to the lie that the Democrats are the party of slavery. Guy (help!) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Lie? But before you enlighten me, are you familiar with Abe Lincoln, Emancipation Proclamation, or Robert Byrd? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I dunno, seems rather cringy to think either party, in modern times, is the party of slavery. Certainly in the past the Republicans were the party of anti-slavery though. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, PME. You know...if I was living in GB right now, I might be focused on the Prince Andrew–Epstein scandal, and what the BBC is planning to broadcast involving the allegations of sex slavery, the latter of which continues globally today and dates further back in time than a single century. I truly appreciate the BBC and trust their reporting far more than what I've been seeing from US media outlets of late. I'm also concerned, relative to the above, that if we're changing the retrospectives and narratives of what historians and academics have documented for nearly a century, what incentive do we have to trust contemporary retrospectives from historians and academics using today's standards? It's a Catch 22. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't give a flying fuck if Prince Andrew is jailed forever. We've known he was dodgy for decades, Private Eye covered his relationship with Epstein many years ago. Boris is also as dodgy as they come. They've also covered sex trafficking, sex tourism, and the endless parade of 70s Glitterati (pun intended) who have turned out to be nonces. It seems unlikely that the Conservative Party would rally behind a leader who, say, ly admitted sexual assault. I think Farage is the only one who could carry on leading a party after such an admission, and the party would contain only him and a few loonies. Guy (help!) 21:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Basically, the Republican and Democratic parties of the late 1800s have completely traded places as of the parties in 2019. My (WP:OR) summary of why is that Democrat Lyndon Johnson enacted civil rights legislation in the 1960s, and then Dixiecrats migrated to the Republican party over the next few decades. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't hold water, not in real life, and not where I live. The proof is in the pudding, Tryp: CNBC, FW Star Telegram (center left) - I included the FWST to demonstrate a local source in the south (in my neck of the woods) and to share the opinion of Robin Armstrong, which also includes links to stats. When analyzing various forms of media, the first thing I do is follow the $, then I look to see where their information originated, and who wrote it – all of which is extremely important, as is their diligence in correcting errors (and how easily one can find the correction). As for editorial boards – it depends on who is serving; I've worked with some doozies. Poynter published an entertaining piece about corrections, so I included it for your reading pleasure. In summary, identity politics makes me cringe – politics, in general, makes me cringe – as does abuse of the race card or attempting to lump-sum blame or hold an entire political party responsible for the misdeeds of some rogue individuals who happened to get elected and are, in no way, representative of that party's ideology – and that applies to both sides of the aisle – but as I said before, the proof is in the pudding. The following statement in CJR's article is quite interesting - the whole article is interesting, and it supports my position – but the part I wanted to share relates to this discussion. It is a statement about Chicago, specifically Austin, the city's 2nd largest community, which is 84% African American: "Austin continues to suffer the consequences of Chicago’s historically racist housing policies, residential and institutional segregation, and economic disinvestment in its Black communities." Tryp, Chicago hasn't had a Republican Mayor since 1927. 'Nuff said. Let's not talk about politics anymore. I find it very depressing and I prefer our interactions to be happy ones. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's what happens when a neuroscientist tries to do OR about history. I was just trying to give what I thought was a simple version for editors (not you) who were commenting here. But more importantly: "Let's not talk about politics anymore." Roger that! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, black voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat, which is why voter suppression efforts focus on majority-black districts. And that's what allowed the Supreme Court to rule that it's fine to gerrymander to make black votes not count as long as it's done for partisan, not racial reasons. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-court-just-legitimized-a-cornerstone-element-of-voter-suppression) Guy (help!) 21:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't know if you spotted, but I linked the articles that show why it's a lie. Or you could just look at the Congressional roster. There are currently exactly two African-Americans in the Republican Congressional caucuses. Women are also dramatically under-represented in those groups. The Dixiecrats were the racists, and they joined the Republican Party. It's really not hard to understand. Guy (help!) 21:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• JzG...you need to quit while you're ahead. Your ignorance regarding American history is unbecoming and frankly having a Brit tell "us" how misinformed we are about our own history is total bullshit. This nonstop sneering and insulting provocations you do daily are making editing in AmPol nearly untenable. You want to make daily insults and provocations and denounce half the population of the USA then find some blog to do that at. I dont give a rats ass what you "think" about conservatives, the Republican party or Donald Trump. Your conduct is unbecoming an administrator and a detriment to collaborative editing.--MONGO (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  I mean the British have their own issues, it's not really their fault.[2]^[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  MONGO, You dispute that the Dixiecrats moved from the Democratic to the Republican party? I have a bit of an interest in US history. My middle name is André, my maternal family name, and I am related to John André. Guy (help!) 21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Don't worry - Arbcom outlawed hanging last year.  :) — Ched (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How weird, PME - along the same lines, just the other day I was reading about the Habsburg jaw - House of Habsburg, Annals of Human Biology. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It's always amused me that the historical Dracula apparently had the Habsburg lower lip. Maybe because of the fangs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that, Tryp - interesting, indeed!! When I was doing field production, I rented audiotapes for the long drives; one series was Ann Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Right around that same time, a longtime family friend had written the script for the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula. I think my interest in such movies was the residual effect from the old Bela Lugosi Dracula and Boris Karloff Frankenstein reruns I watched as a kid. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does the "Briton", User:JzG, hide behind "Guy"? Just wondering ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, because it's my name. JzG is a shortened version of my original user name, just zis Guy, you know? Guy (help!) 21:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I will probably be busy with other things for the next couple of days. If you have the time, Draft:Underwater Domain Awareness can benefit from a bit of attention. I have left some notes on the talk page, and as comments in the wikitext, but don't feel obliged to agree if you see things differently. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Peter - I've been keeping up with the activity, watching quietly in the background, patiently and very appreciatively staying out of your way as you waved your magic wand and transformed that notably prolix draft into a work of encyclopedic brevity. 😎 I will do what I can while at the same time, hoping the article's creator will take part in the collaboration as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, the American Politics amendment request which you were a party to has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019).

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 07:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh...thank you, Bradv! Oh, look - the sun is still shining ‼️ ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just stumbled across Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/From the editors#comments - Montanabw nailed it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope it will cheer you up.

— Ched (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheer up girl!

Feast your blue eyes on these rather than transcriptions of past incidents.

You were never going to win against the system in battle anyhow, that is how it has been designed.

Should you decide to drop in from time to time, come and help us rag-tag reprobates to wage guerrilla warfare on the dog-related articles. A much more limited scale than you are use to, but with simpler, more achievable objectives.

Plus, I even thought that I saw the first stirrings of a pack beginning to form.........William Harristalk 10:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

William Harris - awww...how sweet and uplifting. Just a quick note: our project is part of the kitchen I’m allowed in. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You better believe it, else there could be some serious biting! Take care. William Harristalk 11:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I echo William’s sentiments and look forward to continuing our work at the dog project. Cavalryman (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC).

Awww, thank you Cavalryman! I am delighted to be a member of such an excellent project; one that is populated by a wonderful collaborative team of editors. I feel inspired to get back to work, doing whatever I can to help organize our project pages, and maybe even help get a few more dog articles promoted to GA...or even FA. The vast improvements our team has made are a bright light at the end of a dark tunnel that I no longer wish to travel. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There comes a time when an interest in Wikipedia can become an obsession if we are not careful. Then it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves on the wrong side of "the system" - which is really not a system because little thought has been given to its design - and we then undergo that "dark night of the soul" questioning why we are even here. I have seen far too many dedicated and talented editors leave because of this. Sometimes all we need is a few people to show support, and a rethink about our focus here - what we are going to get involved in and what we are not. I have my focus. Cavalry man probably has his. Hopefully, soon you will find yours.

Then you can remove that ridiculous SEMI-RETIRED nonsense from the top of this page and start getting on with it!! William Harristalk 20:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

👍🏻 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

	Rescue Barnstar
	Your editing and assistance at Bachelor Lake and at the AFD discussion made a big difference. In the face of adversity, article improved; rescue done. Congratulations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, 13 - as you alluded to above, article improvement made it all worthwhile. It was a good debate all the way around with a few minor exceptions. Wish we'd see more like that in AP2. Perhaps having the article in WP will generate more interest and attention to the importance of aquatic ecosystems (big and small), and the need to maintain biodiversity, protect natural habitats and preserve the balance. I thought the close by Andrew Davidson was commendable and well thought out, so kudos to him as well!

Finding sources on small (and even bigger) lakes is hard. There are lakes in Michigan that I personally know a lot about (and I know there are actually a lot of sources on them), but the Wikipedia articles don't reflect that. A lot of the sources are local papers, or small run books. See Hubbard Lake in Michigan, for example. I've seen (but do not own) several books on the lake. But these are not widely distributed; and finding editors who want to take the time to write the Wikipedia article is a big order. A look at Google books for Hubbard Lake doesn't seem to show them. I have seen them at the Churchill Point Inn on Hubbard Lake (one of the best restaurants in the area, they have a souvenir shop), so I know they exist.

I've personally created a few Michigan lake articles. They are IMO better than a lot of the Minnesota lake articles that were mentioned at the AFD.

trying to find a bright line test for the notability of lakes is problematical, if not illusory.

The WP:Not solution is a poor fit. If there is more than in a gazeteer, there is plenty. WP:Not paper. I would tend to favor a rule that let's in most (if not all) lakes.

With six million articles, vs. Britannica's 250,000, we already let in a lot of material that they didn't. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

- Britannica has to pay for their articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thirteen, I would start looking for found sources like this one, and followed the leads to the government entities, etc. Others I found right away are: Michigan DNR "Hubbard Lake", "2017 Spring Hubbard Lake Walleye Survey", Alcona Review, "Citizen scientists investigate aquatic invasive species in Hubbard Lake" and "Thunder Bay River Hydroelectric Project, Relicensing, and Hillman Dam", 4-43. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see the tendentious editing going on there. Some do not know when to give it up; building an encyclopedia would seem to be a good priority. Your continued efforts in the face of adversity are appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thirteen, to believe all editors prioritize building an encyclopedia would be like believing the North Pole and South Pole are exactly the same when there's a world of difference between them. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I get that. It's an aspiration. My User page addresses some of those thoughts. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram just redirected every lake in Brown County Minn without discussion, and I reverted those edits. They appear on this template.

I'm trying to expand/improve the little article, but they are removing material faster than I can get it added. What we need is collaboration, not resistance. When the editor who nominated the article for AfD is reverting, then the close is challenged, and now there is resistance to improvement, that is not a sign of GF. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It really is terrible. I just do not want anyone blocked over this stupid little lake. But even with all the heat on it it continues. Help me keep an eye on those other lakes of Brown county. IMO we need some discussion prior to a drastic redirect on every one of them. Lightburst (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's going to work out, Lightburst - and I am looking forward to future collaborations with you and CaroleHenson. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered taking this to the talk pages for either Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes or Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota? It would be nice to be as calm as possible. I don't think he has bad intentions... just different ones from yours.

I am happy to work on clean-up of articles if they aren't part of a dramatic furor.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• CaroleHenson This explains a few things. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know about any of this, and I have not had problems with the user when working on NRHP listings for Colorado, in fact I learned some things and we collaborated on a list of articles to clean up until I went on an extended break and I think he finished the list without me. In any event, all I can do is evaluate what I am seeing in the present tense. And, offered a suggestion to deal with the issue of changes to many articles by going to a WikiProject talk page. I looked at the articles in question and they were pretty lean, unless others have been able to find more content since yesterday. It wouldn't have been my approach, though, to do that while we are working on coming to a consensus on notability guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It reminds me a bit of the category and portal wars, or worse, the infobox wars. One side says include, the other says delete. One might be left with the impression that those crying delete are paying for the servers that host our articles and are running out of space. What harm is there in keeping both standalone articles and a list? Jiminy Cricket, when the opposition keeps reverting relevant information from a stub using weak or misleading excuses for doing so, they're preventing article expansion, and that is highly disruptive. How does that help our readers who want to know more about a particular lake, or maybe they're researching a state's stocking efforts? I learned that Bachelor Lake is a private, protected lake and that it plays an important role in the watershed. It's important in its current state as a natural aquatic ecosystem; one that is being utilized by the DNR for rearing walleye. The other option for the DNR would be expensive hatcheries that have enough land for rearing ponds, and that requires taxpayer dollars. There is alot more to be said for watershed lakes that most people who live in the city don't understand but can learn more about it on WP. Just because we're not finding more sources online doesn't mean they don't exist. It means editors have to spend more time researching - checking libraries, government agencies, newspaper archives, books - that's how we build the encyclopedia. If after we've exhausted those avenues and still can't find any sources, then we've got a stub to keep - who knows what might develop in the years to come that will allow us to expand the article? Bottomline here, the opposition should not be throwing obstacles in our path when we're working to make articles better. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I know one person mentioned that they use the "will it fit in a table" approach to whether an article should be a stub or not. I usually use the "it anyone using the lake" approach... is there information about facilities, fishing, wildlife sanctuary, etc... which I guess ends up being the same thing. I agree that at the end of the day, having a few stub articles isn't a bad thing. The only thing is where it could lead. Should Wikipedia be used to have what could be potentially millions of articles about lakes when in most cases there is a little information.

I feel good about where Bachelor Lake is now. More content has been found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Carole. Actually, I think a bit more can be added. The historic reference to the proximate area description around the lake does belong in the article. What I added was historic, a quote, and properly cited. Fertile ground is not uncommon for major watershed areas, river bottom land, lowlands, etc. but I will find another source now that the material has been reverted/challenged. See the map, and the classification of Bachelor Lake as a protected SL management water. Yet another RS found to verify the lake's classification and size (79.80 acres), despite the naysayers insisting there were no RS. I'm of the mind that, as a rule, we should not be too quick to delete articles that we think are borderline WP:GEOLAND simply because a Google search failed to return enough sources to establish notability. Nothing should prevent us from trying harder to find more RS - maybe use a slightly different approach and not give up too quickly. Building an encyclopedia is not for the impatient. Certainly common sense should apply if, for example, the body of water is a manmade ditch along some remote farm road; although, the ditch would be notable if, while fishing for crayfish, Little Joey discovers the remains of Jimmy Hoffa in the middle of it. 😳 🦴

Another quick thought - it doesn't hurt to consult experts, or at least editors who have some common knowledge about the topic. Knowing what to search for and the best angle to approach can prove highly beneficial, as does maintaining an open mind when collaborating, which is exactly what you have done, CaroleHenson - thank you! And the same applies to Lightburst and 7&6=thirteen. I have worked with Thirteen in the past, and our collaborations have been a net positive. I understand your concerns about having millions of articles with little information - WP:STUBDEF. Fortunately, WP has reviewers in WP:AfC and WP:NPP who do an outstanding job - (several of our admins have come from NPP). I help when I can, and typically encourage stub creators to expand their articles or at least get them to start class. Stub or longer, if an article is not notable, or it's unsourced, questionably sourced or pure promotion we simply decline it; therefore, WP does have some level of protection. NPP is always looking for new prospects to join the team (hint, hint). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme and CaroleHenson:I appreciate you both. I have been working on other lake projects. The both of you are exactly what Jimbo had in mind when he kicked off this amazing project! Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You may be familiar with this, but here are all of the pictures, free to download in very high resolution:

• John J. Audubon's Birds of America

I suspect this is because the copyright has expired. Would that mean we can use them here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What a wonderful resource, BR - thank you!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the Audubon collection is copyright protected - see ToU. They allow restricted use/downloads of the plates but we could not use them because of their imposed restrictions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Audubon Society certainly can copyright content that they have published since 1924, but John J. Audubon's work was published almost a century before that, and therefore cannot possibly be protected by copyright. Those particular images are in the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The published "collection" at the Audubon website is copyrighted. See Stanford's overview. I clicked on the image Martin provided here (thanks for pointing that out, Martin), and see that it was digitally enhanced and copyrighted by Rawpixel. See the Commons category. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. The entire "collection", as it were, was created and published by John James Audubon in the early 19th century, and so that entire collection is also in the public domain. Routine digital enhancement of a public domain image does not create a new copyright. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cullen, is there any way I can encourage you to become an admin on Commons? The tendency there is sometimes a bit extreme; i.e., to err on the side of caution, even when it's overly extreme caution. Example: I uploaded some images from a "historic collection" (which happened to be my personal historic collection), and I had to jump through rings of fire to keep them from being deleted. Commons can be very strict about such things. Also, take a look at this Getty "circus" - they prevailed in the first case. With the latter in mind and the rising costs of litigation, I can understand why Commons assumed the position it did - it saves a lot of legal fees and grief. Putting all that side, I just want to say that BullRangifer's post was still very helpful and my thank you to him holds true. Even if we choose to avoid the Audubon website to download images (where they force you to commit before you can download the plate), at least he made us aware or reminded some editors that the images are available, and that's a good thing. 😊 Thank you to all who expressed their views. It was enlightening. And now I have a teleconference to attend. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC):

Well, I don't understand all the ins and outs of copyright issues, but it's a great collection, and we now have a large canvas picture of "Plate CCCLXVIII Rock Grous" hanging on our wall. I have shot many of them in Greenland. Delicious little bird!

This collection is different than the other images on their website, which are not public domain. It would be great if we could use them in our bird articles.

An original, full-sized, copy of this book recently sold for $9.65 million, the second-highest price ever paid for this book. I have a modern version I got on ebay for $55. It's great. The large images are 20% of their original size and the smaller images are reduced to 80%, IIRC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful, indeed. The National Audubon Society was involved in at least 2 specials I produced in the past involving threatened & endangered species - (a) the piping plover, re: endangered populations and (b) the interior least tern, an endangered species. I sat in a bird blind on a sandbar in the middle of the Mississippi River every day for a week. The highest temperature radiating up from the sandbar in July (early to mid 1990s) between high noon until late afternoon was 140º. ^{(I was there with a biologist from Dyersburg State Community College (logistics) but we did not officially record the temp for some unknown reason.)} Some useful info, the program, and FWS pg 18, North Dakota. 🥵 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Chiming in here (as a admin on Commons), those images are certainly in the public domain (they were published long before any modern copyright laws even existed), and they can't be copyrighted retroactively. However, uploading them under a modern CC license, as in the vulture image used here[3], is ludicrous, as that licence of course did not exist back then either; the image is simply PD US. Just because it has been digitally touched up does not make it a new work (as a WP:derivative work could be), and no new copyright can be claimed just for that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the copyright issue at Commons, FunkMonk (A). I found an entire category of Rawpixel's CC0 images, and Audubon images that can be downloaded as CC0 (PD) here. Those downloads are free of restrictions/commitments like what the Audubon website imposes on their downloads. ^{Adding another useful link for PD images that you can download without restrictions: Boston College Libraries. 16:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)} And the result here, my wikifriends, is what productive collaboration looks and feels like. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ugh...this case makes me sad.^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stay away from that mess. This is big brother MONGO advice.--MONGO (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)