User talk:Destitute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 License tagging for Image:Uclalibrary.jpg 2 Help me 3 linking library and information science 4 Portal:Library and information science

[edit] License tagging for Image:Uclalibrary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Uclalibrary.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me

{helpme|I created this image myself and I release it into the public domain. What is User:OrphanBot going on about?}

See, what he means is you you need to have a copyright on pictures, otherwise they can get deleted very quickly. And also, he just wanted to let you know that you uploaded an image. Just think of that next time. Have any other questions please go to my talk page. Any time you need help again, feel free. 4myself4 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, OrphanBot automatically searches for and labels images that have no image copyright tag. When the bot found the image, the image page had no tag yet. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This message is the same one you received on 1 March, which you sorted then and the image is currently tagged as being PD. This page was blanked yesterday and reverted, and you probably saw the message again because of the new messages bar. In summary, nothing to worry about! mattbr 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] linking library and information science

Actually, there already were links to those articles (More about library science... / More about information science...) but I guess some extra redundancy doesn't hurt. —Ruud 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the links after I posted. Haha. Other sites also have that redundancy, as I;m sure you saw. Thanks! :) Destitute 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Library and information science

Hi Destitute. I was amazed to go away from my PC for three days and come back to find a peer reviewed and featured portal candidate with three votes of support substantially changed from its reviewed and supported form. Although I appreciate your boldness, let me implore you in the future to not to make such substantial changes to a portal so far along in that process without at least attempting some discussion first. I don't mean to be over-protective, but I've put a ton of energy into taking this totally neglected, sorry-looking portal and transforming into what is likely to be a featured portal soon, so I want to make sure that it maintains its standards.

That said, I am most appreciative that someone else is interested in contributing and doing so with apparent good faith. So I'll work with the changes you made and push forward with a mentality of collaboration. Fair enough?

To wit, some things I'm going to go ahead and clean up, particularly some formatting within selected articles and the selected picture. Note, for example, that you should take any footnotes/references out of the copied-and-pasted selection text. Take a look at other changes that I make to see the kinds of things I'm concerned about. Having been through a successful featured portal candidacy already, I'm pretty familiar with the standards and what reviewers look for.

The changes to the intro section have largely been reversed, but those appear to have been the work of another editor who I will contact separately.

My main concern now is with the completely redone topics area. Very ambitious and generally, I think it works fine and is a step in a positive direction. A few comments. The main one is that, because of the abundance of topics (some of which I think are stretching the boundaries of relevance - actually maybe if you just explained the Institutions section for me...), it's too large in the current font size. Let's see if we can make a suitably legible version in a reduced font size. The other problem is that moving it to the bottom leaves fairly imbalanced column lengths. I will try to work that out myself, but it's one of those things to consider.

Anyway, sorry to ramble so. You are welcome to respond to various points here, as I'll watch your talk page. The portal talk page is also appropriate, if you prefer to take up the conversation there. Cheers and keep up the good work. Planetneutral ^talk 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Planetneutral, let me say that I adore all you have done for this portal. I would also like to thank you VERY much for reversing the edits made by Ruud Koot, which didn't make sense to me. I didn't say anything because I could see I wouldn't win that battle. However, to his credit, he's usually very good and hawkish about vandalism and unnecessary things done to wikipedia, especially in information science.

As for the topics area, I know it was a bold move. I'm sorry for any over-reaching on my part. I was looking at Portal:mathematics and got jealous. I liked the way its topic section looked. :) Please make any corrections you see fit. No need to discuss it with me. I trust your decisions. I agree that "Storage/ retrieval" is quite long. I wondered if I should narrow it down, and I probably should have. I did a section on institutions because there are so many scholars in information science that focus on a particular institution in their research. Feel free to replace it with something else.

Again, thanks! Destitute 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the response. I'll probably start some tune-up work tomorrow. One thing you should know is that we can't use copyrighted/fair use images on the portal page (or anywhere else outside the article namespace), so we'll probably lose some of the pictures in the selected bios. One of the reasons I hadn't added some of those folks was that I was hoping to find usable images first. Not really a deal-breaker though and they're still good bio/article choices. Anyway, I hope I've not dissuaded you from ongoing contribution to this portal with my comments 'cause, quite frankly, it's much more fun to collaborate and I'm glad someone else cares. Planetneutral ^talk 02:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dissuaded. I'm on board. I don't have your experience, so you'll probably have to tell me where I go wrong. :) Destitute 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)