User talk:Tomwsulcer/Archive 3

Science of morality

Hey Tom, I thought I might ask whether you have any time to find some good sources? I'm not sure if you're offer to help on the page still stands. If it does, I could use some help finding some good sources of scientists who are talking about - not just philosophy- but the idea of a science of objective moral values. I'm sure they're out there.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tesseract2, been a while since I looked at this article. You've taken it farther. And it has good readership (100 views/day). So good for you. I'll perhaps take a look at this in a day or so. My sense is the article will be stronger if it focuses on the subject (ie science of morality) and less on Sam Harris' interpretation of the subject -- although I didn't read over the whole article -- I guess what I'm saying is that readers will respect your article more as it sounds more balanced and distanced. Also wondering what Pfhorrest thinks; he's pretty sharp guy; i worked with him on the article rights. I don't have JSTOR but I have publications I can sort through which may point towards academic sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. Just anything you happen to stumble across. The more we can get examples of relevant people talking about the ideas behind the science of morality, the less it will look like it's only Harris who believes these things, or even like he's making that contentious a statement.-Tesseract²(talk) 20:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(UPDATE) Hey Tom. I just wanted to thank you for that great list of sources you provided! I'm not doing any wikipedia-ing right now -but I'm sure I'll be adding stuff from those sources as time goes on. Thanks again!-Tesseract²(talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope it helps! Good luck with the article!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Etan Ilfeld

Thank you. I have begun reading "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" and will attempt to edit down unnecessary references, and shape it into a few concise lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.142.95 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Staring at breasts

If you're a man, to reduce your blood pressure, stare at breasts such as these for ten minutes daily, and trust everything you see and hear on Fox News which is the voice of truth.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you might want to check out this, as well as this (those cretins), and never believe anything you read on Fox. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What?! I'm shocked! shocked! shocked! that anything in Fox News, that paragon of truth might turn out to be a hoax. :) Trust that I will desperately scour the Internet for trustworthy, acceptable sources providing any possible excuse to look at breasts which is a favorite sport for my eyes. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the appallingly late response, which I'll blame on a busy working week. Breasts – I just can't believe they haven't removed the link you originally gave even though they're aware it's all nonsense. On second thoughts, I can believe that. Biology — oh yes, it's an awesome field to be interested in, with new discoveries made all the time, and old paradigms being overturned. I'm spending more time teaching than practising biology at the moment, so hopefully I can convey some of the enthusiasm we share to my students. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this -- when I saw the reference and the story, I suspected it wasn't true, but so what -- I thought it would be fun. And maybe the entry belongs in the article Hoax rather than Breast. I recently finished listening to a Teaching Company course on Biology -- 6 boxes of CD-audios -- what was astounding to me was how much biology has changed since I was at school learning the Jacob-Monod hypothesis. Quite amazing. How molecules' shapes mean they can handshake each other, to break off new parts, and it's all automatic; enzymes; ATP and ADP and such. Amazing. We live in interesting times. I'll be using some of this stuff to augment my POV-oriented writings such as Mentally healthy mind with more exploration about intelligence, human flourishing, etc. I think I'm not up to speed yet on the subject of intelligence and there are huge sections I want to add, plus about AI, what art is, beauty & such, to try to improve my article further. I've got close to 3000 readers of this article which is kind of amazing considering I'm just a plain guy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi Tomwsulcer, I saw in an edit summary you asked how to pronounce Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. Actually there is already a link in the article, below the map. XLerate (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Friendship

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thanks for your sense of fairness, collaboration and your good contributions to Wikipedia! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks! The feeling is mutual!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A Campus Police Story

FWIW, in my experience campus police are generally just wanna-be cops that get their jollies by acting like real cops. Many of those hired actually have criminal records, but as "security" it doesn't seem to matter. At my college in the early '90's, the campus police once wanted to enter our fraternity house because of a noise complaint. Although the house is on University grounds, it was privately owned and that meant they had absolutely no right to enter it. My frat brother ran upstairs and cranked Fuck Tha Police as loud as possible out of the open windows, and we told them to go ahead and call the real cops. They went away, pissed off and powerless ;> Unfortunately, on campus property they make the rules, and fraternity houses owned by the University were subject to entry by the jack-booted thugs anytime they wanted to come in. We're still the only frat at that school that owns its own house, and most of the others are now gone or off-campus because of parties being busted by the wanna-be's and having their charters revoked. Just thought I'd share that with you, and good luck :> Doc talk 04:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Interesting story with your fraternity. I was in a fraternity when younger; miss those days. Good for you for owning your own house and appreciating the legal ramifications. :) Generally, colleges, as institutions, vary regarding rules. It's kind of an in-between world; technically, after you're 18, you're an adult; but colleges sometimes don't recognize this, and treat students as if they're still minors; in the case of the college, when I wanted to photograph students who were over 18, and who willingly gave their permission to be in Wikipedia, the college said no pictures. In other words, the college was making the decision for the students, as if they were not able to make the decision on their own. It's complex. The biggest benefit of my fraternity days was getting to see how democracy really should work -- we had regular meetings, made decisions, discussed matters, and with me, it taught me about the give-and-take of arguments (sometimes they got out of control) but also the benefits: making good decisions. Real democracy is tough; America, as you surely know, isn't really a democracy by any stretch. If interested, see my knol on "history of citizenship" from my user page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Here's text from the Freedom of Panorama act, in case I need it regarding pictures:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Common's Freedom of Panorama for the US [50]: Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date. However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures. This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the photograph is taken from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans (so one is free to do anything short of reproducing the building with another building, but the style elements such as gargoyles and pillars would not be individually protected). For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed from public places.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Offbeats picture

Yeah, I'm trying to upload an image of the band but am having a little bit of trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiglo161 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about me being detained by Union County College police

I was detained by UCC police on Friday, April 1, 2011 (no, this was NOT an April Fool's joke btw); and it set off discussion on the administrator's noticeboard about this. I'm saving a copy of this here for reference purposes. It's also an example of why Wikipedia is great, and has sharp contributors who pay attention, and who are interested in subjects like these. Here's the copied section as of April 5, 2011:

Wikipedian detained by campus police for taking pictures

I was taking pictures of buildings of a two-year public college in New Jersey called Union County College (UCC) when I was detained by campus security for a half an hour. Most pictures were of buildings, classrooms, plaques on walls, an empty gym. I was going to add them to the UCC article. Two pictures had students (all over 18 yrs old) in it (but I got their email addresses and permission to use their photos). Campus security said: no pictures. Officer John Britton took my drivers' license for information. He only told me his name; he wouldn't show any ID or badge. I got the impression that if I kept taking pictures they would either forcibly remove me from campus or arrest me. They didn't take my camera. About student pictures, I am not sure what the overall rules or legality is, so I won't post pictures of students. But buildings? Empty classrooms? Paid for out of taxpayer dollars? A public two-year community college in New Jersey? Sheesh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wondering how to do this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not really think this is an issue that theEnglish Wikipedia can handle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they have the legal right to, that rarely stops cops from detaining people over taking pictures. Sorry, just the mistrustful of government cynic in me showing through. As to ArbCom, all the information is on this page, where you can find info on contacting them on-wiki, opening a case, and even contains some of their personal e-mails. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to get any relief from ArbCom on this one. NW (Talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you get your drivers license back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you remind them that its a public school?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Copping an attitude with cops is typically not the best approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not me, I'd give them attitude. As long as I know that I'm not breaking any laws, I would give them as much grief as lawfully possible. Most likely they know that they can't do anything to you, but will go as far as they think they can go, before going too far.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your funeral, as they say. :) My philosophy is to never argue with somebody with a gun and/or club attached to their belt. :) In the case of these cops, my guess is that they are under orders to disallow picture taking, and they might not be at liberty to say why. But if a cop told me, "No pictures", I wouldn't launch into some spiel about civil rights or something. I would simply act surprised (or maybe I wouldn't have to "act") and then ask, "Really? Why?" and they'll either tell you why or they won't. If they won't, then a call to the administrative office might clear it up. But as I've found out from past experience, you'll get a lot better karma with cops if you treat them like folks with a job to do, and act friendly and cooperative toward them, than if you treat them as adversaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do here. Be honest with them and they shouldn't give you trouble. They're just ensuring the security of campus. Tell them what you're up to and unless you caught him before his coffee and donut you'll be okay. N419BH 01:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the New York City area, where there is probably still some terrorist-threat mentality. And who knows what kinds of incidents they've had that may have impelled them to disallow picture taking. Howeover, what Tom ought to do is contact the administration and ask for permission to take snapshots. Get something in writing and hand it to the cops if they bug you again. Above all, be friendly and courteous to the cops. Don't do anything that they will see as impeding their ability to do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for advice. Yes got Drivers license back. Basically not much to do, but be polite, etc. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that being paid for by tax dollars doesn't mean what it sounds like. The jail is paid for by tax dollars, but you can't just wander in it and start taking pics, right? Drive around taking pictures of the fence that tax dollars put around the airport and there is a fair chance you'll be questioned. In the future, maybe get in touch with the administration (or maybe the computer science dept) and get someone to tell you it's all cool. It could save time in the end. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no student at the school has ever used a cell phone to take of a photo of the place, even if only as incidental background to the usual teenage snaps? Silly policing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he wants more photos he should call the school's administrative office and ask what the deal is. Some of us would like to know. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the buildings possibly being protected by architectural copyright, I would say upload away.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have new pictures. Upload? I was thinking along these lines. I was told drawings are okay. So I could substitute drawings of the buildings for the pictures. Then UCC will be happy. Wouldn't this be a good solution? I sometimes think of myself as a great arteeeste (nobody else thinks so!). --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Next time, try taking pictures of the buildings at USC.[1] ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the fact that it was the Daily Trojan reporting...how apropos is that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks Will. Great story. Here's what I was thinking:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to add a small likeness of a brownshirt standing guard. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see picture above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to an outline of the law as it applies to photography in the United States; it's been extensively circulated among photographers and is useful to keep with you [2]. However, a college campus isn't exactly public space, and much depends on what's a public street and what's not. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're posting in the wrong place; there's nothing an enwiki admin can help you with here. I'd suggest contacting a licensed legal professional. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling the school would be the best option. Probably have to wait until Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I think has hit on the answer. Please keep in mind that even if you don't give cops cause to arrest you, they don't have to stretch the truth very much to make your life miserable. For example, when they took your DL, they probably called in to check for warrants. He can take his time about doing that, and what are you going to do? And I don't even want to start on patdowns and automobile searches. I would be polite, say something like "I didn't know that, thanks." Don't get smart with them, get out of their jurisdiction pronto, and Monday morning, if it's worth making an issue over, call campus information and start looking for the responsible official. Don't call the campus police, let the official do that if you are lucky enough to get action. And if you then go back (I would not, I would ask your students for help if more images are needed), take a printout of the email in which he says its OK to take images on campus.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And, btw, a college campus is not a true public place. There are generally statutes or ordinances which allow them to restrict access. You don't want to be restricted from campus, that sort of thing goes into computers.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise good points, and something else just occurred to me: You know how cops will sometimes pull someone over due to "a taillight out" or something like that? As a policeman acquaintance once told me, that's a "pretext" to justify pulling over someone that they've got an odd feeling about. So it's possible that the cops, for whatever reason, thought the OP "looked suspicious", so they used the camera thing as a pretext to running the ID through their system. Dollars to donuts, that's what was actually going on there. It would be good, next time, if there is a next time, to have documentation permitting photography. That will legitimize your being there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• And as the Supreme Court has upheld many times, pretext stops are perfectly fine. BTW, making a cartoon and calling them "dicks" is really kinda childish, don't ya think. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe they have a bugaboo about photography on campus because of some incident or other. I would not assume you'd get a different deal next time, especially if you run into the same cops, who might make an issue out of general principles. Only go back if you have your ducks in a row.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some places are odd that way. Do you know it's illegal to take a photograph of the New Jersey Turnpike (at least from Turnpike property)? I seem to recall an incident where someone was cited or arrested that caused me to look up the Turnpike regulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

From a Commons perspective, photography restrictions on private property are a non-copyright restriction, which basically means you may be illegally trespassing to take the photos, but if you pull it off, we'll take them (without necessarily endorsing your actions). Also, in the US, architectural copyright falls under freedom of panorama, so there is no copyright issue in uploading photos of buildings; moreover there is no US law restricting candid photographs of persons (personality rights law only restricts the use of a person's image for promotion), and our policy on identifiable people does not restrict any photograph of a person taken in a public place where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

As for the cops, personally, I'd consider placing photography restrictions on a public school campus as a gross abuse of the government's responsibility to represent the interests of the people in places and functions where public funding is involved, and if that happened to me I would lawyer up and talk to the press about it too. But that's a big investment and your response is up to you. :-) Dcoetzee 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not really an admin idea, but I'd call the local media and see if a reporter wants a 'freedoms being denied' story for this week's paper/broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps with age I've learned that not every windmill is worth having a tilt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As Wehwalt said earlier, get your ducks in a row before taking any kind of action. And one of those ducks would be to find out whether they have such a policy, and if so, why. I'm tempted to call them myself on Monday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Even better: their student handbook says that College staff can take pictures of anyone, anywhere on campus; these pictures become the property of the school, individuals depicted have no right to compensation. — they wanna take their own pictures and market them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks you've found the "smoking duck". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

...and the smoking dicks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's actually fairly reasonable. They don't want to worry about compensation and rights when assembling school materials.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Release forms need to be signed or else the pictures can't be used. What they're doing won't stand a chance in court should someone sue them (that's AZ, maybe NJ is full of dickheads). In any case, this whole thing is ridiculous; as long as there are no identifiable people on the pics, the OP should happily keep uploading them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, as mentioned above, if the building remains copyrighted under Freedom of Panorama, then it cannot be uploaded as a free image. Secondly, as far as the cops are concerned, yeah, I would be a little concerned as far as their actions, but there are several things I would like to comment on right regards to that. There are only two things that come to my mind as to why the campus security would come down on the user in question: first, terrorism; second, stalking (i.e. I don't need to go into much reason why it is illegal to take any pictures in locker rooms in gyms.). That being said, both reasons I gave are fairly weak and would be poor reasons to apprehend a person just because he/she was taking pictures of buildings and other miscellany.

All that being said, File:Union County College Police.jpg needs to come down, and now. That is a blatant attack image and is hence deletable under WP:CSD#G10. Moreover, it gives a bad image for established Wikipedians, who, despite our collective "rebellious" nature, should not be stooping this low to launch such attacks outward like that. Moreover again, it is extremely bad taste to be posting such images. I understand the user is frustrated and certainly has the right to complain, and while Wikipedia should not be the sole place for that, we should not be openly attacking other organizations or otherwise be complicit in that; such open attacks should be taken elsewhere on the Internet. –MuZemike 07:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit) I just realized the image in question was uploaded to Commons. However, the same deletion rationale applies, and it should still be taken down due to its vindicitive nature. –MuZemike 07:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit confused. Freedom of panorama is an exception to copyright law which (in the US) permits two-dimensional reproductions of copyrighted architecture (but not of sculptures, posters, etc). Dcoetzee 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I was just gonna say that. Otherwise, we could all trash whatever cameras we have in urban areas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomahegan Hall is the largest building at Union County College.

I sleep, wake up and this thread is still going strong. Thank you everybody for your intelligent comments -- it is a highly instructive lesson. You people are sharp and smart and what makes Wikipedia great (my OR); I appreciate the attention because it suggests on some level a kind of support. So, what I'm getting is the attack-cartoon is counter-productive (yes I'm being somewhat childish); if I choose to upload the 17+ pictures of buildings (no people) which are in my camera it will be cool with Wikipedia, right? That is, Wikipedia probably won't delete them. (Although if they're posted perhaps I might get in further trouble with Union County College? -- yes I'm willing perhaps to put up with this). Monday I should call the administration and followup on this. What about drawings of buildings? (see picture to the right) Last, I used to be a local reporter, and my reporter's instinct says that whenever people are exerting effort to block pictures, even asking police to detain people taking pictures, there may be something they're trying to hide. And even last, I think we're all wanting to wind down this thread, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

None of us speak for Wikipedia, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion, and really doubt anyone is going to ask for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not meaning to spam, but here's the section from Common's Freedom of Panorama for the US [3]: Buildings are works subject to copyright in the U.S. according to 17 USC 102(a)(8) since the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was passed in 1990. It applies to all buildings that were completed (not begun) after December 1, 1990, or where the plans were published after that date.
However, the U.S. federal copyright law explicitly exempts photographs of such copyrighted buildings from the copyright of the building in 17 USC 120(a). Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. This includes such interior public spaces as lobbies, auditoriums, etc. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way. 17 USC 120 applies only to architectural works, not to other works of visual art, such as statues or sculptures.
This means that for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the photograph is taken from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans (so one is free to do anything short of reproducing the building with another building, but the style elements such as gargoyles and pillars would not be individually protected). For buildings completed after December 1, 1990, freedom is given only to photograph such a building, and individual style elements (such as gargoyles, and pillars) are protected, and photos are only allowed from public places.

So the questions to ask are: are the buildings completed before Dec 1 1990? If so, you have every right to photograph them regardless of where you are located. If they were completed after that date, you can only take photos from public areas. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does "public area" here mean "publicly accessible area" or "not privately owned grounds"? The wording you just cited, where "such interior public spaces as lobbies" are included, would point towards the former, right? In that case, a campus area would obviously also qualify as public. If he could walk into those areas unhindered, it was evidently publicly accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's generally what is meant: if you aren't restricted by any physical or personal means from entering the area, it's considered open to the public, and photos of anything taken from it are completely legal, and thus the only question becomes the copyright issue noted above. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that a campus, an outdoor area, is akin to a lobby, it's a public space that people pass through freely and that also contains areas the inside of which is private. Access can be restricted if necessary, but for most, most of the time, people come and go as they please. In other words, it's not a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I'll copy & paste the section about freedom of panorama to use if necessary, if challenged.

Thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably focussing on the wrong thing. It isn't a question of copyright, or freedom to take photos, the issue is going to be one of trespass. Would the campus and the inside of buildings be thought of to be the same as a shopping mall? If so they have the right to ask you to stop taking photographs, and if you persist to have you removed. John lilburne (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Even so, don't go without something from the administration. All you need is some cop with what do I care about something off the internet I told you not to do that, now you're coming with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of the photos you took, your treatment by camous security sounds like a serious infringement of your rights, and I strongly suggest that you speak to lawyer about what options you may have for launching a lawsuit against Union County College, the security guard personally, and the company that he works for. In my opinion, nothing you have described would give a campus security guard the right to detain you. It sounds to me like you may have been unlawfully detained by campus security and you may have a legitimate claim to made for damages, including punitive damages. Seek out a torts lawyer and get legal advice. As for your photos, my understanding of copyright law is that if you took them, then you own them. Best of luck. 72.175.231.30 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Union County College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_County_College#Reply_from_Union_County_College

-- Avanu (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avanu. Appreciate. The only commotion that I saw was in the minds of the marketing people worrying that some reporter might make their school look bad! :) I've been doing a revamp of the article; since it's SO contentious, I'm leaving it in my sandbox until I get some guidance. Here's the proposed Union County College revamp. Gotta drive my daughter to you know where. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing for donations

Hello Tom, I gave you the suggestion to take your story about being detained by the campus police to the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. What a tale! Now, I notice that you've raised the issue on the COI noticeboard about editing in exchange for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've floated that kind of idea on my user page, and may get a donation soon. I don't know if you saw the idea on my page, but would be happy to discuss it with you. By the way, I am a self employed contractor, specializing in repairing and modifying countertops. Seems we have things in common. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for the diagrams you've provided to Wikimedia Commons! Just a couple of things for future reference, though - if a picture is a blocked-colour diagram rather than a photo, it should be uploaded as a GIF or a PNG rather than a JPG, as JPGs are "lossy" and you'll see they can look a bit smudged around the clean edges (there's more information here). It's also useful to keep the text to a minimum where possible, so that your work can be easily reused on foreign-language Wikipedia projects, where they can simply rewrite the caption, rather than having to edit the image. Thanks again, though, it's all useful. --McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm a newcomer to working with images, diagrams and such and I'll probably be asking for your help in the future. And when you're talking about "keep the text to a minimum", you're talking about the caption, right? Or are you talking about text within the diagram itself? I'm assuming you're talking about the caption. I use Linux; and just switched computers; and will see about trying to use the appropriate file formats as you've suggested, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean you should avoid drawing in a caption as part of the image, as was the case with File:Business Feedback Loop.jpg (which I edited to take out "model of a healthy business" and "a feedback loop of continuing progress") - admittedly the rest of the text is useful there, so it's not really relevant to foreign Wikipedia projects, but it's always better to leave the caption to whoever's writing the article it ends up in.

It's worth thinking about any text you're including, though - File:Draintrap.jpg would actually be okay with just the arrow (or no arrow at all), since the caption in the article could say "the arrow here indicates..." or even "the water shown in the bottom of the pipe means...", and foreign language projects could reuse the image without having to edit it.

And sure, by all means drop me a line if you have any questions. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I never thought about this stuff before. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I don't know much about image formats. I've just been using whatever works and focusing on the writing. I'll try to use better formats in the future. It's getting complex for me, since I'm writing to different audiences. On Google knols, I like the large caption words within the text sometimes, since it means I don't have text beneath the diagram. It's more easily seen this way; but in Wikipedia, I suppose I could organize it more like what you're saying -- less text within the diagram; short captions in English; so it lets other foreign language projects adapt it. I'm working on other stuff at the moment but I'll try to keep this in mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Collab of the Month

Greetings Tom, I hope things are going good. I'm not sure how much interest you have in the subject but after your efforts on the Wall street article I thought I would ask if you had any interest in helping with the Chesepeake Bay article. I looked through the article and I don't see anything jumping out at me for improvements. Do you have any ideas? We have ten days left of the month and I would like to see if we can put some edits on this article. :-) --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to get around to looking at it. Right now my handyman business is picking up; I may also be writing on a project called "editing for donations" so it benefits Wikimedia Foundation. So it's kind of on a back burner at the moment, but I'll try to add stuff when I get time. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Added new stuff to article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay article

Hi there, I want to thank you for working on the Chesapeake Bay article and adding some current references. I removed several of the images you added, however, as I don't think they really add anything to article except cluttering it up. That article already has so many images they don't align with the proper areas of text. I hope you'll understand. —Diiscool (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I totally agree! One of my vices is over-picturization. Everybody comments I'm too picture-oriented and I'm beginning to see the light. The good thing is the best pictures remain (hopefully?). Your improvements make the article even better, thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011

Wall Street, a page you edited has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. We encourage you to participate in improving this article. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, Kumioko. Thanks for notifying me. I'm busy with many projects but I'll try to help out when I can.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem you already did a lot on the article already. Any help is always appreciated. --Kumioko (talk)

Thanks, but it could still use improvement along the lines you noted in your comments. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your user name

Not to WP:OUT you, but if you wish to keep your identity as private as possible, your real name certainly should not be part of your user name. I have seen several ANI threads where the plaintiff complained that he was being OUT-ed, when in fact the plaintiff had a similarly revealing screenname as yours. Regards, –HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here. My intention was and is not to "keep my identity as private as possible", but rather to write under my real name -- tom sulcer, also Thomas Wright Sulcer -- my user handle is Tomwsulcer. In essence, I have chosen publicity. This came about after much thinking. At one point, I tried being a private person, but found that it was counter-productive. I believe Wikipedia would improve if there were more people writing using their real names, and that many of Wikipedia's problems (vandalism, agenda-pushing, etc) happen because of this anonymity. At the same time, I can see arguments for preserving privacy, and that some people may feel more free to say the truth if they can do so anonymously. Overall, I prefer publicity, being public, and I think the benefits of being public outweigh the drawbacks. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I might as well have used my name...literally hundreds of people know I edit and what my user name is and I have in fact met multitudes of editors in person. Although HXL49 has a point in the end its a personal choice and the users decision. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Kumioko, and I respect you for it. But I respect others, even when writing anonymously, for doing so with integrity and saying what they think. Yes, it's a personal decision ultimately. And it remains to be seen how these decisions will be viewed from, say, 10 years later. But my best guess is right now is that the whole publicity-privacy thing is not that important, that it really doesn't matter much to people, overall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this way the cops can find him easily for putting those University pictures out there that they told him not to...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny comment. Actually, in a weird way, my being a public person here in Wikipedia helped me weather that unfortunate incident with Union County College. As you may know, I was detained by Union County College police on April 1st for a half an hour (like a pedestrian getting pulled over for some moving violation); I had been taking pictures for a Wikipedia upgrade of their article (buildings, a few students but after asking permission and getting it in writing); and the security officer asked for my identification. (He did not provide me with information about his identity.) When I alerted the Wikipedia community about the incident, it was with my real name -- highly checkable -- not some anonymous person making a complaint -- and in my view, my being an identified person helped my cause considerably here at Wikipedia. It had the effect of calling attention to my treatment. The negative attention to the college police and sharp comments by others here may have caused campus officials to think twice about their policy, as well as possibly alerting other colleges and police forces that they may also endure negative publicity if they choose to detain Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But my thinking about publicity-vs-privacy came after considerable thinking, as well as personal experience as a protester. I wrote a book a while back about preventing terrorism, and one of the key ideas is identifying movement in public (as well as putting strong privacy fences around this information). The book has languished in terms of sales, but I still believe in the ideas behind it. And, initially, I tried to promote my book, with public protests at airports, Boston Common, court houses, by (at one point) using an alias name, a ghost writer name -- and I found that this added even MORE confusion to me trying to promote it. Newspaper reporters wouldn't quote me if I refused to give my real name; and if a reporter tried to Google my alias, he or she would have found nothing. So it was counterproductive. I returned to using my real name and there has been at least some progress. About 300+ people have looked at the Google knol (which is free); the ideas are still highly controversial, but I'm writing new stuff, and Wikipedia is an excellent place to learn all kinds of stuff, don't you think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is. I'm the one at ANI that night telling you to ignore the police and upload anyway. Then you presented your *Ahem*... artistic drawings of Union college. I think some admin lacking in sense of humor may have deleted those. I wanted to know the outcome of the detainment and glad to know that it served a better purpose and was worthwhile after all. Wiki-Power!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, spoke too soon....I see the artistic renderings further up here on your talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the sharp counsel from personages such as yourself; it helped me see what to do. Yes I took your advice and uploaded the photos (it was the right thing to do) and I also didn't further challenge the UCC police (it's a complex matter) but overall I think it worked out well. The admins deleted the worst cartoon -- which was the right thing to do I think since it was highly POV, basically me being angry -- but I think one of the cartoons stayed which was NPOV. No big woof. Thanks for your help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great newsletter, Kumioko. Thanks for putting it together. I'll try to help when I get time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Chevrolet Vega

This is to notify you that an RfC has been opened regarding proposed edits in Chevrolet Vega. The discussion is located here.

You star, thanks. You can work out the "For" statement via talk pages, or just be BOLD and work it out iteratively.

My thoughts are that in these respects, the Vega article should be significantly edited: it should reflect clearly the Vega's legacy, it's role in the US auto industry and it's marred track record. It should be considerably more concise. It should rely less on fan trivia and less than transparent sources. And it should include less of one editors photographs, personal vehicles and promo photos from General Motors. That's the basic thrust for me. 842U (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PNG files

Hello. File:Lateral Inhibition.png looks fine from here - it's not really my area of expertise, but I think the fact that the page says "MIME type: image/png" means that the file itself is definitely in PNG format. Good work on the images! --McGeddon (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for having a look-see. I made the diagram using Linux gpaint. Then just typed the extension "png". Since then, I've found a tool which definitely outputs png files and I'll be using it for diagrams, right? I find in my knols that I like text inside them instead of in the caption, but I'll try to have a Wikipedia versions without the text, as you say, making it easier for use by Wikis with different languages. Thanks for your advice!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins/dating

With all due respect, the image of Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins doesn't show any additional humor of the anecdote referenced.

The humor was in courting Julie Andrews in real life, using references to her fictional characters. Her fictional characters were not humorous in and of themselves to dating.

Having Mary Poppins' image there makes about as much sense as having a logo for the University of Michigan in the dating article, because research from Michigan was mentioned in the article.

shrugs

99.27.179.217 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, double post

99.27.179.217 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat see your concern but still I disagree overall, and I think Julie Andrews' image is appropriate and relevant in this instance. It was an instance in which humor was used by Blake Edwards to court her in a dating setting -- it worked (the couple got together). Your comment that the "fictional characters were not humorous in and of themselves" is right (in and of itself) but in every case where an actor plays a role, there is a rub-off effect as you know -- that is, it's hard to separate Mary Poppins from Julie Andrews -- the images blur in the public mind. In this case, what Blake Edwards was referring to in his joke was essentially that Julie Andrews' purer-than-pure image in the public mind (created by her playing "pure" characters like Mary Poppins) was unrealistic; he said it with a beautiful joke which Andrews herself found amusing. Edwards was poking fun at this image in courting Andrews. It was dating humor. And it illustrates the point that humor can be a powerful way to woo a potential partner, and therefore it is relevant to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note I'm copying this discussion to the Dating talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

BMW Car Club Great Britain & Ireland

Hi Tom, Thanks for your reply, I am really struggling to find the type of references you mentioned, I do have the following, but they are links rather than references. Should I give up now or do you think these might be suitable, especially the BMW UK one?

External references

• Opie Oils
• BMW UK
• UK Motorsport index of clubs
• The Classic Car Resource
• Munich Ledgends
• BMW Car Magazine
• Total BMW Magazine
• Jeremy Walton
• Motor Sport Vision

Hi, wondering if you tried searching the strings which I posted on the noticeboard? Also, have you read this and this? There's a learning curve with Wikipedia, but it's worth it to learn the basics of the rules and follow proper procedures, since readership here is vast. I do not think any of the above links count as "references" but I have not looked them all over carefully; but it may be that good references do exist -- you must find them and make them easy for others to check. The whole idea is to have a neutral reliable source commenting on your car club -- not a BMW publication. If you get frustrated, and can't find any good references, I suggest you might consider writing a Google "knol" article where you have total control over what you say, what pictures, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One other possibility -- if you visit my user page here you'll see the "editing for donations" blurb. I'm willing to write the article for you if you're willing to donate $ to Wikimedia Foundation; but I can not offer guarantees that the article won't be deleted or will say what you'd like it to say -- everything has to work according to Wikipedia's rules. It may be that there are no valid references and then the article shouldn't be here -- I don't know. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Tom, I have searched but clubs don't tend to get mentioned in the press, not general reporting press anyway, I have read those articles and had thought that as BMW UK (hopefully trusted) have a direct link to our club home page that would be a reasonable reference since BMW in the UK wouldn't place links to something that didn't exist or else wasn't what it purported to be! I'm starting to see that this will not be easy, I just looked at writing a knol but that seems like cheating to me as I will be writing something to be referenced from Wikipedia......It's not the end of the world if we don't have an entry on Wikipedia but since the BMW CCA do I thought we could too....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Car_Club_of_America They are no different to us, except they are based in the US! I can write the article OK myself and could then get someone else to post it, but we still wouldn't have any references..... Dteagles (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. My thinking about writing the Knol wasn't as a reference for a Wikipedia article, but rather as an article in itself. The tradeoff is: control over your article, but less readership. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I am reconsidering your offer :-) What size donation would make it worthwhile for you to write an article? ---Darren Dteagles (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Darren, the donation amount is up to you. I'm busy with several other projects at the moment so I can not guarantee that I can get to it quickly, but I will get to it. Also, please remember that nothing is permanent in Wikipedia -- it may be that I work hard on an article and get it as good as I can, but the community decides to delete it -- this can happen -- there are rules regarding notability and reliable sources and such. So it's important that you understand this. The quality of the resulting article depends on whether I can find suitable references. And the finished article may only be a paragraph long. Do you have pictures related to the article? If interested, send a donation payable to Wikimedia Foundation, preferably in US dollars (if possible), to my address: 6 irving place 2fl / summit nj 07901-3605. When I receive the check, I'll mail it to the Wikimedia Foundation in Los Angeles. I'm doing a similar arrangement with a US indie record label (see my user page) and so far it is accepted by the community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the nice barnstar. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It was deserved. Good job! :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)