user

talk

email me

contributions

edit-help

templates

starting

Talk Archives

apr05 - apr07 apr07 - jan17 jan17 - jan20 jan20 - dec20 jan21 - feb22

Jessamyn, you were so knowlegeable, forthcoming, and attentive to my little journey of learning, re the photo of Gerald Heard. I'm beyond pleased.

One thing I wonder about now: I sized the pic to your recommended 200 pixels in height (so the dimensions were 200x153 pixels, which by my calculation (perhaps incorrect) should give an area of 30600 — quite well under the "rule of thumb" 100,000. The image isn't really bad in the context of the WP article, but by comparison with other articles the size appears on the small side.

So now I ask myself whether I should have sized the pic larger (?). Frankly, I thought the old image — besides the fact that it was an amateurish painting of Heard at age 25... maybe 30 at most — looked pretty ridiculous. And I don't want to draw undue attention to the one I've put in its place, which might still be nixed by a fuddy-duddy for not being attributable to an identified photographer. At very least, I'd like for this image, if rather small, to be retained in the article until such time that someone, perhaps, comes up with a better photograph to replace it. Any comment? For instance, what if I made a somewhat larger iteration of the pic and inserted it? Do you think I'd be pressing my luck?

Thanks for graciously commenting on my question here.Joel Russ (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Russ, I think you did the right thing. It's really hard when you have a person who lived roughly during Heard's time period because it's hard to get public domain photos of them due to being old enough and ALSO hard to get public domain photos of them due to there being a lot of photos online some of which are properly licensed (or could be asked for). My usual rule of thumb, and I do this a lot,is to have the longest side" of an image be 220 px and then i make sure I have the resolution set to 72. The worst thing that can happen, assuming that you've done the fair use rationale correctly, is that a bot will come along and make it smaller. So I think if you want to try it, replace the one that is there (you can just upload a new version I think, if I am remembering correctly) and see if the bot does anything. I'm so glad this was helpful. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I apologize for bothering you about this. I received notification that the picture I put onto the Gerald Heard article, months ago, has been disputed. The image was still on the article until a few days ago, and you can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerald_Heard&diff=1105620289&oldid=1105620021 I believe the dispute may be some sort of routine fault finding. But it's exasperating.

I thought I had sufficiently justified the use of the (small, low-res) image, especially by explaining the fact that a) I could not find any notation associated with the image (which I found through a Google search) indicating a copyright holder; b) I could find no freely-licenced or public domain images of the subject; c) it's impossible to create a new image of the subject, because Heard died 49 years ago.

If you click on the photo image of Heard, then click on More Details, you can see the rationale I presented. I'd be hugely appreciative if you could coach me on what I might say in defence of using the image. (I strongly dislike the image that the article originally had, and which has now been reverted to.)Joel Russ (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Jessamyn. I keep coming across your user name in connection with all the biographies of women you've been writing since you became a member of Women in Red. I therefore thought it would be interesting to take a look at all the new articles you have created. Your performance has indeed been really impressive. After my quality ratings of your articles which had not yet been assessed, I see from x-tools that over the years you have created 357 new articles without a single deletion and that you now have one article rated B-class, 42 C-class, 187 Start and 123 Stub. I particularly appreciate the special attention you have been giving to women's biographies. I look forward many more interesting contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, Aww hey thank you so much. I've noticed that you've been coming through and rating them and I'm always happy when I can get one out of stub-class. I live just a few hours south of Montréal and the winters are long here so it's nice to have a little project that can keep my mind occupied. Appreciate your note. Jessamyn (my talk page) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know how cold it can be in Vermont at this time of year. As a librarian, you have just the right kind of background to help us along. Until I retired, I was closely connected with library interests, working on projects with Europe's national librarians and public library authorities on the improvement of digital services. It's good to see how many librarians contribute to Wikipedia and that they are increasingly helping us to overcome the gender gap. Given your influential position, perhaps you could encourage even more to join our ranks.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the message. My prayers and sympathy concerning the loss of your friend. RFD (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emily Davenport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Davenport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zoom (1972) logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]