Hello. I saw your upload of the NJ Transit logo. Image:NJ_Transit_logo.png In that description, you say, "used for identification, assumed fair use". Is there a wikipedia policy describing this practice? I'm curious because I'd like to upload some similar logos and want to make sure that it is indeed a fair use. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 09:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair_use covers, I'm led to believe. Marnanel 03:19, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks, that clears things up. FYI, I just uploaded a somewhat cleaner versions of the logo that includes their "The Way to Go" tagline. Thanks for getting back to me. I wouldn't have realized logos were fair use if I hadn't seen your contribution. --ChrisRuvolo 06:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know I reverted your removal of "Township" from "River Vale Township" at Faulkner Act (Mayor-Council). Since the article is dealing with legal municipal corporations, and not geographic place, I have listed the municipalities by legal name. For example "Parsippany-Troy Hills Township" is simply referred to as "Parsippany" in everyday life, and like River Vale, almost every borough in the state omits the "Borough" from their name except in legal circumstances. I have kept the distinction for clarity because in New Jersey several municipalities share the same name, such as Berlin Borough and Berlin Township. Thanks for all of the work you have done on New Jersey related articles. --"DICK" CHENEY 12:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see your point about the legal names, thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize that is what you were aiming for, sorry for the extra edit. However, I think the proper name of River Vale is the "Township of River Vale", as it appears on the town seal. Image:River_Vale_seal.png Your thoughts? --ChrisRuvolo 15:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my east/west brain hiccup. I originally typed "from the east" and thought that sounded stilted so I changed the text but not the direction. Duh! It's catches like this that especially give me good feelings about Wikipedia's accuracy. Elf | Talk 20:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that it's a big deal, but I can't find any Sun presence in Palo Alto anymore. I think their headquarters building was the last one. See http://www.sun.com/corp_emp/locations.html

You may be right. I'll have to take a drive by their San Antonio office. --ChrisRuvolo 15:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• This is the SECOND time that you have VANDALIZED an article written by me with Useless, Worthless wikification. I erased the first wikification in July with the advisement that if you really wish to write articles on those topics, then you should do so. Since that time you have come up with nothing more useful than to wikify the same things once more, creating two blank pages that will probably NEVER be completed due to lack of information, and a FALSE link to a related topic. Apparently, you have so little interest in Hamilton County, that you did not even bother to look at what was already done. If you really are interested in writing about NEW YORK, then do so. There are many locations that need work. There is no need to be stepping all over the material being worked by other people. I really do not appreciate childish twits trying to have their own way, just to score points. You seem to believe that no one else knows how to use square brackets. More useful than creating unwanted stub articles would be to wikify to existing links (as most others do) or actually WRITE the articles you seem to feel are so damned important. Sincerely Stepp-Wulf 05:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What articles did I "vandalize"? This encyclopedia is a *WIKI*. The whole *point* is to have links to related articles. Why are you so put off by that? What "blank related topics" did I create? How are people supposed to identify areas that need work except by creating stubs and seeing red links? Red links are used to create lists like Special:Wantedpages and Wikipedia:Offline_reports. They are valuable because they show where work is needed. Wikipedia is about more than writing, it is about organization and connection to related topics. On subjects where I don't have text or images to contribute, or I don't find time to write about the topics I am familiar with, I will contribute organization and links. I am very tired of your territorial bullshit. I have and will continue to contribute to articles in New York, as I see fit. Because you contributed to an article does not mean that you get to dictate the form of all further contributions. I am not focused on one topic, and do not believe Wikipedia to be territorial. I do not appreciate my contributions being called vandalism, and you calling me a "childish twit". --ChrisRuvolo 16:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Lake Pleasant (hamlet), New York. Read the damn history. I didn't even make those edits. User:Friedo did. His only mistake is that Lake Pleasant is a disambiguation page and there is no article on the lake itself. --ChrisRuvolo 20:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please reconsider your vote on Category:Jewish terrorist organizations in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion in light of recent comments. 172 12:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question, John Romero said he would release the source to all the quake1 maps and put them under GPL on his site a while ago. He has been contacted many times about this with no reply, but I think it still stands.

That is interesting, but I'm not sure how Romero could do that. Romero left id software some time ago, and I believe the copyrights are id's. Do you know if that is correct? --ChrisRuvolo 19:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the moves. I was mostly irked that they were all coded as CDPs, and I was moving the articles on the basis of my better knowledge of PA townships, which are all called "Name Township," as far as I'm aware. But move back any errors I've unwittingly created - you'll note that I've stopped doing this - I think I only did it for Bergen County. john k 01:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

Hmm, I will consider this when I get a chance to read over the licenses and FAQ. I'm not sure why WikiTravel is not using the GFDL for compatibility with the other WikiMedia projects to begin with -- but I'm sure its the FAQ or something. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 23:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings, Chris. I tagged it fairuse for the following reasons.

• It is clearly under copyright, since William Empson would have been only 16 in 1922, the year copyright is still protected in the U.S.
• The source isn't known, but specifying the source isn't necessary for a fair use claim in the United States. (It is required for a fair dealing claim in Australia, but the Wikipedia servers reside in the US and are bound by US law only.)
• The nature of the work: it is a posed portrait, designed to display Mr. Empson in a good light. I would guess that this is either a promotion photograph or a portrait used in a commercial work, but I can't be sure. Either way, its value is clearly not in its obscurity.
• The nature of the use: this version is certainly a lower-quality image than the original, whatever the source. It is being used for educational use only, and is not detracting from the value of the original.

I agree that the tag's text is confusing ("the uploader. . ."). Perhaps a separate {{fairusetagger}} could be made to specify that is the tagger, and not the uploader, who makes the fair use cleam?

Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 20:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I left comments about the new template at Template talk:Unknownsource. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:46, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...it was the weirdest thing. I was looking at the images of the 1906 quake and when I saw quake.jpg, it appeared to be vandalized because I saw a screenshot from the Quake video game. I just found a new one and uploaded it... but now that I look at the image history, it seems that it was never vandalized. Must have been a problem with my cache, or Wikipedia's cache... in any case, I reverted it. Sorry! --TheCoffee 04:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the map was one that I created using data from another source and having lived in Adachi-ku. Kirkpatrick 13:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, the image:IsadoraDuncan.JPG should be in PD now, as its author has died more than 50 years ago. Or did I miss something? Srtxg 23:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not certain that the image is either in the public domain or retains copyright. It depends on whether the copyright was retained by Arnold Genthe or assigned to a corporation as part of publication, and whether copyright renewals were filed. However, if it is under copyright, I believe that its use in the Duncan article is fair use. BTW, the Sonny Bono act extended the term to life+70 years for works not already in the public domain by 1998 — but this one would have become public domain in 1992 if the copyright was kept by Genthe. --ChrisRuvolo 00:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(moving to Image talk:IsadoraDuncan.JPG — please reply there)

Tnx for interest, replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]