Jump to content

User talk:Astynax/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Fair use rationale for File:Williamirvine4.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Williamirvine4.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I am the copyright holder for this version of the image, I have changed the licensing and removed the tag.Astynax (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts

You've done a really good job removing POV statements from Christian Conventions. The article now reads much more professionally. Cheers Donama (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for the nice comment. The process goes on, and hopefully we all can arrive at something which is accurate, while acknowledging all sides with regard to some of those conflicting claims. There are some fairly entrenched positions which have more to do with personal beliefs than historical fact, and I know that problem extends to many other subjects here on Wikipedia. These things sort of suck you in - I didn't plan on spending as much time on this as I have done, but when you go to Wikipedia and look up something and can't make any sense of the article ... well, at least I tried. Astynax (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on Christian Conventions. When I did the copyedit, all I had to go on from the previous version was the rather unhelpful and informal "kept a foot in both camps", so I wasn't sure of the intended meaning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping my nose out of the discussion because I tend to get pretty contentious and you and Jeffro seem to be doing a good job of keeping your heads. If you need another voice, or help with say a 3RR problem, just give a whistle. PS You're doing a good job of continual improvements to the article. --nemonoman (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Home birth

Thank you for your assistance on the home birth page. While I suspect you and I have different philosophical views about some of this stuff, I think you are doing an excellent job of providing assistance in getting us to write a neutral and informative article. Perhaps we should aim for a featured article, or am I getting ahead of myself! Anyway, thanks very much. Gillyweed (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I answered with on your user talk page with a suggestion as to going forward. • Astynax Talk 08:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were doing quite well until Nandesuka intervened and protected the Anon editor's reversions of what I believe were very good edits. The Australian section that I have been working on and finding references is now completely stuffed again, wasting an hour of work. I have contacted Nandesuka and asked him to revert the anon's edits and then protect the article if it must be protected. I'm not sure it does need protecting as the three of us are working quite cooperatively on it. I agree that we need to tackle the safety section next. You will also notice that the anon editor gave a lengthy explanation why he wants studies removed (because they are poor quality but he can't find evidence to show that - assertion) and because he is worried about private home birth midwives. I know many private home birth midwives and YEP some of them are pre-scientific and unsafe. I also know many obstetricians and YEP some of them are pre-scientific and unsafe. This is not the basis for an article. Pardon the rant but I am upset that our good work (including yours) has been reverted and protected. I wonder if you, as our neutral person would approach Nandesuka and ask him to revert the anon's changes and then protect the page (if he must). Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I complained to Nandesuka and he pointed out a rather witty article about complainers like me so I have decided to be patient! So ignore above request. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Me again. Any chance of you doing some moderating on the new section entitled "Resolved and Not Resolved." The anon is back throwing his weight around with absolute statements of what he will and will not accept. Both I have Lcwilsie have attempted to engage him in some civilized dialogue but without success. Have a look at his talk page. His attitude is aggressive, arrogant and bullying and is not conducive to writing an acceptable article. I know that you and I have different views on HB too, but I am quite able to work with you! At least you are willing to engage! Gillyweed (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Christian Conventions

Thanks for continuing to monitor this article. I recall in the archives a great deal of space being given to the ridiculous (to me) subject as to whether or not the word “denomination” should be applied. I wasn't around the article during those discussions, but Tmtsoj has edited the article to, seemingly, again reflect the PoV that it is somehow not a “denomination” or have a name(s). I thought that, as you seem to be the only person still about with a bit of experience with the article's history, you may have some input to offer: Discussion page. • Astynax talk 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reality may be that it doesn't have an official name, so the current section on that sounds okay to me. As to whether it's a denomination, well I think if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck then... you get the picture, but there seems to be some resistance to this label within the group given it basically means "a class/society of individuals called by the same name/title/designation" (which brings us back to the opposition to being named). I can't really see a way to move ahead and demonstrate the reality one way or another. I guess, the least that could be done is to point new users to that old discussion section about the word 'denomination'. Donama (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The group itself has an issue with the use of the word 'denomination' so that's why there needs to be discussion. I'm not sure it 'quacks like a duck' though, as much as I like that as a philosophy. That's because 'denomination' implies an interchangeability or recognition of other Protestant denominations as peers, which the group lacks. There is no reason to think the movement is more like Protestants and less like Catholics. I would argue doctrinally for Catholics myself, although many ex-Protestant members within the fellowship would bristle at the suggestion. My point - would you call the Catholics a denomination? The least coloured word I could think of was 'movement' so why not use it? Slofstra (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The group also has an issue with characterizing itself as a 'religion', but in that particular case I think the ducks have it. Very difficult to say you are not a religion by dictionary standard. Slofstra (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Nice work, asyntax, on this article. Although I do disagree on some narrow issues. I've confined my suggested changes to the Discussion page. I hope we can have "honest and frank discussions" (hee, hee) concerning these things, and I hope on a non-personal level. I want to add that I am not against negative connotations or negative points concerning our fellowship, but these must be offered with support. And I'll never dispute something I know to be true, whether sourced or not. I've also re-inserted some points which I feel the article now lacks. I see no reason why these sections were deleted, but this is arguable. I've added a topic to the discussion page so we can discuss that. As far as the historical material, you've done an excellent job to the best of my knowledge.Slofstra (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

re Cooneyite/Christ. Conventions

WP:V is policy. There is no such thing as "editor consensus" to make up or add unsourced material to articles. Cirt (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Christian Conventions

Thanks. I've commented on the talk page. Sorry I'm slow to respond, just too busy to patrol or do large edits in WP lately. Donama (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever see Juno? I'll quote a significant line: If you're still in, I'm still in. I guess I'll dig deep and try to tough it out with you. I had no idea how ---'ed up this article was going to be. I can't think of an adequate verb to fill in that blank, that's how ---'ed up it is. --nemonoman (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can we take a break for a bit on this and think it over. I recognize astynax has done a lot of good work on the article, and I have made some threatening remarks about reverting and so on. (Which I would never do without support.) In addition I genuinely believe my edits are an improvement. I'm not trying to blank anything sourced - the only thing I can think of is the names, and I'm arguing for moving some of it. So, I'm not trying to threaten the good work that you have done. Please recgonize that I have a stake in this too, as a member of the movement you guys are writing about. I think those of us who have come on and complained about POV could use a little more empathy. We can't all be wrong, can we? I am as interested in accuracy as you are, we're not perfect and believe me I'm not trying to whitewash anything. If we focus on the goal of just being factual hopefully we can get around our respective protective instincts. I'm just suggesting we time out for a few days or a week. Go ahead and take a last word on the "first paragraph" section and I won't answer. I've asked Donoma to comment, but that didn't work so good for me the last time.  :)RSuser (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Astynax, I notice you've left a few requests at my Talk page for assistance on the Christian Conventions article. The articles in my main area of focus have been a bit taxing of late, and tackling the Christian Conventions article as well, which also gets a bit heated, is a bit much at the moment. I will try to check in as time permits subject to other priorities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, specifically your defense of reason, in the CC article

The Barnstar of Diligence
For you Astynax, for your tireless effort toward reason, editorial scrutiny and anti-bias! Cheers, Donama (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that what you are doing and the editorial principles you're standing up for are not going unnoticed. It's a thankless task so I thank you. Donama (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, be happy

That is, if you are worried, maybe not .... I detected some concern that possibly I would be trying to remove all SPS sources from the CC article. No intention, whatsoever. I am happy we have some clarity on how to treat different sources .. at least I think we have clarity. Basically, I just wanted the RIS site to be designated SPS but I have no intention of challenging anything that I know is true, especially not facts backed up with primary source documents. We may still have to duke out over a few points, but I personally don't see many issues. In any case, you have prevailed on the Founder issue. Perhaps I have to work on Melton, next. :) I stand by my original comments that you've done a good job on the article, but we do see things differently. I'm taking a brief sabbatical (or so I tell myself). This was not much fun in the end.RSuser (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice graphic

On CC page. Love the newspaper name The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal. Might create a username for myself: TheImpartialEditor. Maybe TheUnpleasantEditor. --nemonoman (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer so sure about that graphic

I found the article scan appealing from a graphics point of view. I liked "The Tramp Preachers" in that nasty old typeface. I've since had a chance to actually read the article, and it's pretty nasty. I'm not sure it's a good thing to have uploaded the whole article after all. I don't know how I'd feel if I were to find an antisemitic tract on a page about the rise of National Socialism, or a KKK tract on a page about integration. I'm raising the point with you, since you and I are the ones who did this, and at the moment I'm getting a little shaky. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the graphic should stay as it is a window into what the Impartial Reporters reporter(s) thought of early friends and workers. Reading those articles reveals a lot of personal interpretation and opinion which can help one decide if the Impartial Reporter reporter(s) were impartial or not. Add to that the fact lot of what has been written and published about the friends and workers since then is based on those Impartial Reporter articles.
Jesse Lackman (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks and a question

I have a copy of a newspaper article from 1910 which gives the story of the CC's founding, early doctrine, etc. The copy the British Library sent is huge (original size). I was wondering if it might make a good illustration if I could get it (or at least a portion) down to a manageable width? It has long passed into the public domain, and I'm asking simply because I don't recall seeing an illustration like that on a Wikipedia article. Or would a newspaper clipping be too strange?

I honestly don't know. I haven't seen anything like it in WP before but there should be no problem with that, especially as there's a dearth of images in this article. Be bold and go ahead. Do you need a hand resizing or tweaking it for Wikipedia? Cheers Donama (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Reading Nemonoman's message above I see you must've already uploaded (sorry I'm slow to respond). Let me try and find where it is so I can have a look too... Donama (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I quite like it, but that's just my taste. As impartial as that publication might claim to be, the article probably isn't. Probably that's just the tone of old newspapers though, rather than any strong anti-tramp bias. Donama (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If donama is OK with it, I'll sit on my concerns. There's a lot of electricity in the air these days: maybe I'm oversensitive. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seen this?

From tellingthetruth.info. On every page, just about.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File:William_Irvine_Book_Cover.JPG

You deserve recognition for your hard work

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for steadfast and assiduous editing of Christian Conventions. It is very much appreciated. Best wishes, --Nemonoman (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Now if I can only find the barn. • Astynax talk 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote as I heard it

Which sort of makes it a joke... Q. What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? A. I don't know, and I don't care.--Nemonoman (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll add the QandA. Having just rewatched Joan Greenwood in The Importance of Being Earnest, I was tempted to use “I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read on a train.” But I don't keep a diary, and so it is yet another quote that I'll never be able to work into a conversation. • Astynax talk 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is my favorite quote from Earnest:

  • Jack: I have lost both my parents.
  • Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.

--Nemonoman (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that one, too! • Astynax talk 01:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

re: For perseverance

Hey thanks Astynax! Donama (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Assesment Guidelines

[1] The first challenge will be stability.

Also this helps: WP:GNGA --Nemonoman (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been adding links within the CC article. The bot is suggesting more links in other articles that point to the CC article. That's somewhat challenging. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The text on that one is confusing. The page the bot generates does seem to agree with that, but when you click on the ? explanation, it seems to be only dealing with links within the article. Either way, it is no big deal. • Astynax talk 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Video

Enjoy!--Nemonoman (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, if she'd only gone a bit further to tell what positive reinforcement to withhold when the dog pees on visitors. I suspect people who stop in get a bit more offended when that happens. • Astynax talk 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you have a relationship with RIS? Either employee, associate or owner of RIS, or writer of books they publish or an RIS web site author?RSuser (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you cited any of your own work in Christian Conventions?RSuser (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Irvine

I'm so sorry not to have responded to your request for another pair of eyes to look at William Irvine (Scottish evangelist), but I have been away. I will gladly have a look at the article, but it will have to be tomorrow. Regards, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple references

I've been reviewing some of the material on Telling The Truth since this is a "reliable source" according to the Final Arbiter of Reliable Sources and Supreme Judge of Verifiability. I've been trailing along behind your Daniel references with specific pages from Kopp's book. She also apparently makes the cut. Except for a few items (like the British and Ozzie names of the Church), Kopp seems to have specifics backed by source documents of most if not all of the Daniel refs. Which makes me wonder: if they're the same, is Daniel really necessary? Alternatively, if they're the same, is Daniel really unreliable? --Nemonoman (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, wise guy. :) I assume you mean me as I made that statement about Kropp. However, John Carter does not agree at all. Really, I would like to know what the RS's are, simply so I can purchase or obtain those references relevant to the subject in order to argue out the content. I am as frustrated as you are by how difficult that has been, and I don't entirely blame our various disagreements. Sometimes these senior editors are really hard to pin down. Also, I have reviewed some of your input on the CC Talk page, and have to begrudgingly give you credit for some of your judgement calls. Just thought I should let you know, but otherwise if you keep your vow of silence that is fine by me.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember -->> [2] John Carter might have good reason to disagree. Jesse Lackman (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifics supported by a cherry picked data set can be used to "prove" nearly anything an author wants to "prove". The data that isn't cherry picked will tell the rest of the story and how objective and neutral an author really is. Propaganda is born by deliberately limiting your data set. *Sigh* The tale is as old as time... Jesse Lackman (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quick question [on membership numbers]

Hi Astynax, was away from the Internet from July 15th and only just back today so sorry for the delay. I think the footnote you suggest sounds like a good idea. Please go ahead and we can change it based on feedback on the article talk page if needed. Cheers Donama (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on JesseLackman page

It's impossible to refrain from reading other people's mail on the Wiki talk pages. Impossible for me anyway, since I'm not only a pushy control freak, I'm also a NOSY pushy control freak. Please first accept an apology for reading what clearly was a personal message. Second, please accept my thanks for your thoughtful remarks.

I sort of recognize the vibe you are facing. In Northern New Jersey where my personality was formed, anything ANYTHING could be a cause for a fight. "You talkin' to me?" that sort of thing. Us punk teenagers in New Jersey were ready to make an issue about anything, and turn the issue into fight, and the fight into a brawl. How odd it was to move to Virginia where people were sort knocked back by my "You talkin' to me?" response when they said "Hey".

For my own part, looking to switch from that Jersey fight vibe to that gentler Southern "Hey." I still get sucked in. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Astynax, a quick comment; "The church owning up to the church's history and doctrines clearly,... "
I've read that specific request - and other "apology" requests along that same line - many times - specifically about the friends and workers.
Read this article and see if you notice any parallels to those "own up" and apology requests and why they are requests that are impossible execute in any meaningful moral and/or philosophical sense;
[Apology for Slavery Will Perpetuate Racism [3]
JesseLackman (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Pedro II

Thank you for your help on the article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. You've done a great job!

I'd like, however, to make a few notes if you don't mind.

the most severe experienced in Brazil since its independence.

The regency era is considered the most troublesome period in all Brazilian history as an independent country. Even when we count the republican era. As Pedro II could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (including...

The constitutional prerrogatives were only the moderate and executive power (this one truly exerted by ministers and not by himself later on). There were no others. So, the word "including" should be chaged or removed.

This is it, once again, thank you very much! - --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cabral, again, again and again

Please, take a look in here: User talk:Lecen/Archive 5#Re: Image review at FAC (Pedro Álvares Cabral). It has become ridiculous. Now we have to prove that every single image has been published in before 1921. I did not see that in the other featured articles, but only in ours. Or am I wrong? Unlike in Pedro II- where that picture of his family had been taken by a photographer who died in 1940, which would mean that the picture would be avaialble only in 2011 unless we were able to prove that it was published before 1921- all pictures in Cabral's articles were made by men who died before 1939. That is, 70 years ago plus another year required to have a free picture.

Now Jappalang that that does not matter at all. All pictures must have been published before 1921. In other words, a medieval painting could not be available in here unless we prove that it was somehow published before 1921. So, all those tags in photos which says that the copyright has been expired since the death of the author plus 70 years is worth nothing. If that's the case, why they exist at all?? --Lecen (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

According to him, works must have been published before 1923. Or was never published before 2003 and its author died more than 70 years ago. If that's the case, not even a medieval painting could be uploaded unless I prove that it was published before 1923, or prove that it was never published before 2003 and also that its author died more than 70 years ago. That's an impossible task. I told him that he should begin erasing every single image in Commons, since the most they have is the name of the author plus his/her year of death and the "Author died more than 70 years ago" tag. That's all. In fact, he should erase also every single image of featured articles of historical characters because all of them follow this trend. Lastly, I also said that he should ask the administrators in Commons to change the "author died more than 70 years ago" tag for "work was never published before 2003 and its author died more than 70 years ago" because it is misleading as it is now. Either ways, all historical images in Wikipedia must be erased. Great, isn't? --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Both photographs of 3-dimensional items in the Cabral article have been released into the Public Domain by the people who made the photographs. I also asked about the status of statues (such as Cabral's in Lisbon) here. But I do not see that there is any problem with either photograph.
For photographs of 2-dimensional artworks, I think that Wikipedia's policy is very clear. There are some who have repeatedly argued for limiting old art, but it Wikimedia does not have such a policy that I can find. You can look here: [4] for the general guideline, which is "life of the author plus 70 years" in the case of the {{PD-Art}} tag. There is also a good discussion about why Wikimedia considers new photographs of older images to be PD (Public Domain) here: [5]. • Astynax talk 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that if we follow his standards it would make practically impossible to upload any picture at Commons? --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The reply to my question over at Wikicommons made it clear that Portugal allows images of public places. I do not agree with the restrictiveness in the U.S. and elsewhere that says that people cannot use a picture in a public park that includes a monument. That is ridiculously impractical and an abuse of the law to benefit certain large corporations that make money from licensing photographs of all types. There are certainly many pictures in FA and GA articles which could be removed based upon those objections. But the photographs used in the Cabral article have no such issues. • Astynax talk 19:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point. One thing is what Laser Brain (Andy Walsh) wrote in Cabral's FAC. That has been resolved by now. I'm talking about what Jappalang wrote in my talk page. He is the same editor who reviewed Pedro II's FAC and demanded from me a proof that that photo of the Imperial Family was published before 1923. Read what he wrote in my talk page. If we follow his views, all pictures in Wikipedia will have to be erased! --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I do understand your point. However, what is important is what the Wikimedia Policy says. I don't think that Wikimedia Policy supports what that editor has said. He may be correct, but on Wikipedia, it is POLICY that we must follow. It has been the same with many comments (opinion and personal preference, rather than Policy). If the image databank corporations had their way, all photographs would have to get a license from them, and none would be on Wikicommons. The old Pedro II images were obviously published (his business was selling copies) by the photographer when they were made. There are multiple copies of some, showing differences in printing quality, etc. The photographs of old paintings are also acceptable under Wikimedia's {{PD-Art}} tag. Discussions about images should point to Policy; it is frustrating to read vague objections that do not say where is the item at fault and where is the Wikimedia Policy that it violates. • Astynax talk 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've regreted from going after him to request a review of the article. FAC nominations have serious issues. The lack of consistent rules leave nomineers at the will of highly volatile reviewers. --Lecen (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both the GA and FAC reviews make me feel like we are in a football match—only we are just the ball. • Astynax talk 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the near impossible demands made in Cabral's FAC. It is getting more ridiculous. Perhaps he will ask us if we have a time machine to ask the author if he wouldn't mind having his work published in here. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a time machine would be useful! I don't know if the following points help, but they are my thoughts about what the editor said on the review:
I would suggest that you replace any {{PD-old}} license on photographs of artistic images with {{PD-Art}}. • Astynax talk 08:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm surprised. Are you learning Portuguese? Sooner or later you'll begin writing those Brazilian-history article on your own! Lol! "Nossa História" (Our History) was a very, very good history magazine, now defunct. That's from where I got the picture. But you forgot to notice that the authors are mentioned in the picture: George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855) and Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898). They were two foreign artists and publishers active in the 1850s in Brazil. If the one born in 1817 died in 1898, the one born in 1804 certainly died before him. I was wondering if you could answer Jappalang. Since your English is far better than mine, and you're a very good on making your point, I believe you would fare far better than I on this one. Could you do it, then? --Lecen (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not very good at languages. I can read some words that are similar between Portuguese and English. I can usually see what is being said from that, and I have a dictionary if I do not understand a word. It is slow, but I can usually understand much if it is written. I will respond on the review page. Since I cannot find a date for the Roque Gameiro picture, he may still object to that one. Very interesting that Gameiro's descendants have the surname Cabral. That might explain why he did the picture. • Astynax talk 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I do have a book that says that Roque Gameiro made the miniature in the 19th Century and I told that to Jappalang but to no avail. I have the feeling that he will lead this matter to an endless debate. He won't say: "Oh, you're right, sorry". He is ignoring Commons' rules and reviewing everything according to his own will. Perhaps you should request the help from one of the people responsible for the FAC nominations. But I believe that they won't be of much help. I'm tired of this nomination. It simply does not end. Every week will appear someone with some complain and then we will fix it and the guy will be happy. It will last forever. --Lecen (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I told you it wouldn't be easy. We're stuck with the typical stubborn and arrogant reviewer. Funny that all those tags in commons do not ask for "descendants who gave their permission to publish a work" or that "the author must have died 70 years ago AND the work must have been published before 1923". It is all a mess. The tags says one thing and he says another. I told him in my talk page: if editors in Wikipedia follow his rules, all images in featured articles will have to be erased. --Lecen (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just withdraw the nomination in quiet protest. I cannot think of a polite way to respond to what I see as twisting of Wikipedia's policy on images, and the nomination page doesn't seem to be the correct place for such an argument. If you think that we should just go on with the review, it is OK with me, or I can end it. • Astynax talk 05:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
After all the hard work we had? I'm not in the mood to play a martyr, not this time. Besides, if we do that, this guy will still roam around making it impossible to any nomination to be successful. And I know this type of reviewer: others grow to see in him as a reliable editor whose opinions are regarded as dogmas. We have to end that now. If we lose this one, I see no reason to continue writing in Wikipedia. Our projects on Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies and Empire of Brazil will have no reason to be finished. Could you send a message to Raul654, SandyGeorgia or Karanacs (or all three at the same time) asking for help? It's simple: or we follow Commons rules or this editor's rules. If we stick to the latter, all pictures in Wikipedia will have to be erased if we follow his impossible rules. --Lecen (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As you wish to go ahead, I will write the people you suggest. I can only tell them that I believe we are stuck. They may or may not have some suggestion as to how to proceed. I have a few hours of work on a non-Wiki project before I can get my thoughts together for something to write. • Astynax talk 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep me in touch with their answers to that matter, please. I've asked the imput of another editor on the subject. If Jappalang's point of view prevail, there won't be any reason to have images in Wikipedia and to me, to continue contributing. P.S.: Ow, congratulations with Pedro II! Since I am disappointed with this problem regarding Cabral's article, I didn't get very happy with the recent promotion. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked for help to User talk:Elcobbola to deal with the matter. SandyGeorgia reccomended him. I still can't understand why are we losing time with this. If those tags are worth nothing, why they do exist at all? Could you imagine if everytime someone uploaded a picture, he/she would have to prove not only that the author died more than 70 years ago, but also that it was published before 1923 and lastly, that the author's descendants allowed its reproduction? Amazing! --Lecen (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the argumentum ad ignorantiam being put forward should be self-evident—i.e., that because it cannot be absolutely proven that some condition does not exist, we must assume that the condition exists. You are correct that that challenge could be dredged up for any image on Wiki, and there is no "absolute" evidence which would satisfy some people. It also conveniently ignores what is known about when the originals were created and publicly exhibited, acquired by the state, and placed in major museums without restrictions as to copying (no such thing existed back then). • Astynax talk 02:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you answer Kablammo's questions in Cabral's FAC? I wonder what he meant with "recent developments". --Lecen (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I can only give a qualified response, but will do so. I don't know the "recent developments", but perhaps it is some change to the FAC guidelines or some problem elsewhere on Wikipedia. Things are always changing somewhere. • Astynax talk 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Lecen, Astynax-- the "recent development" was the discovery that the featured article of the day for 31 October contained text which was felt to be a violation of copyright. The FAC folks (as well as those at DYK and GA) have understandably become much more aware of copyright issues, and may institute a process whereby nominators have to certify compliance with copyright standards. My questions were an attempt at a stopgap measure, so that your nomination is less likely to be delayed while that policy is developed. Those questions were not a challenge to your scholarship or integrity. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was looking after possible sources to some of the pictures used in the article on Google. The main picture of Cabral - the one made by George Mathias Heaton (1804 – after 1855) and Eduard Rensburg (1817-1898) - was perhaps published between 1839 and 1854. This is the date of the partnership between both artists, according to this source [6]. It would make sense, since it would be around the same time when Cabral's tomb was rediscovered (1838) and the interest around Cabral led to works being published about him (1850s). The second picture of Cabral - made by Roque Gameiro (1864-1935) - was perhaps published in 1900 or 1921. If you see this painting [7] which despicts Cabral's landing, it says that it was published sometime around 1900. Also, he painted the figures in the book A descoberta do Brasil (The discovery of Brazil), published in 1900 [8]. Lastly, according to this source [9], he painted the figures in the book [10] "história da colonização portuguesa do Brasil" (History of the Portuguese colonization in Brazil) published in 1921. Either way, there is no possible way, at least no to me, to know when it was published for the first time. But if he was making painting despicting Cabral that were published as early as 1900, that may give a clue. Nonetheless, I believe the demands made by Jappalang are still near impossible. All I can do is guess. When was Monalisa first published? Did someone had to prove that? I don't know what to do. --Lecen (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Acra - today's featured article

Hello Astynax, Sreifa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astynax/Archive_1&oldid=397453423"