User talk:Jess Key
Welcome to our newest Constable
Congratulations, Chris, on your well-earned and long overdue new position as Citizendium Constable. I have no doubt that Citizendium will be a better place with you watching over us. Thanks for accepting the challenge. D. Matt Innis 01:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I heartily second that! What a relief to see that Ruth has removed my name from the Sysops and Linneas! Enjoy yourself! Hayford Peirce 02:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pleased to stumble across this. Good luck, Chris. Ro Thorpe 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks all! --Chris Key 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, just finished a help article on how to archive user talk page
Please look at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox where I have just finished a help page on how to archive subpages. I plan to upload it as CZ:Archiving user talk pages and you can then fit it into your new Help structure. I know that CZ:Talk Pages has a section devoted to the same subject ... but my stand-alone article is much more detailed and covers more aspects of the subject. I tried to write it so that newcomers could follow it step-by-step.
I would appreciate any comments or revisions you may want before I upload it. Thanks. Milton Beychok 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Milt, that looks great. I cannot think of any improvements.
- It may be easier to move the page straight into the help system then going via a CZ page. If you could move it to Help:Index/Communication/Talk/Archiving that will put it straight in place. Also please add {{Help page|Talk Pages}} to the top of the page, and {{Back to help}} at the end of the page. Thanks for your help! --Chris Key 10:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Done. The Help:Index/Communication/Talk/Archiving is now in the Namespace (or should I say the Helpspace?). By the way, Hayford also reviewed it and had no changes to make. Milton Beychok 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats great! You can now access it by going to Help:Index then clicking 'Communication help', then 'Talk pages', then 'Archiving a talk page'. Thanks again for your help.
- P.S. Technically it is the Help Namespace. --Chris Key 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Photo Attribution
This morning, after feeling so much better, I realized why I was doing this. Any work done for hire and any work paid for by the US Government, or by an employee of the US Government, is considered work for hire or public domain. See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Attribution automatically goes to the agency that paid for the work and since we all paid for the federal government photo it's considered public domain. That means the Mack article and the Osprey article were correctly attributed by me. It would be best to change the current attributions to the Harvard Press Office and US Government for those photos as they are now incorrect. It is nice to credit the photographer, if known, but the correct and presumably legal attribution goes to the agencies involved. I fulfilled my ethical and professional responsibility by notifying Citizendium of their error. Mary Ash 15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mary, if you will look closely at the photo of Mack that you uploaded, the photo itself has attribution to Harvard Press at the bottom (in very small print). As for the the V-22 Osprey photo you uploaded, the current credit line (which I added as required by CZ) has both the U.S. Navy (which is the government agency) and their photographer's name (who took the photo). So all is well. Thanks for your comment and concern. Milton Beychok 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (ref: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105).
- Therefore photos taken by non-government photographers but then given to the government ARE in fact copyrighted and are not public domain. Also, it is very possible that the copyright would be retained by the original photographer but the image licenced for use by the government. Therefore, unless we know for a FACT the exact copyright status of the image, it is best to attribute both the government agency and the photographer. --Chris Key 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also...
106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —
(1) shall have the right —
(A) to claim authorship of that work [...]
(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.
- Therefore even if the original author of the work did give the copyright to the government, they still have a legal right to be attributed to the image. Even if they sign a waiver the waiver only applies to certain usages, and therefore would not apply to our usage on CZ. --Chris Key 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I agree. The file history should reflect ownership is the US Government with credit given to the photographer. As written now the photographer is cited as the owner of the photo not the US Government which is incorrect. Mary Ash 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Therefore even if the original author of the work did give the copyright to the government, they still have a legal right to be attributed to the image. Even if they sign a waiver the waiver only applies to certain usages, and therefore would not apply to our usage on CZ. --Chris Key 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AOsprey.png&diff=100693841&oldid=100693698
- Wrong. The photographer is cited as the AUTHOR of the photo, which is correct. The creditline (here) states that the copyright is held by both the photographer and the United States Navy. Unless we have proof that the copyright has been fully transferred, we must assume this is correct. --Chris Key 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AMack_harvardpressoffice.jpg&diff=100697324&oldid=100697131 ...said Mary Ash (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)
- Also I have changed it from 'public domain' to 'copyrighted'. Unless we have proof that the photo has been released to the public domain we must assume that it has not. --Chris Key 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AMack_harvardpressoffice.jpg&diff=100697324&oldid=100697131 ...said Mary Ash (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)
- Wrong. The photographer is cited as the AUTHOR of the photo, which is correct. The creditline (here) states that the copyright is held by both the photographer and the United States Navy. Unless we have proof that the copyright has been fully transferred, we must assume this is correct. --Chris Key 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
{unindent} If you read the PDF copyright file I sent it says any work done for the federal government is considered public domain. The author/photographer was taking photos for the US government therefore is considered a federal employee making the photo public domain attributed to the US government. The way I attributed it originally is correct. Mary Ash 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I did read it. If YOU read what I put above it says that "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Therefore the work MAY be copyrighted if it was not created by a government employee. Unless you can prove that it has been released to the public domain, we must assume it is copyrighted. --Chris Key 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the John E. Mack photo, if you look at your original upload you can see that you have put a URL as both the author and the copyright holder. There is no way that a URL took the photo or holds the copyright. As the photographer is unknown, we have now put this. We can assume that the copyright is held by the Harvard University Press Office. Therefore with the corrections now made this is correct. --Chris Key 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to add if it says U.S. Navy photo you can betcha it's owned by the federal government. I do believe that's what the original photo upload cited. I'll read the rest of your comments later but I wanted to make sure CZ was informed of the correct attribution. What made me think of this is that I was thinking about my work at our local newspaper. Yes, I was given a byline for every article written, but the paper owned copyright as it was done as "work for hire". Mary Ash 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it is owned by the US government this does NOT mean that it is public domain. The copyright could have been transferred from the original photographer to the US government. Consider this, all of the other photos on that page do not say "US Navy photo by Joe Bloggs". This would suggest that this is a special case, and the author has to be attributed. "you can betcha" is not proof, and in order to claim public domain we need proof. --Chris Key 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to add if it says U.S. Navy photo you can betcha it's owned by the federal government. I do believe that's what the original photo upload cited. I'll read the rest of your comments later but I wanted to make sure CZ was informed of the correct attribution. What made me think of this is that I was thinking about my work at our local newspaper. Yes, I was given a byline for every article written, but the paper owned copyright as it was done as "work for hire". Mary Ash 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the John E. Mack photo, if you look at your original upload you can see that you have put a URL as both the author and the copyright holder. There is no way that a URL took the photo or holds the copyright. As the photographer is unknown, we have now put this. We can assume that the copyright is held by the Harvard University Press Office. Therefore with the corrections now made this is correct. --Chris Key 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(undent)Anyway, like you I am no expert on copyright. If you wish to further dispute the copyright attribution of that (or any other image) please do so on the talk page of that image. If you wish to draw this to the attention of certain Citizens you are welcome to point them in the direction of that talk page, however it is not very helpful to have these discussions on user pages. This is especially the case when you try to hold the same discussion on three separate user pages as it creates a fragmented discussion. Creating a central point for discussion (the image talk page) and asking other users to read it is enough. Those who wish to follow the discussion can then follow it on their watchlist - there is no need to copy/paste sections of the discussion onto users talk pages. --Chris Key 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wanted to email you privately but I can't find a "mail" logo to click on. I am not an attorney, therefore I can not offer you legal advice, but I do suggest you contact your site counsel for legal advice. I notified you of the potential inaccurate photo attributions as you are a listed admin. For your information, and to the best of my knowledge, if a photo says this:
- Caption: Marine Corps Special Operations troops fast rope to a rooftop at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in May 2006, from a Block B MV-22B Osprey operated by Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22). US Navy photo by James Darcy.
Date of Photo: 06 Aug 2010 Filename: 5-24-06 2nd fast rope 1 sm.jpg
- It means the US Navy i.e. the US Federal government owns copyright. You can contact the NAVAIR public affairs office to confirm photo status or you can consult with your attorney. As I wrote before, I thought of this situation this morning and contacted an admin. Mary Ash 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish to email a user you can click 'E-mail this user' at the end of the left side bar whilst visiting their talk page.
- I think it is very important that I clarify something. I am not an administrator on Citizendium. You may have seen the word 'Administrator' under my name on the forum, this is because I have administrative permissions on the forums in order to perform certain technical functions.
- If you wish to contact an official on the site, I would suggest either contacting Larry Sanger who is the Editor-in-Chief (sanger@citizendium.org), unless the matter refers to an issue with the behaviour of a Citizen. In the latter case you should contact the Constabulary (constables@citizendium.org). For a legal or copyright issue such as this the Editor-in-Chief is the correct person to email. --Chris Key 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Help:Index/Formatting/Links/External
I noticed on Help:Index/Map that Help:Index/Formatting/Links/External has not yet been written. Would you like me to take a shot at that? Milton Beychok 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Chris. I'm waiting for a yea or nay from you about writing a help article on external links, Thanks, Milton Beychok 17:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Milt, I was sure I had replied. It would be most helpful if you would write that help article. Thanks once again for your help! --Chris Key 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, I just finished Help:Index/Formatting/Links/External and loaded it into the Help Namespace. Hope you like it. That's three of such articles and I think I will take a break from them for awhile. Milton Beychok 05:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Milt that looks great! Thanks to you the help system is coming along nicely. --Chris Key 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Scientific and educational games
Hi Chris,
would you be interested in writing articles about such games, e.g. Foldit and The Number Race? I can provide input on the science behind them. --Daniel Mietchen 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd add the question -- what about military training simulations, which often look like first-person or team shooter games?
- Even more complex are the psychosocial dynamics of remote killing. Air Force officers variously go to the Officers' Club at a base in Nevada and play shooter games, or go to a different building and control armed drones in Afghanistan. They then go home for the evening.
- Ender's Game, anyone? Except...Ender would have to know the Bugs were real. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in writing articles on both types of game, and would certainly appreciate any collaboration you could provide. I'll try to start one over the next week. --Chris Key 08:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Green banner at top of Help articles
Chris: I think it would be very helpful if that green banner included links to Help:Index and to Help:Index/Map. Milton Beychok 21:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that we need to keep the green banner clear of clutter and taking up as little space as possible. I think it would be best if links to Help:Index were provided on the sidebar, the quick start page and in the welcome message sent to new users. Help:Index/Map is linked to from Help:Index. --Chris Key 08:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Chris
Congratulations upon being made a Constable, Chris. Milton Beychok 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats Chris! I'm new here but I know you earned it. Good luck in your new position. Mary Ash 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks both! --Chris Key 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Image:Russian Blue 001.gif has been re-instated
Since Mary Ash did not contact the real owner of the image after I gave her the contact email address I had managed to find, I contacted the real owner myself and got the information and permission that was needed. I have now corrected the image file and put it back in the Russian Blue article. This is the original photo of a male cat (not the second photo of a kitten which has now been deleted). Milton Beychok 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the Warm Welcome
I'm looking forward to know more about the Citizendium community. I'll start contributing after I read the policies. Nicole Willson 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
About new user Brian Kelly - UKOLN
Chris, why was that new user's name confirmed? I don't believe we have allowed the addition of an organizational acronym to a user's name before. Should this not be discussed with Matt Innis for advice? Milton Beychok 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was my mistake, I hadn't noticed the addition. I have already contacted Matt asking him to change it. --Chris Key 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please remove this article
Hey! Chris. I don't know the Citizendium policy for article removal, but I sure would appreciate the removal of this article from the Citizendium database. I found the article attached with my full name while Googling this morning. Yes, I do a quick check once in awhile to see what's going on with my name. Any way, I sure would appreciate this draft article being removed, if possible. Thanks! Article: [[ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object/Mary_Ash]]Mary Ash 17:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments
Chris, I have just written a new article and the title will be Smog when I upload it into the article namespace. It is currently in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox.
I know that you are probably not an expert on the subject. However, I would very much appreciate your review of it and giving me any comments, additions, deletions, typo corrections, or revisions you care to offer on my sandbox talk page. I am fairly sure that there must be some parts which could be better written from the viewpoint of clarity and understanding.
Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, can you fix my goof?
Chris, I just revised and re-uploaded Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg so as to get the formatting into the current form with a credit line ... but it didn't work. Can you somehow revert my revision and go back to the the image format as it it was before I tried to fix it? I don't want to delete it because that might offend David Ellis who originally uploaded it from Commons.
Meanwhile, I am going to upload the latest version from Commons (which has a different name). Milton Beychok 19:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I got it. D. Matt Innis 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Away
I am away from yesterday until the 20th September. My internet access during this time is extremely limited and quite slow. I apologise if I am slow replying to messages or emails. --Chris Key 17:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Why does test wiki announce that voting on the Charter starts on the 15th and the real wiki does not?
Is it true that we start voting on the 15th? If so, why isn't that announced on the real wiki as well as the test wiki? Milton Beychok 18:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. It is just a test of the announcement template, hence why it is on the test wiki. --Chris Key 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the CZ Welcome page?
The Welcome page has a big white space in the left column (of the two column set-up) and the New Draft of the Week in the right column goes on and on and on ... way beyond what is ever has done before this.
Is someone playing around with it? Looking at the History doesn't seem to explain what happened. Milton Beychok 08:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason: Editing the article changed the "NDotW"-markup. I added markup. To me, this proves that the page should not be transcluded. Instead an edited excerpt should be used. --Peter Schmitt 12:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Chris, what were the two other votes?
Hi, Chris: 65 yes, 5 no and 2 revise accounts for 72 of the 74 votes. Just to satisfy my curiosity, what were the other 2 votes? Milton Beychok 05:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see that too. I think it might be a typo. Russell D. Jones 13:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I got it, in case you have seen it earlier, there were two votes at the bottom of the page that were not votes, but were test emails that were accidently counted with the "total" filter (removed the other filters) when counting the emails. I've fixed it on the banner and in the forum. D. Matt Innis 13:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you get my email?
Hi, Chris: Please check your email and see if you received the email I sent you last night. Thanks, Milton Beychok 17:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Milt. No, I'm sorry but I did not get the email. Try sending it directly to ckey35 AT yahoo DOT com --Chris Key 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you get my email?
Hi, Chris: Please check your email and see if you received the email I sent you last night. Thanks, Milton Beychok 18:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Milt. No, I'm sorry but I did not get the email. Try sending it directly to ckey35 AT yahoo DOT com --Chris Key 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- It happened again. I re-sent my nominations for the EC and again I failed to receive my copy. Is there something wrong with User:Editorial Council?? Milton Beychok 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Still no copy of my nominations for the Editorial Council. Have you checked User:Editorial Council?? Milton Beychok 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Milt, I just checked the email for User:Editorial Council and there is nothing from you in there. Please, try it again. D. Matt Innis 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, I just tried a third time ... and it finally worked. What was the problem? Milton Beychok 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know for sure. Last night, Ruth had the same trouble with that account and I checked the preferences and the email feature was disabled. I checked it today when I saw this, but it was okay. Did you do it last night? D. Matt Innis 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Matt, my first two tries were last night. The third try was about 5:30 pm PST today. Milton Beychok 01:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, then that's what it was. When I created the account, the default is supposed to be "Allow others to email me", but this account was set otherwise. I fixed it last night, but it must have been after you emailed the 2nd time and I didn't see this until this evening. All should be fine now. D. Matt Innis 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Formatting the four nomination lists in alphabetical order
Chris, some of the four lists are completely in alphabetical order and some are not. I think it only fair that they all be in alphabetic order. Can you please do that? Milton Beychok 04:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Seems Matt hadn't noticed when he added in the new ones. --Chris Key 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, of course, will do from now on! D. Matt Innis 11:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)