User talk:Edmund Patrick/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wikimania 2010 Oxford bid
Thank you for supporting the Oxford bid to hold Wikimania 2010! We're currently in the final stages of the bid process - the jury will be announcing their decision by the 16th April. We're currently putting together the local team for the bid (who will do what if the bid wins); if you're able to be on the local team, please put your name in the appropriate place on m:Wikimania 2010/Bids/Oxford/Team. We'd also welcome anything you can do to help refine the bid in these last few days. If you have any questions, please let me or User:Seddon know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Greeting
Eebahgum (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Keep up the good work Eebahgum (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
1190 pogrom in Bury St Edmunds
Hi Mr. Patrick, why did you remove the entry? I have seen both 20 Mar and Palm Sunday 17 or 18 March given as the dates for the murders. As for the street, I have seen both Hatter and Heathenis. In any case, the usual response to ambiguity is to keep the item and to put in a "Citation needed". In the meantime I am looking for good references. Also, I will be linking the item to similar massacres at York and elsewhere that year. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, I removed the paragraph as it was (is?) contentious statement without references.It is a very important part of the history of the town (and country, Bury St Edmunds being very early in evicting) but dates and numbers do need to be referenced. I will also look to see if I can ref anything. This may take a little while, at the moment trying to improve Mathew Hopkins. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Roger that.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
| WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April. |  |
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sybil Andrews images
Hi Mr. Patrick,
As I had not heard from you via email (sent through your En account) I have had the images in question deleted per the request of the Glenbow Museum who does indeed appear to own the copyright as transfered via Ms. Andrews will. I have uploaded a low resolution version of the Michaelmas image on En so that it can be used on the article and have replaced it there. If you have questions or concerns please feel free to get ahold of me either on my talk page here, on Meta or via the Email User function. If in the end I was in the wrong images can always be restored from the system. I'll leave a copy of this note on your En page and send you another email. Again, please let me know if you have any questions. James (T C) 17:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Dear Jamesofur, many thanks for the email I have yet to receive your first one, hence no reply. I thought the images were low res that I had uploaded, if you have lowered it I have no problem as long as people can see her style and type of work. As to copyright I will bring that one up with the management at some point we also have a very large collection of her original work. This will be when we all have the time etc to research the subject. Interesting thought I know of private collectors and a gallery that also have, like us, the original of that particular print (she normally printed 60 - 65) I wonder if they think they have the copyright as well? Murky waters that I personally do not want to go into, the lawyers would have a field day I am sure. As I said as long as the general public can see her amazing craft, skill and vision I am happy for any resolution. Thanks for your care and attention, Yours Edmund Patrick – confer 18:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- dear JamesofOr, hope all is well. I will have to talk to people very soon after discovering all the gallery had gone through copyright issues. No problem with that wiki has always got to err on the right side of the law, whatever type it is. We do though publish a very successful book with those images in and so I will ask for it all to be checked out. Out of interest would you like to be kept informed.Edmund Patrick – confer 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- sorry JamesofOr, (Ijust knew something like this could happen!) can you direct me to the proof of the copyright ownership of Sybil Andrews; Banner of St Edmund 1930 - 1975 Silk embroidered on linen.jpg as the people who commissioned it and own it would like to know. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No reason to apologize, the claim from the Glenbow Museum is that Ms. Andrews transfered copyright to them (for all works) in her will. Usually the artist retains copyright even when they sell their work and so control the image unless of course they specifically transfer that copyright to the new owner (though this is of course a common issue because people understandably believe they have a right to use the artwork they purchased). I do not have a copy of the will but I would be more then happy to get you in touch with the person in charge of this at the Museum. The deletion was done mostly to be safe, the legal reasoning and claims are sound (assuming the copyright was indeed transfered) but if it ends up that someone else owns the copyright for those (or some of those) images I am more then happy to restore them. It is understandable that you guys would want to settle this out and make sure everyone knows what is what, it is possible that the person who commissioned the work did indeed get copyright transfered to him (if they still have the contract they may want to bring it out, that should say). I should do the little "I am not a lawyer" note, this is something that I am more then happy to give you my thoughts on as a volunteer but may be something you want to contact a professional on in the end. If you could perhaps email me either through the Email User system or through the OTRS system (send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let me know I'll go grab it). I'll forward you the information of the person in charge there who I have been working with. James (T C) 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, leave it as it is at the moment I will contact those who own various works, if they believe there is a problem I will get back to you, there may in the end not be one; but as you say best to get it sorted. oh the joys of Wikipedia, I love it. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- sorry about the name change Ur to Or not sure what i was thinking of! Edmund Patrick – confer 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- No reason to apologize, the claim from the Glenbow Museum is that Ms. Andrews transfered copyright to them (for all works) in her will. Usually the artist retains copyright even when they sell their work and so control the image unless of course they specifically transfer that copyright to the new owner (though this is of course a common issue because people understandably believe they have a right to use the artwork they purchased). I do not have a copy of the will but I would be more then happy to get you in touch with the person in charge of this at the Museum. The deletion was done mostly to be safe, the legal reasoning and claims are sound (assuming the copyright was indeed transfered) but if it ends up that someone else owns the copyright for those (or some of those) images I am more then happy to restore them. It is understandable that you guys would want to settle this out and make sure everyone knows what is what, it is possible that the person who commissioned the work did indeed get copyright transfered to him (if they still have the contract they may want to bring it out, that should say). I should do the little "I am not a lawyer" note, this is something that I am more then happy to give you my thoughts on as a volunteer but may be something you want to contact a professional on in the end. If you could perhaps email me either through the Email User system or through the OTRS system (send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let me know I'll go grab it). I'll forward you the information of the person in charge there who I have been working with. James (T C) 18:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- sorry JamesofOr, (Ijust knew something like this could happen!) can you direct me to the proof of the copyright ownership of Sybil Andrews; Banner of St Edmund 1930 - 1975 Silk embroidered on linen.jpg as the people who commissioned it and own it would like to know. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Para duplication apologies
Just a joke while editing,I'm not really up on editing parlance, just occasionally attempt to tidy the obvious typo.
Now I have discovered it to be a Wicca-orientated hostility generated on debate re: B.'s contribution to Bury Trial and can understand where it's coming from, no problem now ! Norwikian (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just got hold of Malcolm Gaskill's Witchfinders, with a view to getting Matthew Hopkins up to at least GA spec. I don't want to step on your toes though, so any objections if I dive in? Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome, dive in both you and I know what monsters can lurk there. It will be great to have company I cannot see the woods for the trees! I will try to cross reference anything you do as there are some very strange biographies out there as you know. Thanks, have fun. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- in ref to strange books look at page 334 (notes) note58! Edmund Patrick – confer 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean. I've got a couple of other things on my plate before I can start any serious work, like the man who was hanged twice and survived, but hopefully I can make a start on this next week. One initial question: are you wedded to that Cultural references section? A similar issue came up with Guy Fawkes, which I think was solved rather neatly by spinning it out into a separate article. Any thoughts on that? Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- now that you have asked; my list at the moment is: motivation needs a better title, move some of the legal to it, explain the lack of proper juducial structure in legal section, expand torture and expand opposition. Cultural ref in Guy Fawkes looks very good, leaves a historic knowledgeable article un cluttered and provides the cultural referneces elsewhere for those researching that. Nothing wrong with it at all.Edmund Patrick – confer 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the structure of the article does need some work; that Motivation section for instance. How can anyone ever really know Hopkins' motivation? I think one of the things missing right now is a clear explanation of the social and political background of 1645, before we dive into the main story. There's a tension as well, between telling this as a biography and telling it like a series of witch trials. Other than his witch hunting, which occupied a year or so towards the end of his life, very little is known about Hopkins, so I'm not sure the biographical format is the best. Needs some thought. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- now that you have asked; my list at the moment is: motivation needs a better title, move some of the legal to it, explain the lack of proper juducial structure in legal section, expand torture and expand opposition. Cultural ref in Guy Fawkes looks very good, leaves a historic knowledgeable article un cluttered and provides the cultural referneces elsewhere for those researching that. Nothing wrong with it at all.Edmund Patrick – confer 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean. I've got a couple of other things on my plate before I can start any serious work, like the man who was hanged twice and survived, but hopefully I can make a start on this next week. One initial question: are you wedded to that Cultural references section? A similar issue came up with Guy Fawkes, which I think was solved rather neatly by spinning it out into a separate article. Any thoughts on that? Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- in ref to strange books look at page 334 (notes) note58! Edmund Patrick – confer 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia can be so frustrating. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know I glanced at it at work, as long as reason prevails. (that's my reason obviously)!! Edmund Patrick – confer 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Your message
Your message is much appreciated. I do follow what goes on here, but I found that Proverbs 12:23. Hope you're in the pink! Best regards Eebahgum (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)