Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! -- MarcoTolo 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the excellent 1913 image of Davies by Coburn - I had run out of luck in the UK. What a coincidence - I had only recently requested permission from NYPL by email, haha. A great improvement to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the image of Ina Coolbrith as a youngster. Marvelous! I wonder, though, how you know when this image was published. What publication showed it? When? Otherwise, it could have been in private hands until digitized by the Online Archive of California, in which case it is not public domain. I have been slowly prepping this article for WP:GAN, and all the images must be in order. Thanks again for that moody and beautiful image! Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See John Hancock for an example of how signatures generally appear in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Redrose64/Sandbox6 - yours above, mine below. BTW I watch all talk pages where I leave a question/comment, so you can reply here; I find that it's best to keep a thread all in one place. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additions! I hope to see some William Keith paintings at St. Mary's College in a few months, and look forward to expanding the article then. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You'll have to ask St. Mary's College to digitize some of their paintings so they can share them on Wikipedia... Scewing (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I chase vandals away from the Susan B. Anthony article, I say to myself, "wow, what a beautiful photograph!" Thank you so much for finding and uploading it. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For adding the excellent new photo and infobox to William H. Prescott, I hereby award you this barnstar. It's improved the article to no end. Claritas (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting the Mary Engle Pennington article. I'm intending to clean it up a bit, and was wondering if there are other articles you started based on material from the 1914-1915 edition of 'Woman's who's who of America'. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Related to the above, I notice that you have created at least one other article using public domain text. That's not at all a problem, but I did want to let you know that the community consensus on importing public domain text is that we have to explicitly note that content is copied. This is addressed specifically at Wikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources). (I'm certainly not suggesting you have plagiarized here; you've noted your sources scrupulously. It's just that the current Wikipedia approach is that citing your source is not quite enough to mark that some or all of the article's content may be public domain. This can be important in part to avoid inadvertent copyfraud. Wikipedia's content is copyrighted, and we can't claim new copyright on public domain text.)
If copying a small amount into a larger work, block quotes work well, but when establishing an article as this one and Clement Finley, the attribution template is probably the best approach. We have a whole lot of these at Category:Attribution templates. I've gone ahead and added templates to Clement Finley and Mary Engle Pennington. If there are other articles into which you've imported content, please pick whichever template seems best. And please let me know if you have any questions about the process. I'll be watching your talk page for a time, as I typically keep conversations in one place. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance that you could find a half-decent daguerreotype of James K. Polk, or Richard Mentor Johnson? I've also been searching for John L. Helm with no luck. If you could help with any of these, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Connormahtalk 17:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look here for an old Polk, Collection 784 for JLH, and maybe request a high resolution copy of this RMJ engraving. Good Luck!
Any others for Polk? Just wondering if there's anything else out there other than what we already have in his Commons category already. Also, for JLH, I've email the Filson, but I've received no reply. Perhaps you could search in your usual sources for these types of photos (I've tried everything, all with no luck), with Johnson and al george M. Dallas (another I've had trouble with) also? Thanks. Connormahtalk 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say "excellent work" on your updated version of the main image at Nathaniel Hawthorne. Well done. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Bernard, check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You can click twice to get full resolutions like this. For Gauss, there's some images here. Couldn't find anything for Avogadro. Hope this helps. Scewing (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, much appreciated! Connormah (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bug, but could you also maybe look for a photographic portrait of Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac if possible (if they even exist)? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any photographic images of Gay-Lussac exist, but there's a few addional engravings here and here. Sorry! Scewing (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I guess the same would go for Gauss? Connormah (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing. Just happened upon your page again and saw this thread. The image of John Gadbury at the site you have linked [1] seems far superior to the one currently used in his article. Is it freely available for use? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So, I just copy ot across into Commons? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123, it should in the public domain because of it's age, so you should be safe, but I am in no means a copyright expert. Connormah (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Murdoch died before the first portrait photograph was taken in November 1839, but I found a decent photo of Biot, and I uploaded 14 other new or larger/improved images. Hope this helps. Scewing (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to ask something again, but I've been looking for quite some time for a photographic portrait that is useable of Theodore Dwight Woolsey - any chance you can lend a hand? Connormah (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can have one for $60!... I'll look around for something Scewing (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting one, the name seems to be completely wrong given the utter lack of any google hits. The number of medals and their type suggests there would be mentions of him somewhere. The ones I can identify and was hoping to tie together to one person are commandeur of the Légion d'honneur (the front medal around his neck), the Crimea Medal (British medal with clasps second from the right of image), the British Order of the Bath (large rectangular ribbon second from left on ribbon bar). It all suggests he was prominent in the Second French Empire, not one of my areas of expertise I'm afraid. It has me intrigued so I will keep trying to identify some of the other ones... Regards, Woody (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that he has served in the Imperial Guard of either Napoleon I or III, the Aiguillette on his right shoulder was only worn by present or ex members of the Imperial Guard at this time. Carl Logan (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I see you've added an image to Timothy Shay Arthur - I got curious and started googling, and I found a photographic portrair of him, here - it's pretty bad quality, is there any chance that you can find a better quality version? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing; I want to let you know that I started this article today, especially in response to your having added these Winslow Homer images to the commons. Thanks, JNW (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! Thanks for the heads up. Scewing (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The version you have added is very high res. However, if the painting has been cleaned, which it appears to have been, then the colouring of the smaller version is more accurate. This cannot be fixed by running an automatic digital adjustment. It needs to be done very carefully, preferably by someone whose colour balance is very well adjusted and who can look at the original.
If this isn't possible, I could have a fiddle with it. Don't save anything over your original upload which will contain more fine detail than any adjusted version. Amandajm (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make any adjustments whatsoever to the image posted by the National Gallery of Art here.
I didn't mean to suggest that you had already adjusted it.
To my eye, the tiny spots of reflected light on the crazing of the surface, and the white strips of gesso on the outer edge both look yellowish, rather than true white. This confirms that the whole image is just a little more yellow than the painting is in reality. (rather than the yellowing being a sign of old varnish or candlesmoke as is common to uncleaned paintings)
I'll see if I can make a slight adjustment for this, and put it up separately. Haven't got time right now!
Keep a watch on your image, because there are is a Commons editor who persistently runs auto-colour-adjusts on things and then uploads the ghastly mess over the original in the misguided belief that the computer gets it right. Amandajm (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I haven't seen the original image, so I don't have much to compare to. I'm surprised the NGA would scan and post a discolored image at such a high resolution! Any adjustments you make that would accurately reflect the true vision of the painting would be much appreciated! Scewing (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scewing, could you help me out again? The colored photo of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil that you colorized is almost perfect. There are 2 small issues (I believe):
1) His left hand color does not match his face or his other hand which is hidden beneath his cloth.
2) A small piece of the photo at the top was cut off. Could you fix it?
If you accept my request, know that there is no hurry. Once you're done with both, I'll add both to the article. Thanks again, and a lot. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scewing, there is a discussion involving one of your photos here. Your input is welcome. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't copy whole slabs straight from a different source. The source is your reference, but if you copy directly without the inverted commas, it is plagiarism.
Those who happen to be familiar with the self-portrait of a year or so earlier, belonging to Henry C. Frick, will find a comparison of the moods of that picture and our work an interesting one. This is very obviously copied directly from another source.
Public Domain sources & attributed. Not plagiarism Scewing (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't talk to the reader as if they were an audience.
Give the article a proper name! Every artist who has ever painted has done at least one self portrait, and Rembrandt did numerous. You can't call any article "Self portrait", even if you give it a date! It needs to include the artist's name and an identifying feature eg. "Rembrandt: Self Portrait in a Black Hat" (1660)" or "Rembrandt: Self Portrait 1660 (Washington)" (or whatever). If you don't give the article a better name, no-one will find it.
I'm still not sure about the name. I think the inclusion of the "Altman" is a good way to go, but bracketting it with Rembrandt is not a good idea. It would be better to have "Rembrandt self portrait (Altman)", because of the greater importance of the artist, and the fact that this is the way that your readers will locate it. Amandajm (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to bed! I've just realised it's nearly 3.00AM and I'm nearly frozen to my perch. Over and Out! Amandajm (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing, any chance you could do the same and generally cleanup this image: File:Landis portrait.png? It'll be used in an upcoming FAC, and I'm sure that the article's principal author, User:Wehwalt will greatly appreciate it. Connormah (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hopefully it helps the article! Scewing (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for your cleanup of the Landis image. I know such work isn't easy and thank you for doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing, could you do John A. Macdonald's signature, from here? I tried, but I couldn't come up with anything decent (I usually trace with the pen, it doesn't quite work as well with varying pen pressures..etc) Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Swamis surf break, encinitas.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Swamis surf break, encinitas.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scewing! Since you are an excelent graphic editor, I'd like to ask your opinion about something. I'm right now writing about Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a 19th century Brazilian military hero. Some of the sources say that he had brown eyes and other say that he had blue eyes. How is that possible, I have no idea. There is a close-up photograph of him (here) that could help. There is also a painting based on this photograph that seems to portray him with blue eyes (here). With your experience, which one you believe is the correct answer? Did he had blue or brown eyes? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Authority control, the tags go on the articles next to the PERSONDATA, not on the talk page. Can you fix these, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can find a hi res version of this photo of Mark Hanna by W. J. Root, Chicago, 1896? I'm going to upload a close up (all I could find of decent resolution), but a full version would be preferable. Thanks in advance. – Connormah (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find a higher resolution online. You may want to contact the website that posted the image, they have a contact page here. The only hi-res photo of Hanna I found was at the Library of Congress here. Also, Archive.org has a book about Hanna with illustrations such as portraits from 1864, 1871, and 1901. Scewing (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Austrian School economists -- suggestions[edit]
Scewing, there is nothing wrong with your actual edits to List of Austrian School economists except for the fact you do not provide edit summaries and you mark many of them as minor. The WP:ES helps your fellow editors figure out what is going on with particular edits. The WP:ME has various criteria, and some of your edits go beyond those criteria. Thanks for considering this word to the wise. --S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. In the future, I'll be sure to provide more detailed edit summaries. Scewing (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 5[edit]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scewing! I did a DYK review of this new article, which I liked. Quite a bit of it is taken from the David Octavius Hill article and from one of the sources. That's OK after everything is attributed properly, but I've realized that the remaining length probably won't meet the 1500 character requirement for "original prose" (see Wikipedia:Did_you_know). For this reason I'm planning to change my recommendation to a negative one, but I didn't want to surprise you with it. Best, Easchiff (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to know more about the letter which you have added to the entry on Tom Sayers -- which is very largely my work. I wrote a book about the Sayers-Heenan fight, and had always understood that Sayers was illiterate. Not quite, it seems. What information do you have on the letter?
Iain07 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1859 Tom Sayers Handwritten Signed Letter Accepting Heenan Fight. Though the prizefighting world has been populated with shady characters and dirty dealings throughout the entirely of its history, puritanical forces had rendered professional fisticuffs illegal and driven the sport deep underground in the mid-nineteenth century, where it was virtually ignored by "polite society." But the public imagination of both sides of the Atlantic was captured when word of a meeting between British Heavyweight Champion Tom Sayers and American Heavyweight Champion John C. Heenan caught wind. The Times in London reported, " this challenge has led to an amount of attention being bestowed on the prize ring which it has never received before," while The New York Clipper pronounced, " Whate'er we do, where'er we be, fight, fight, fight is the topic that engrosses all attention."
Presented is one of the most historically significant pugilistic artifacts ever made available for public sale, the British Champion's handwritten acceptance to the terms of what boxing historians consider to be the sport's first World Championship. We see the evidence of Sayers' poverty-stricken upbringing in a Brighton slum in his childlike scrawl, transcribed without editing:
Dear Sir, I aksep yor Chalang tue fite without gloves oktuber 24. Yrs. truly Thomas Sayers. staiks £500 a side, J.C. Heenan Esq.
Vocal efforts to halt the lawless proceedings were overcome, and the feverishly anticipated contest was waged in a Farnborough meadow in Hampshire on the morning of April 17, 1860. Despite conceding forty pounds and five inches to the American, and injuring his right arm early in the bout, Sayers appeared to slowly gain traction, bloodying Heenan's face and closing his right eye. But after more than forty rounds, Heenan appeared to gain the upper hand as he choked Sayers against the top rope, causing the crowd (populated by the likes of Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Thomas Nast and various aristocrats and members of Parliament) to cut the ropes and spill into the ring as the police moved in to bring a halt to the contest. The English and the American spectators continued the battle in the form of heated debates over which fighter had held the advantage, though England's authoritative Saturday Review later let down its nationalistic guard when it wrote, " We are not without our suspicions that the ring would have been better kept if the English Champion had been fighting a manifestly winning battle."
The 4.25x6" page is heavily creased with scattered stains and chipping, but the writing survives with remarkable boldness. Included with the letter is an August 14, 1965 clipped article from London's The Daily Telegraph which pictures the letter along with this letter to the editor:
Sir--In view of your report of the theft of the Champion of England belt from the Sporting Club, Regent Street, the original letter (above) of acceptance of the challenge written to T.C. Heenan, Esq. may be of interest. The letter provokes a mental picture of the writer's tongue protruding with the effort of putting pen to paper. It was found among the papers left by Dr. Robert Clarke, of Settle, Yorkshire. Clarke was a collector of old letters of note and famous signatures. Yours faithfully, T.G.D. Burgess. Fairlight, Sussex.
Also here is Mr. Burgess' copy of the letter mailed to The Daily Telegraph, and the August 11, 1965 reply from the editor's secretary which accompanied the Sayers letter when it was returned to the owner by mail. Both PSA/DNA and James Spence believe this piece to be authentic, but are unable to issue paperwork due to an absence of exemplars. Scewing (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Most helpful. I might try to follow this up. It tells me something about Tom Sayers that I simply didn't know. Iain07 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing, there is a discussion concerning one of your images which was removed from the article. Just wanted to let you know.
Btw, would you like me to setup archiving for this talk page? I notice that it is getting lengthy. :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can look for a photo of John Hutt? Surely there must be something (he died in 1880). Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can look for Littleton Waller Tazewell as well? Surely there must be a daguerreotype or another portrait of him out there... thanks. – Connormah (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Divvy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Daley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The photo of the daguerreotype that you added to this article looks questionable and may not be the actress. You can compare it to other photos of the real Jean Margaret Davenport. ThanksKoplimek (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Game of Thrones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nielsen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
In case you don't have it under surveillance, this is to alert you that I recently reverted your image swap in the Henry Fox Talbot article.
Surprised to see the very rare (and to my eyes very pleasing) 1840s urban view gone, I investigated and found that the replacement is a ringer. According to the Bonhams catalog listing, "Nikolaas Henneman ... was responsible for printing ... from albumenised glass plate negatives and calotype paper negatives by Claude Marie Ferrier and Hugh Owen respectively." In other words, Talbot was not the photographer, nor did he make the prints. The portfolio is simply one of the fifteen copies given to him in lieu of payment of patent license fees. In fact, the salted paper prints made from glass plate negatives, rather than from calotype paper negatives, cannot properly be called calotypes at all, even though the portfolio itself apparently lumps everything together under that name.
The three uploaded images are certainly valuable contributions both visually and historically, but the attributions need correction. AVarchaeologist (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gordon (slave), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Slavery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
]s.<ref name="Slavery">"[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156 Historical survey> Slave-owning societies]". ''Encyclopædia Britannica. ''</ref> Prehistoric graves from about 8000
widely distributed.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24159 Historical survey> The international slave trade]. ''Encyclopædia Britannica. ''</ref><ref>[http://www.
serfs earlier in 1679.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160 Historical survey> Ways of ending slavery]. ''Encyclopædia Britannica. ''</ref> [[Russian Empire|Russia]]'s more than
into a female-dominated one.<ref>"[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24175 Agriculture> Slave protest]". Encyclopædia Britannica.</ref> The [[Social classes of Tibet|Nangzan]] in [[Tibet]
trade.<ref name="Brit">[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157 Historical survey> Slave societies]. ''Encyclopædia Britannica. ''</ref> The maritime town of [[Lagos, Portugal|Lagos]
[[File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg|thumb|right|Photographed in 1863 – Peter, aka [[
* Sydnor, Charles S. ''Slavery in Mississippi'' (1933
Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pierrot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nadar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scewing, I have nominatedEl Greco's (self-)portrait for Featured picture. You're the user who has uploaded the current version of the image on September 20, 2013. Can you please indicate the direct source of it? Your edit summary says "Higher resolution color correct version from original source". The only source provided at the file page is this. --Երևանցիtalk 14:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your edit at Frank Lloyd Wright. It appears that this template does not support the signature parameter. I imagine some of the other templates you're adding the images to don't support it either. If your any good with templates, it should be easy to add. -- John Reaves 22:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing, I see you replaced the colour image in the Frederick Robson article with a b+w one. Is there a reason? The previous image was from a private portrait in the possession of his family, and put there with their permission. There's nothing wrong with the one you've put in its place, but it doesn't seem immediately superior to what was there already. (And I will admit I really liked the portrait, it's a sensitive face.)RLamb (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No particular reason, feel free to switch it back! Scewing (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, I sweated blood getting that colour image accepted by the Wikicommons editors. The portrait-owner practically had to sign his life away. Am I okay to keep your picture elsewhere on the page, or will that be considered excessive illustration for a small article?RLamb (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, great work on the article. I'd just remove my image from the page, but add a Commons Category link. Cheers! Scewing (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your correction of the date of the image. Can I trouble you to pass along to me your source? It may help in correcting other specious dates in "my" pages. With much gratitude--Beebuk 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
We have begun a discussion at [[2]] regarding your edit to the Poe article. Would you be willing to join the conversation? Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
clash with other peoples' (in a [[C (programming language)|C]] world) ...in fact I used HT for them)".<ref>{{cite web|last=Berners-Lee|first=Tim|title=I am Tim Berners-Lee. I invented the WWW 25
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Scourged Back requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Scewing. Thank you for your recent contributions to List of breweries in Illinois. I just re-added All Rise, Arcade, Vice District, and Aleman to the article, with this edit. Here are a few points of interest about all this: (1) For the footnotes for the individual breweries, we want to use third-party sources. So, we're not using the breweries' own webpages as references, and anyway those might be considered a form of citation spam. I believe that was why IronGargoyle objected to those entries. There's a discussion about this at Talk:List of breweries in Illinois#Notability, and links. So I found appropriate references for those four entries when I put them back. (2) The main "Breweries" table lists breweries in the sense of actual physical locations where beer is brewed. Some beer companies don't operate their own breweries, and those are listed in the "Other beer companies" section of the article. If they later open their own brewery, they can be moved from there into the table, as was done recently with Ale Syndicate. Since the Aleman brewery is not up and running yet, I put them into the "Other beer companies" section instead of the "Breweries" table. Feel free to discuss this further at Talk:List of breweries in Illinois#Other beer companies. (3) Note also that to be listed in the article, a brewery or beer company must actually be up and running, and selling beer commercially -- see Talk:List of breweries in Illinois#Planned breweries for more on this subject. Anyway, thanks again for your help with the article. There are a lot of breweries, or beer companies as the case may be, that are starting up in Illinois these days, and it's hard to keep track of them all, which is a good thing of course. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Nose (El Capitan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scewing. Any chance you could work your magic and get the high res of this daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams? It would work well for a lead image I think. Connormah (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carte de visite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you,
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filled out the form! Thanks for your efforts. Scewing (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scewing: Regarding your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Jiffy mix, I kept market share percentages out of the hook because including such is a little too promotional to be included on Main page, in my opinion. Also, as worded, the hook mentions a significant market share without stating how much, which can serve to create intrigue for readers to read more at the article, which is a part of what hooks are intended to do. North America1000 00:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calotypes and salt prints in Hill & Adamson article[edit]
Hi, Scewing. Lately, I've found myself doing battle with the widespread confusion of Talbot's calotype and salted paper processes. I corrected, or so I at first thought, an instance of it in the Hill & Adamson article, which I see that you founded and largely wrote, but I self-reverted after contemplating the context more carefully. The meaning of the passage in question is unclear. It is: "Their partnership produced around 3000 prints, but was cut short after only four years due to the ill health and untimely death of Adamson in 1848. The calotypes faded under sunlight, so had to be kept in albums ..." If the latter sentence refers to the prints, it should be "prints" or "salt prints", not "calotypes", but now it seems more probable that "3000 prints" should actually be "3000 photographs" or "3000 calotypes", since the portraits for the group painting alone presumably number into the mid-hundreds and 3000 prints is a very improbably small output of salt prints during five years. On the other hand, a developed-out calotype, unless not hypo-fixed or incompletely washed after fixing, should be far more resistant to deterioration, especially due to exposure to light, than a printed-out salt print, so the statement about keeping them in albums—presumably, original negatives would not be left lying around in the open in any case—then seems odd. Can you clarify? AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After belatedly checking the Robert Adamson (photographer) article, it is clear that "3000 prints" is a misstatement, but the business about keeping calotypes in albums is still somewhat of a head-scratcher. I gladly leave the needed correction(s) to you, but will change "3000 prints" to "3000 different photographs" and probably change "the calotypes" to "the prints" if no reply and no action after a few days. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the diligence. You're clearly much more educated than me on these matters, so please feel free to edit as you see fit. Keep up the good work! Scewing (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I made the planned correction to the "3000 prints" error, but ended up deleting the statement about fading and albums—the source cited by that paragraph is inaccessible, so no way of finding out what was intended—and tightened up the ill-composed statements that immediately followed. Cheers! AVarchaeologist (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning - Restoring unreliable sources at Brooke Baldwin[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Brooke Baldwin. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't threaten to block me for one edit I made back in February. Anyone looking at my edit history will see that I'm a valuable contributor to wikipedia. Also, the edit in question was properly sourced. If you contact me again in this manner I will report you for harrassment. Scewing (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Scewing, I am trying to find the origin of this picture of Gustave Doré by Nadar. A comment on the file you uploaded links to the art Institute of Chicago, but this is not exactly the same image: the one posted on Commons was modified in between (framing, contrast). Do you remember if you found this image on another website, or if you modified it yourself? This edit dates back to 2010 so I understand this is very far, but any hint will help! Thanks, Seeris (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Seeris, it looks like I downloaded the photo from Art Institute Chicago, and then cropped and modified the image in GIMP. Hope that helps! Scewing (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination of Abraham Lincoln image ("Trial of conspirators in Lincoln's assassination")[edit]
Hi, Thank you for adding the image of the "Trial of conspirators in Lincoln's assassination". I looked closely at it, and it seems to be a drawing, and not a photograph, perhaps contributed by two photographers. Could you please look into it, and reword the caption to be more clear about what it is? Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Hello, Scewing. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Scewing. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Scewing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Arnold Rothstein.jpg. 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).
Sailing Hawks is a bouldering area but it contains no notable boulders (e.g. Midnight Lightning or Dreamtime), and I have never seen any WP:SIGCOV on the area by the climbing media per WP:NCLIMB unlike with the world-famous bouldering locations of Rocklands, South Africa or with The Buttermilks. Article would never make it through AfC today. Not a notable bouldering area.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
wikimedia.org.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Slavery may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
![[1]](http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/hst/scientific-identity/fullsize/SIL14-G001-02a.jpg){kind=link}
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Brooke Baldwin. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:19th-century English photographers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
