YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Stavp"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
m (copy permission)
(Too many Bismarcks)
Line 41: Line 41:
 
::So to clarify a couple of things: Since the 70s, no one has to explicitly state they have a copyright in order for one to exist.  So there may be a copyright.  The US Federal Government has a nice law that says most everything produced by the feds is public domain so you can use it -- but that only applies to Federal works, not State and Local.  Additionally, it's possible the county is actually licensing the pictures (a typical situation if they got a local photographer to take the picture for them) and might not have bothered to obtain the copyright themselves.  So yeah, you'll need to ask in order to keep it.  Either ask for it to be used for the Public Domain (from which you can take stuff) or ask them to allow us to use it under our license ([[Wikitravel:Copyleft]]).  Asking for the Public Domain is sometimes easier cause you don't need to explain it to them :-).  -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 03:25, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
 
::So to clarify a couple of things: Since the 70s, no one has to explicitly state they have a copyright in order for one to exist.  So there may be a copyright.  The US Federal Government has a nice law that says most everything produced by the feds is public domain so you can use it -- but that only applies to Federal works, not State and Local.  Additionally, it's possible the county is actually licensing the pictures (a typical situation if they got a local photographer to take the picture for them) and might not have bothered to obtain the copyright themselves.  So yeah, you'll need to ask in order to keep it.  Either ask for it to be used for the Public Domain (from which you can take stuff) or ask them to allow us to use it under our license ([[Wikitravel:Copyleft]]).  Asking for the Public Domain is sometimes easier cause you don't need to explain it to them :-).  -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 03:25, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
 
:::Gotcha. I have requested permission through the site [[User:Stavp|Stavp]] 20:39, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
 
:::Gotcha. I have requested permission through the site [[User:Stavp|Stavp]] 20:39, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Too many Bismarcks ==
 +
 +
Uh oh.  It appears that before you arrived here, someone accidently created two Bismarck articles -- [[Bismarck]] and [[Bismarck (North Dakota)]].  The right thing to do would be for some kind volunteer to merge the second into the first, and then once we no longer need the second we can make it redirect to the first so there's only really one article with two names.  Any volunteers? ;-). -- [[User:Cjensen|Colin]] 02:53, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Revision as of 06:57, 9 June 2005

Hey, Dad! Welcome to Wikitravel. Please take a sec to look at our copyleft and policies and guidelines, but feel free to plunge forward and edit some pages. Scanning the Manual of style, especially the article templates, can give you a good idea of how we like articles formatted. If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, and if you need some info not on there, post a message in the travellers' pub. --Evan 10:23, 7 Jan 2004 (EST)

Γεια σου, Σταυρε! I see you've tried to cross a column of cyclists - I was one of the cyclists, and often went to Bikeley to visit my aunt. -phma 23:14, 9 Jan 2004 (EST)

North Dakota

I don't know if you saw, but North Dakota was the 1000th guide in Wikitravel. Maj came into my office and told me, "I just started three guides in Italy, and we're at 999. What are we missing that we should add as the 1000th article?" I thought a second and remembered our conversation... and that we didn't have an ND entry yet. So there it is! --Evan 14:26, 17 Jan 2004 (EST)

Silicon Valley Definition

The Mercury News was just being lazy. The "local area 1000" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "The Silicon Valley 1000." :-)

The original definition of the term "Silicon Valley" can be found in this 1985 History: http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/terman.html. The difficult thing about the definition is that it requires an Atlas to translate the exact geography. But basically Southern Alameda is entirely excluded because it is behind the bay from the point of origin in the description. My biggest concern is I think the list of cities which are overenthusiastically included in the SV may be too small.

The important point of view is the traveller's. If someone looks up Silicon Valley, they could be either a) wanting to go there as a tourist, and it's helpful for them to know the core area which is absolutely the SV, and b) someone may be visiting a company that describes itself as "in the SV", so we need to have the extras list so they don't get confused as to why the city they're visiting is not in the SV. -- Colin 14:59, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)

ND maps

Hi, Just to let you know I'm still thinking about your map. I've been working on some other things lately, mainly trying to get a new version of WWW-Mediawiki-Client out the door, but I intend to tackle your request right after that. -- Mark 03:15, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

Thanks, Mark. Stavp 14:27, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

Suggestions

Instead of formatting a list like this:

 [[city1]]<br>
 [[city2]]

we generally format them like this:

 * [[city1]]
 * [[city2]]

Because we prefer to format stuff using Wikimarkup rather than HTML. It's nice seeing a smaller state like North Dakota getting some attention! -- Colin 20:03, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion, Colin. I just got all the counties and some of the cities in. Next step is to fill in more interesting stuff. As I edit the various articles, I will redo the formats. Stavp 22:33, 15 May 2005 (EDT)
Oh yeah, defintely give priority to adding new stuff. There's plenty of folk here who could also fixup formatting. Doing the research is the hard part. Thanks for doing it. -- Colin 23:08, 20 May 2005 (EDT)

Image:Lake Sakakawea.jpg?

Hi Stav, it's unclear from just looking at Image:Lake Sakakawea.jpg whether or not you had permission to copy the image. Assuming you did, could you please add a little bit of text to Image:Lake Sakakawea.jpg describing how you have permission? That way it'll be clear and obvious to all comers that it's not a copyright violation. Thanks! -- Colin 23:12, 20 May 2005 (EDT)

The source of the image is a county government web site [http:\\www.visitmcleancounty.com] that has no copyright claim on any page, including the image library. I assumed that it is OK to use materials from a government entity where no copyright claim is made. If this is not the case, I can delete the image and specifically go ask the for permission. Stavp 00:43, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
So to clarify a couple of things: Since the 70s, no one has to explicitly state they have a copyright in order for one to exist. So there may be a copyright. The US Federal Government has a nice law that says most everything produced by the feds is public domain so you can use it -- but that only applies to Federal works, not State and Local. Additionally, it's possible the county is actually licensing the pictures (a typical situation if they got a local photographer to take the picture for them) and might not have bothered to obtain the copyright themselves. So yeah, you'll need to ask in order to keep it. Either ask for it to be used for the Public Domain (from which you can take stuff) or ask them to allow us to use it under our license (Wikitravel:Copyleft). Asking for the Public Domain is sometimes easier cause you don't need to explain it to them :-). -- Colin 03:25, 21 May 2005 (EDT)
Gotcha. I have requested permission through the site Stavp 20:39, 21 May 2005 (EDT)

Too many Bismarcks

Uh oh. It appears that before you arrived here, someone accidently created two Bismarck articles -- Bismarck and Bismarck (North Dakota). The right thing to do would be for some kind volunteer to merge the second into the first, and then once we no longer need the second we can make it redirect to the first so there's only really one article with two names. Any volunteers? ;-). -- Colin 02:53, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)