User talk:Evenfiel

Wow you did a heroic job on the Kindly Ones. A quick glance leads me to say an excellent job. My one quibble is that with so many small edits, it is hard to hard to react or particpate as you go along. In any case a big bouquet, you really improved the article on an important book.--Joel Mc (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Le Débat ref. I do read French, but hadn't seen it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be on line and I am traveling during the next 5 weeks, mainly behind the Great Firewall of China, but will look it up when I get back to a library in June. Likewise, I will try to read the two pieces but may find it difficult to give much of a reaction before June.--Joel Mc (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to answer the question of references in other languages. I believe that there a certain resistance to that in general on Wikipedia--but maybe that happens when editors use a reference in language few know to justify a statement. One possible solution would be to see that the French references appear in the French Wikipedia version and the German etc. Then it might be useful to put a note in the English article that for those who read other languages, they might want to consult the references in the other language versions. Anyway, just an idea.--Joel Mc (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am still on the road but did see a fascinating essay by Charolette Mandell about translating The Kindly Ones. In case you haven't seen it: [1]--Joel Mc (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me about the nomination. I am back from China but moving: leaving tomorrow for three weeks, but will re-read again with the nomination in mind during the next couple of days. Joel Mc (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that unforeseen events completely sabotaged my intentions and I have just returned home from a longer-then-planned trip three days ago. My apologies. I think that you have done an excellent job and I hope that you are going ahead with the nomination. --Joel Mc (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Levi-strauss 260.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on that one! See? We can produce free images for dead individuals. You're my hero. --Damiens.rf 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed mention of this below. Wonderful work in getting this fine image - Peripitus (Talk) 06:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lacan2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 13:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take the following picture and crop the guy on the left in order to use it as a picture for his article, Jean Genet. What exactly do I need to do regarding the wikibureaucracy? Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately simple to do. Rather than explain the template intricacies I've done it as it is easier to look at the finished result than get there from descriptions of templates. Cropped version at File:JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983-cropped.jpg and I've modified the text of the original at File:JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983.jpg. Basically the details for a cropped free image are the same as the original, except you need to include a link to the original (one of the requirements of the free licences is to attribute the source for a derivative work). - Peripitus (Talk) 06:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question. I've contacted Stephen Greenblatt, and his assistant sent me a professional picture, saying that "Dear André, Please find attached a photo of Professor Greenblatt. If you need one with a higher ppi ration, I have one. The credit line should read Bachrach. Best wishes, Emily". The problem is, the picture was taken by "Bachrach", so I guess that I'll need to ask him for the license, not Stephen Greenblatt or his assistant. Is that correct? Evenfiel (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps or Perhaps not. I would say that Bachrach is actually the Bachrach Photography company in Boston. If the portrait was done as a work for hire then the copyright is with whomever paid the photographer. Often the photographer sells their services but retains copyright—as is usually the case with studio work I've come into contact with. Emily would need to check this out at her end - it should be covered in the contract with the photographer - Peripitus (Talk) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice photo to obtain. Professional portraiture is a joy to behold. Thank you - Peripitus (Talk) 02:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! I was looking at the Stephen Greenblatt picture with a view to nominating for a featured picture—basically because it is a wonderful portrait. Unfortunately there is lots of dust on the image (which can be fixed) and some weird jpeg related compression artifacts in the background....I'll see what I can do though as we have far too few images of people like this and should celebrate them more - Peripitus (Talk) 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the next few days, I'll be reviewing The Kindly Ones (Littell novel) for Good Article status. I realize that you have put a lot of work into this article. Now is the time for a last-minute cleanup before the review. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to do a great job on this article. I am particularly impressed with the internal links between the footnotes and the references. That solves a lot of problems which I keep bumping up against. Where did you find the procedure. I suppose I could work it out from your edits, but if there is a shortcut....--Joel Mc (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, thanks--Joel Mc (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read File talk:GeorgesBataille.jpg, and respond. Thank you. DS (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since it was you who checked the permission of the image from theRobert Darnton article, I have a question related to permissions. I have acquired two other permissions, for Levi-Strauss and Stephen Greenblatt, but the user who checked the permissions re-uploaded both pictures, so now they aren't under my list of uploaded files. Why did he do that? Is there any reason for it? It would be nice to have them under my own list of uploaded files, so that I can keep track of my work here in Wikipedia. Thanks! Evenfiel (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to the files so that I can investigate this more? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one you did for me, [2] and the pictures that were re-uploaded, [3] and [4].

Looks like the latter two were moved to Commons so that others can use them on other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. You should upload free images to Commons. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Can I re-upload it to Commons, so that I can have them under my history of contributions? Evenfiel (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you wish; it'll appear on your Commons contributions but not here. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. NOTE: Users need to be warned with at least a Level 3 or Level 4 warning. The number of IPs you reported on Oil Spill did not have recent vandalism (report was stale) and none of them was properly warned (using the proper warning templates). Please read the relevant links and thank your for keeping an eye out for vandals. Alexf^(talk) 11:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Evenfiel,

I'm sorry you do not understand the chart. You seem to be very experienced at providing Wiki content. I however am not. I did that chart for my own interest to summarize the incident frequency of oil spills. I did another one to summarize the amount of oil spilled per year. It was interesting to see the perspective and I thought I'd share what I did.

The graph is certainly missing an explanation, there's no doubt about that. It wasn't clear to me how to put it in and already just adding the chart took more time than expected. I would be happy to write a description and even have you critic it.

The chart does make sense, it's called a kernel density estimation and it represents the frequency of incidents per year (1 every 5 years would be 0.2 incidents/year). You'll see that there has been a gradual increase over the past 50 years, with a few surges. The same information could be represented as a histogram with discrete bars representing, say every 5 years. I simply prefer the kernel density for its continuous form, but I must agree that the average user would maybe better understand a bar chart style histogram.

As a more experienced Wiki content provider, what would you suggest I do?

A) Add an explanation to the chart

B) Just do a histogram and an explanation; simple for the simple user

C) Leave it, nobody cares anyway

Mstangeland (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search in your monobook.js. It now seems to work in the new Vector skin, should that be of use to you. If so, load the updated code from Henrik's page into your vector.js page, clear the cache, and you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author, what is the publication? You need to make these things clear, per WP:Attribution. Wikispan (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes in the template sandbox to add the parameters |academic_staff= and |administrative_staff=. You can see the result in the testcases at Template:Infobox university/testcases. Please take a look (the new version is the lower) and let me know if you would like changes. (Alternatively, make the changes yourself by editing Template:Infobox university/sandbox.) Note that the links in the template to Faculty (university)#Additional North American usage and Employment#Employee don't make as much sense as they did. Not sure what to do about this. (Please respond here or on the template Talk page.) HairyWombat 17:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only removed the links. It's better to remove any link than to have one that does not make much sense. What now? An admin needs to approve it? Btw, I would greatly appreciate if you could join the discussion on income / operating budge. Evenfiel (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the edit request on the template Talk page to specifically request an administrator to deploy the version in the sandbox. By the way, I restored the link to Faculty (university)#Additional North American usage; on reading the section text (as opposed to just the section heading), I discovered that it discusses both US and non-US usage. (I will look at the discussion on income/operating budget.) HairyWombat 00:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]