text:
Talk:Ellen Terry

Link to Dickens
Where is the link to Charles Dickens? Septentrionalis 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That was Ellen Turnan.

Middle name
Encarta has her middle name as "Alicia", even though The Times obituary on its site uses Alice. Britannica strangely gives no middle name at all. The Dictionary of National Biography, which is the most authoritative source of British biographical information uses Alice and adds the reversal I have mentioned in the article.

Correct date of birth?
In her autobiography, she states that she was born in 1848 and was married shortly before her 16th birthday. Other sources cite her birthdate as 1847 and maintain that she married shortly before her 17th birthday. I changed the dates to those in her autobiography, but I am not sure if they are correct.Alcinoe 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an online exhibition at the Family Records Centre which shows she was born in 1847. Regards Arniep 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick answer. I wonder why she changed her birthdate.Alcinoe 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It could just be absentmindedness, a mistake in the printer, who knows??? I doubt it was for vanity reasons as she would have shaved a lot more years off! Arniep

Sorry I mentioned the birthdate in the wrong section. It IS 1847 as her niche in St. Paul's Covent Garden shows. I've understood that her family shaved the year off so that she would be seen as suitable for her first theatre role (where she played a young boy). Of course, in my personal case, my father "lost" a year; his large family forgot what year he was born. He thought it was 1937 and they insisted it was 1938. A niece found his birth certificate in 1987 and told him he was right; he was 50.

The correct date IS 1847. It was not acknowledged in her life but the niche in St. Paul's Covent Garden bears the 1847 date. If you have any question about the date, you should ask them. It says: 1847-1928. I took a picture of the niche which was included in an article I published that mentions her cremation at Golders Green (London). 67.187.100.198 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Lisa Kazmier, PhD.

 * Yes, thanks, it's definitely 1847. Her birth certificate says so!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Article status
I added information and links to this article, but much more can be said about Terry, one of the most important Victorian era actresses. In particular, more needs to be said about the arc of her career. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am the daughter of David F Cheshire who wrote The Portrait of Ellen Terry listed in the references. I am happy to add more information, but much would be taken from Dad's book: is this appropriate. Please advise? Ellen (honestly - I have a brother called Henry!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas08 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of Lewis Carroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.184.57 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New files
Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

I've also placed a better version of "Choosing" in the article. Dcoetzee 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks! These are beautiful.  I added one.  I think the one on the left is too similar to "Choosing", and the article is bursting with images, so I didn't add it.  More information about the images could be added to the descriptions.  For instance, you wrote date "unknown", but the website gives the information in some of the cases.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits restored
I respect Ssilvers' objections to some edits I made. However some good edits were reverted at the same time, which I restored and should be uncontroversial. Please let me know on my talk page if there is anything further. Thanks, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tenterden template
I've reverted the removal of Tenterden from this article. Ellen Terry lived in Smallhythe Place for over a quarter of a century. The use of the template is fully justified as Small Hythe comes under the parish of Tenterden. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think this navbox belongs here. The fact that Terry lived in Small Hythe, and the fact that it is near Tenterden is adequately represented by the links already in her article.  The other stuff in the navbox is irrelevant to Terry.  Plus, I don't think a navbox is supposed to expand to another whole Wikipedia article, is it?  What does everyone think?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The relevance of the template is to Tenterden, not Ellen Terry. That is why it is called Tenterden and not Ellen Terry. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "expand to another whole Wikipedia article". The navbox is displayed normally collapsed because it looks neater that way, particularly when there are many navboxes. For an extreme example, see the Margaret Thatcher article. As I explained on your talk page, Ssilvers, one benifit of the navbox is that it helps with building the web, particularly for the more obscure articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I explained to Mjroots, I think the navbox interferes with building the web properly, because it adds links to the "what links here" tab that are not actually relevant links in the article. It seems to be an artificial method of protecting non-notable articles from being considered for deletion. More relevant here, however is my above point that the navbox is redundant in this article, since there are adequate links about Small Hythe and Tenterdon. The box could be considered to give Tenterdon WP:UNDUE weight in this article. Can anyone other than Mjroots please comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The inclusion of any article in a navbox makes no judgement on the notability of the article. Any editor is welcome to nominate in good faith any article which they feel does not meet notability standards. Should an article be deleted via PROD or AfD, it will then be removed from the navbox. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I also feel that the inclusion of the Tenterden template is not appropriate on the Ellen Terry article because the places mentioned are already adequately blue linked in the text. I speak as the creator of four of the articles on the template (Smalllhythe Place, Edith Craig, Clare Atwood and Christabel Marshall). Jack1956 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Jack1956's comments seem to me most convincing. I think we have a consensus for removing the template. In truth, I think is is not only inappropriate but rather incongruous in this article. Unless any new contributors vote against I propose to delete it. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see that consensus is against the template remaining on the article and will respect that. The removal of the template from this article is not carte blanche for the removal of the template from any other article it is used on, nor it is to be used as a reason to remove the Ellen Terry article from the template. Those should be separate discussions at the appropriate venues. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that's a fair point. I can't see any reason why it needs to be removed from any of the other articles. I added the template to the Edith Craig article. Jack1956 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mjroots's willingness to go along with the consensus here is greatly appreciated. Point taken about other pages, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy, Mjroots. I hope you will be more selective in placing these placename templates on articles only where the person or thing had a connection with the place that cannot be adequately understood from a bluelink to the town and the text in the article itself.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article
This is really well-done piece with so much work involved in finding all of these acting credits from the 19th and early 20th century. Kudos to the editors who worked on this article. I didn't know anything about Ellen Terry before coming across this page and I feel like I learned a great deal. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks. The whole Terry family is quite interesting, and these articles get increased traffic because of the connection to John Gielgud.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Divorce/separation from Watts
The article at present says that Terry and Watts were 'separated', but other sources state that they were 'amicably divorced'. Both parties subsequently remarried, which would not be possible, while they were both alive, unless the marriage had been legally terminated by divorce or annulment. In view of the age disparity, I wondered if the marriage was annulled on grounds of non-consummation (cf. the well-known case of Ruskin and Effie), but I haven't found any mention of this. Indeed, some online sources say that both parties were unfaithful during the brief marriage, which implies that they were both sexually active. In any event, at the relevant time (the 1860s), it would not have been possible to obtain a divorce by mutual agreement: there would have had to be some grounds, such as adultery. The Wiki article on Watts himself states that Terry eloped with another man, and Watts was 'obliged to divorce her'. Divorce on the grounds of the wife's adultery would have been a huge disgrace for her at the time, so I wondered if some other ground was fabricated. In the 20th century it was common for 'amicable' divorces to be based on a fictitious adultery by the husband. Anyway, maybe someone who knows the facts could revise the article.86.155.131.24 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC) [Added:  I have found this National Trust document (a fairly reliable source) which states that Watts and Terry were not divorced until 1877, long after their separation, and only as a result of pressure being put on Watts (by whom is not stated): http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/document-1355767026972/ ]86.155.131.24 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I have no trouble believing that she and Watts divorced in 1877 in anticipation of her 2nd marriage, but the National Trust document does not seem reliable in its details, many of which disagree with the DMB entry (and some of which may have come from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article), so I think we should wait until we have a better source. There are several biographies of her, and we will have to wait until someone goes to the library.  Her 1908 memoir is online, but it is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Watts Gallery in Surrey provided the relevant documents on display and these will be described in the catalogue of the exhibition. I will see if I can find my copy. Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cockin articles; WP:COI concerns
A new contributor, User:Kcockin, appears to be Professor Katharine Cockin, an expert on Edith Craig and Ellen Terry. She added some information to the article, but I disagreed with most of the additions because they seemed redundant and/or tangential to the article, and also because she added a list of sources that she has written to the bibliography (see WP:COI). I left a message on the contributor's Talk page and invited her to discuss the additions here. I'm looking forward to reading her explanations and happy to collaborate with her to improve the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

 * My reply: not sure how to use the Talk page at the moment, so I hope this works: I added new information about Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew. This comes from my research on The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry, added to the bibliography. I am biographer of Edith Craig too and added this and other related publications to the bibliography as well as those by other academics publishing in this field. Let me know what further information you require. Some of the info on the Edith Craig pages comes from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article I wrote or from my biography, Edith Craig (1869-1947): Dramatic Lives (1998). Many thanks, Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello, User:Kcockin, and thank you for bringing the discussion to the Talk page, which is how we resolve editorial disagreements. You wrote that, after her two-year marriage to Carew, Terry and Carew "remained in contact for some years."  Why is this significant?  If it is significant, please cite a source (including page number and url, if available), that explains why it is significant.  Generally people "remain in contact" with their ex-spouses, but it is only important if he had a continuing influence on her life or career.  I added back in the mention of the Pioneer Players.  Please let us know what else is missing in Terry's article. As for the bibliography, it is best to add sources that are actually used and cited in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Copied from User:Kcockin's Talk page: "Re: Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew This is relevant because they continued to be married until her death. He also supported her in various ways with advice and help with accommodation. See The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry Vol. 6, edited by Katharine Cockin (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2015), pp. 164 (etc). ISBN 13 9781851961504 Their relationship is also covered in Vol. 5." Thanks, Kcockin.  Check the change I just made in the article to add this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Also copied from User:Kcockin's Talk page: "Re: Ellen Terry's date of birth 1847 or 1848 In earlier posts there is discussion about this. She thought she was born in 1848. On her death, documentation revealed that she was born in 1847. This discovery was announced by Edith Craig at the Ellen Terry Birthday Festival, reported in the press; see, for instance, Birmingham Post, 28 Feb 1935 (press cutting in National Trust's Ellen Terry and Edith Craig Archive; catalogue at www.ellenterryarchive.hull.ac.uk" Thanks! What page does the article appear on in the Birmingham Post of 28 Feb 1935?  Was it not covered in The Times, or a national paper?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

1. The source of the information about Ellen Terry's 1847 birth year came from press cuttings in her archive, now owned by the National Trust and catalogued by me and described online at www.ellenterryarchive.hull.ac.uk These press cuttings rarely have a page number and this article was syndicated, copied in several newspapers. If readers of the page want to search the online catalogue on the previously mentioned URL they can find other cuttings relating to it.

2. The point about Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew is that some authors have assumed that their marriage 'ended' and then they were out of contact. The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry make it clear that she continued to write to him, ask for and receive advice and support and through the First World War. They were still married when she died. More details are provided in The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry if anyone is interested.

3. Re. Bibliography I provided an updated list of further reading as I thought this would be useful to readers. If these pages are only for 'works cited' then I can see your point about redundant information. But isn't wikipedia providing information of general use to readers? If it's clear that it is further reading then anyone else can simply add to the list. I can't see the conflict of interest in providing this information. Do let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or add to. I think I have now figured out how to use the Talk pages. Thanks for redirecting me to the Talk page here. Thanks, Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you're getting the hang of it! To respond to your thoughts above:
 * 1. We already cite her birth certificate. Why do we need to cite something else?
 * 2. Did you see the changes I made? I think the article is clear now about Carew.
 * 3. Note that we use Bibliography to mean things that the subject of the article wrote. If a source has important information about Terry, it should be used in the text of the article and cited.  We can also list a small number of very important and/or unique references about her in a "Further reading" section, but Wikipedia articles should not contain exhaustive lists of sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Images
I have restored some images recently deleted from the article. Each of them is in itself interesting and historic, but more importantly each adds something specific to the article, illuminating the text and increasing readers' understanding. In the section where there were three images, I have moved these to a gallery at the end of that section to avoid overflow or sandwiching. Where a portrait painting or photograph was made by a well-known artist, it is customary and informative to provide the artist's name (and the date); indeed, the fact that a subject was portrayed by such society figures is itself notable and relevant to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 * There are too many images in this article, pinching the text. I've now moved the excess images to the bottom, but it would be better to delete them, I think. You can find them by clicking on the commonscat link at the bottom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'd have preferred to leave the images locally, as there could be short galleries in several sections. It looks fine to me at a range of sizes, but text sizes and image sizes are user-customisable so it's hard to predict what users will see, and impossible to account for tastes; I see no "pinching" at all, but never mind. We can easily move one or two more images to the gallery if need be; their value here in the article in my view easily outweighs any distaste we may share for excessive galleries. That visual immediacy to readers is in no way compensated for by the theoretical ability to go and view more on Commons, however useful we editors may find that resource. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just checked on three computers of varying screen size and resolution (if that's the correct term), and the earlier version with all the pictures in the text caused squeezing of the text on all three screens, to varying degrees. (I'd check on my smart-phone too, but I don't know how to work the wretched thing.) I think the pictures all add value, and the gallery is an excellent device here, in my view.  Tim riley  talk    09:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tim on this: the gallery at the bottom is a good place to drop the excess (rather than part way down the page). – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ellen Terry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140407095803/http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/missing_letters.htm to http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/missing_letters.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ellen Terry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720182507/http://www.c20th.com/GSearly.htm to http://www.c20th.com/GSearly.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Julia Margaret Cameron (British, born India - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Julia Margaret Cameron (British, born India - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 27, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ellen Terry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806125148/http://www.familyrecords.gov.uk/frc/extra/terry2.htm to http://www.familyrecords.gov.uk/frc/extra/terry2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517111736/http://pa.essortment.com/actressellente_rdpq.htm to http://pa.essortment.com/actressellente_rdpq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050504212410/http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/collections/object.php?object_id=343 to http://www.peopleplayuk.org.uk/collections/object.php?object_id=343
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030232953/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ACterry.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ACterry.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213403/http://www.sol.co.uk/c/chrishamilton/Documentary78s.htm to http://www.sol.co.uk/c/chrishamilton/Documentary78s.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012092227/http://victorianweb.org/mt/terry.html to http://www.victorianweb.org/mt/terry.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellen Terry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111224153429/http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/LETTERS.htm to http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/LETTERS.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg

Stigma
The surname Craig was chosen to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy...
 * But she wasn't married to anyone called Craig. Valetude (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess the illegitimacy was less obvious to people that the children might meet as "Craig" than if they used their famous father's or mother's last names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

National Trust pilot 2
I added some 's to the article as part of this National pilot - I have two days left, so don't have time to make the changes myself. Thank you. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ellen Terry


text:
User talk:Duk/Archive4

User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp
Hi Coolcat, I'll restore this version per the discussion on the article's talk page. But there is still some material that is copied from the previously published text (leftover from your refactoring); for example, The range of new products under cultivation is also expanding appears at.

I'm going to leave sentences like these out, just so there is no more controversy. The information can be re-written and added later. Please wait till I'm done restoring (I'll do it in parts) and be very carefull not to add any more previously published text by accident. --Duk 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * PS. I'll strike out text on User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp that still needs to be re-written.--Duk 19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, its done--Duk 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand, I wont be touching the article untill you are done. I tried to rewrite the sections you marked, check if it works. Here: --Cool Cat My Talk 12:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Song
what's the Johnny song a possible violation of? (unsigned User: 60.229.228.56)

 * Hi, posting song lyrics is a copyright violation (in most cases). In this case the article identifies the song as a recent composition of Morgan Campbell. So the article vioates Morgan Campbell's copyrights.

 * If you are Morgan Campbell then your submission is ok and licencened per the GFDL by virtue of your submitting it. Or, if you can document that these lyrics are PD or GFDL then they are ok to post. If any of these are true then you need to note this on the article's talk page (and its listing at WP:CP). --Duk 15:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Morgan Campbell gave us permission to post lyrics on here, do you want his email to contact him?
 * Please note this at WP:CP (Johnny Song is listed in the July 19 section) and on the article talk page.--Duk 13:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This page has been deleted. You noted earlier that permission was granted to publish these lyrics, but we can't take anonymous grants of copyrights. Also, you didn't make the permission notes on the article's talk page and at WP:CP as I asked.

 * If you can demonstrate that permission has been granted then please contact me and I will un-delete the page (this will only take a minute). The best way to do this (if Morgan Campbell has a website) is to send an email from the site's contact address granting GFDL permission. Best regards--Duk 15:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Processing copyvios
I'd like to help with the workload of clearing the Copyright problems page. Leaving aside for now the ones with complications, is there anything special to know? Here's what I'm assuming: Entries older than 7 days (and no clarifying discussion) should be removed. Double check to make sure the copyright claim seems correct. Create new article with /Temp version if there is one. Leave redlinks in other articles to encourage re-creation (hopefully not copyvio). Anything else? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. I'll start out slow, but hope to contribute to the janitorial work more. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP House Ordos...
I'm looking through Copyright Problems, trying to clean out the ones I can, but I'm puzzled by this one. What is the current status on this? Does [|this version] contain the copyvios from the three sites listed at WP:CP? What about the House Ordos/Temp version? Can we just replace it with that? Is there a behaviour problem with any editors of the page? Generally, I want to either resolve it, or figure out what to put when I move it to Older the 7 days? Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 23:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Mencia
Hi. I noticed you'd been patrolling Carlos Mencia. I just re-wrote it from scratch. This should eliminate further copyvio problems, though one never knows. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Re: Your note: Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

House Ordos
What makes you think that that there are copyright infringements? The Ordos page didn't copy even remotely from the page that you cited. So don't ruin other peoples hard work, and please revert the page to normal, thank you. User:Jesse Mulkey

House Ordos
The speaker was refered to as a hideous creature in the game diaolgue on the official westwood website and in the in-game movies, not originaly by a random forumer, that piece of dialogue is copyright Westwood Studios and is open content.

House Ordos
Westwood Studios are dead, so any information of their games is now under fair use.

RFA, The GAP project
Hi Coolcat, on Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek you state; ''Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source.''

Could you please cite your source and identify the PD publication, or remove the claim that this material is PD.

I'm the Copyvio people deleted the page anyway and there was no evidence persented at the time showing that this material is PD. If you can demonstrate that this material is PD then please do and I'll reconsider, otherwise stop claiming that it was improperly deleted. --Duk 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Why are you bothering me with this? It is old argument which we discussed. You are a bit to defensive and this is starting to bother me. The stuff you are throwing me is coppied from the RfC. GEEEZ! --Cool Cat My Talk 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think he's trying to harass you, Coolcat. If you feel that Davenbelle unfairly or inaccurately marked the article as a copyvio, then it would help if you made more information available about the source of the material.  Without evidence to back up the assertion that the material is public domain, Duk had no choice to but to delete it as a copyright violation.  He's bringing it up because you mentioned it in your RfArb case, and is hoping to clarify if you still believe the material to be public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I can prove copyrights by sacrificing my identity, which I do not want to do. From his (duks) prespective what he did is right even though I wasn't violating copyrights but as he pointed out it would be retarded to accept "annonymous" copyrights. Since I can't/don't want to proove copyright status I had rested my case earlier on. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The rfc entry was about the same material appearing on a Canadian PD source of which a Copy vio expert like duk would notice when checking for copy vios. That would be a proper "assume good faith" enviorment. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am just mad I see duk "defending" himself again as I havent suggested/pushed the copyrights to arbcom evidence. The material on arbcom was coppied from the RfC which duk and several others discussed this matter to death. This was coppied to Arbcom listing, then was coppied to where it is now by an arbcom member as that is the porper procedure. So I am being yelled at by duk yet again. :( --Cool Cat My Talk 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Coolcat, I'm more than happy to let this drop. But every time you claim this copyvio was mis-handled I will defend myself. The problem with your making a false claim like this, over and over again for months on end, is that people start to believe it, even if it isn't true. I'm not the one keeping this alive. --Duk 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It is the copy fo RFC on Arbcom request page. I was not the one copinging it nor do I feel it matters. Why the hell would I insist on something that I have rewritten better than the older version? --Cool Cat My Talk 14:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, then please remove item number 5 under the Statement by Coolcat section at Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Duk 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * IT IS A GOD DAMN COPY OF RFC . Which was coppied to requests for Arbcom before your involvement in the RFC. And was coppied to Requests for "arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek" but NOT by me. I encourage you to start reading what I am posting you more carefully. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Wonderfull, then please remove the incorrect information. Striking it out would work too :) --Duk 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Done, please do not waiste my time on this anymore. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sig
I noticed your sig links to User:Duk which redirects to User talk:Duk. You may want to modify it so that it links directly to your talk page. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User spamming Copyvio
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.28.194.168

Several of us have Copyvio'd the pages but there's a ton of them. Is there a way you can help? RasputinAXP 05:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

diaphragm seal
Your picture for diaphragm seal is great! We need more like this.ike9898 11:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain Catholic Encyclopedia (Sistine Chapel Choir)
Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. Articles which use text from the Catholic encyclopedia should have the the template added at the bottom. The online site is copyrighted, but that doesn't apply to the 1913 text (read Catholic Encyclopedia). You can safely put back the material you've removed which originated from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

See also, Category:Based on Catholic Encyclopedia --Duk 01:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm I guess that was a false alert, thanks for the heads up. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Tougaloo College Copyright violation
Hi Dbraceyrules, a lot of the History section of this article looks like a copyright violation from various websites [6]. Can you please refactor a little more. --Duk 15:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oops, I was under the impression that I was able to use this via the "fair use" policy. Sorry about that. Thanks for the alert. Dbraceyrules 15:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Gas Turbine
My bad, I was thinking of the F machines. I have worked on 6 installed H units, you would think I would know better. TDC 18:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

An LM6000 GTG, being worked on. Basiclay the LM6000 is a 747 engine with an expanded turbine section to convert thrust into shaft power and reworked controls packages for power generation.

This is a picture I took of the inside of a boiler I was working on. Very hot, about 2800deg F.

A 15 year old GE Frame H STG.

I will try and get some more pictures for you. TDC 14:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how many gas turbine model articles have been written, but after the output and efficiency are given, this should be thrown in: at ISO conditions. TDC 17:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

GDFL
oops, sorry, my wording was a little bad that day, I will correct the message to say that "you can never retract it and it will be in the public domain and will be editted " which IMO is basically like having to copyright... thanks for noting that and happy editing. Sasquatch ↔讲↔看 05:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * picky picky picky =P it is estentially available to the public and in the domain of the public for lack of a better word, feel free to reword my messages, but you get the idea =) i'm just gonna stay out of this as i seem to be making a fool of meself. Anyways, happy editing! Sasquatch ↔讲↔看 05:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Lower bandwidth option for navigation popups
Hi, I noticed that you tried out my popups and then disabled it, commenting about the bandwidth. I've added an option to not use any bandwidth - if you add the line

simplePopups=true;

to your user javascript file, then you should just see the list of links in the popups, and no downloading should happen at all. Lupin 12:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pengo#RIFE
Concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pengo#RIFE

Hi, I'm the original copyright holder, Pengo has full permission from me to paste this text here.

Best regards,

Geert
 * I've sent an email requesting confirmation and will restore the article as soon as you answer. -Duk 01:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

RIFE
Please see WP:VFU. It was uniformly suggested to undelete there. I'm afraid the undeletion log doesn't allow for edit summaries. Radiant_ >|< 23:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Paul Erdös.jpeg
This image has been tagged as a copyright violation (by User:Bemoeial). You noted that it was recently moved from commons, but the link to the commons image was dead. Can you update with copyright information? It's listed under the July 30 section at WP:CP. Thanks --Duk 02:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It's fixed now.  Thanks for leaving a note here.  I would never have noticed otherwise.  I commented more at WP:CP. dbenbenn | talk 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

RIFE reply
Hi Duk,

thanks for the message, I replied and confirmed the license permission.

Best regards.

Removal of Images
Thank you for deleting the images, as requested, which were originally uploaded with permission for use, though regrettably this was later withdrawn.

This image still remains on the list which is also none PD.

I have also put the source info on the following image, though not the copyright status, I don't know if it's classed as PD or not. It is a photo I took of the head and shoulders of the 1st Duke of Wellington, from an original painting, which is life size, on display in the Trustees Boardroom. It is on loan to the Regimental HQ from the National Gallery.

NB The only images I will be uploading from now on are ones I create personally. Thank you for your help. Richard Harvey 09:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Re: Image:Field_Marshal_Arthur_Wellesley_KG_CCB_GCH_CoR_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg. I took the photo and I'm quite happy to make it PD, I just needed to be sure I was not creating a problem by doing it.Thanks Richard Harvey 19:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Avalon map
I am the original author of this image. It was created several years ago for the Government of Newfoundland and as such has been distributed widely.

JcMurphy

copyvio vs. PUI
Heya, when you encounter images that might be copyvio's but you can't find a source or other evidence of their copyvioness, could you list them on WP:PUI instead of WP:CP? Thanks. --fvw *  22:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it would appear that movie stills are allowed under fair use (in the proper context, of course). I'm clearing out the aug 14 section of WP:CP now and unmarking the movie stills you marked, if you want to dispute their copyvioness check the section for aug 14 in the page history. --fvw *  22:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Fvw, thanks for the note. You are right, images without a source should go to PUI. I had intended to look for the source (they are all obvious professional images) but didn't get them all.

 * Regarding the fair-useness of screenshots. I do and did object to these particular ones for specific reasons and explained why on the listing page. Did you miss this part? Anyway, some of the images that you put a fair use tag on are orphans (Image:Specmachine-a.jpg, for example). It's impossible to have a fair use rationale for orphans (I forgot to note this with the other reasons). Also a bunch are still tagged, did you want me to go and remove the tags? --Duk 23:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops no, I'd missed the reasons above, and they're very compelling (almost as compelling as the fact that if I didn't delete them for being copyvio's I'd have to IFD them). I've deleted the bulk of them apart from a few that are used in articles and are reasonable fair use. --fvw *  00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. you are the guy doing the work clearing these, so I'm not really contesting. :)  --Duk 00:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh please do. Anything to alleviate the tedium of WP:CP :) --fvw *  00:13, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

a mistake...
Sirs, You have a mistake on the diagram of the 30-06 the width of a 30-06 is .308 thew .338-06 is the nearest bullet I can find to .340.

Ralph

(PS see this link: http://stevespages.com/jpg/cd3006.jpg)

 * Thanks for the note Ralph. I think my illustration is correct; the .308 dimension is the casing ID (not shown on my drawing) and the .340 dimension is the casing OD (shown on both my drawing, and the drawing you reference as the .3397 dimension). --Duk 17:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Hi Duk, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching out for my page & talk - I've blocked the pest for a month this time. jimfbleak 19:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A barnstar for work on WP:CP
Enjoy it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I endorse this barnstar - it's well-deserved. -Willmcw 22:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank you for your support for my RfA, We shall surely interact more. I am certain that our association shall grow. --Bhadani 10:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

DuPont article
Sorry about that...I just realized, I was thinking of the wrong meaning of the word found. Brian1979 11:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User 204.184.37.2
Left you a message at: User_talk:204.184.37.2 WikiDon 20:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks WikiDon

copyright image
Hi, Would it be possible for you to delete the image below, uploaded by hammersfan, to replace one from the list you previously removed after a copyright issue? or do I need to put it up on the copyvio page.?

He has put it up as the Cap Badge of the Regiment, which it is not, it is the combined badge of the Regimental Association.

I can tell from the colours used, lions tail shape, lettering within the scroll, design on the blanket below the houda and the fact that part of the original red background is still showing through the scroll upturns that this is a poor copy of a design I did, used on the Regimental Website, as part of my work for the Regimental Headquarters. Hammersfan has no authority to use this design. Richard Harvey 09:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Richard. I can't delete this image without it first being listed at either Copyright problems or Request for immediate removal of copyright violation.

 * I am also allowed to delete the image if the uploader requests it, and the image is unused. (It looks like you notified the uploader and asked that he do this).

 * Since you are the creator and copyright holder, and assuming that the uploader doesn't request its removal, I would list it at Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. You need to explain the different versions that were uploaded, there seem to be two in history, are they both copyright violations? And you need to explain that one or both are derivative works.

 * Also, the uploader has claimed fair use for the image, so some people might object to its removal on those grounds. However, if the image is technically incorrect as you say, and therefore unused, then there is no fair use rationale. If this is the case then menti

on it. --Duk 16:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi DUK. Thanks for the info regarding two images in the history. It appears hammersfan has uploaded a second image over the top of the imagevio item. The Imagevio item is the one using the Redlion Rampant over the Circular Hindoostan with crest below. The poor quality, childish, image now on the page, with a grey lion is the newly uploaded item. Which only incorporates part of the copyright infringed image, ie the scroll & the unfurled Banner. Incidentally this is still not the Cap Badge of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. That can be seen Here As hammersfan has altered the image I will amend my entry on the image page. Richard Harvey 00:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio
There appears to be the same problem again at William_Wegman_%28photographer%29. See discussion. - Wgsimon 22:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

DWR.jpg
By all means delete this image, as I have uploaded it to a different file name. Also, please inform Richard Harvey, that if he wants to create and upload an image of the cap badge himself, then he is more than welcome to do so, it makes no difference to me, otherwise stop being so petty. Hammersfan 11:15, 21 September 2005

 * Duk; Thanks for the deletion. I think the reason Hammersfan is not interested about it being removed is because he has now downloaded the cap badge from the Duke of Wellington's Website, removed the background and enhanced the image to darken it. Then uploaded it to Wiki, with a different name, again without permission from the site administrator. See: [[Image:DWR1.jpg]] Richard Harvey 19:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello Duk; I feel Hammersfan has taken the image from the source provided by Richard Harvey, after the initial complaint, altered it then uploaded the image over the original image he uploaded. Check the image history and timings of each Image uploaded. If he had the item originally he would have uploaded that and provided the source, not the two previous images. ImageEditor 00:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Duk, I Got your message. I've had a look back at the images in my files. I feel you will find the image is one from the list that you previously deleted a few weeks ago ie:- Image:DWR_Cap_Badge_small.jpg. If you check the history of the image you will find it to be identical to that. Richard Harvey 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have put the source of the image above onto the image's page - I also object to people insinuating and making allegations without bothering to check their facts. Hammersfan 12:05, 22 September 2005

As always, your advice is measured and helpful. Thank you for being a calm voice of reason. Hammersfan 16:20, 22 September 2005

Malta maps
Thanks a lot Duk for your help - they are in fact identical (and annotated in English which is better). I did in fact tag the image as being unkown because I wanted to check out its origins. I stumbled on those pictures in the mt.wiki (they aren't tagged there either), but when I tried to contact the Wikipedian who uploaded them I got no reply. --Roderick Mallia 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Seasat image
Why was it necessary to delete the image of Seasat?
 * The image lacked source and copyright information. Criteria for speedy deletion was recently changed to address these images. Please see the notes above every image submission window;  Images uploaded without source or licensing information will also be deleted if this information is not supplied within seven days. --Duk 23:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nosey & Derivative
Duk, Please delete both images, these were sent to me by a friend in Scotland who advised he had created them. Also thanks for the intro to the Sad at the Clinic website. I was unaware of it and will now take my friend to task at the weekend. ImageEditor 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

DWR1.jpg
Duk, Thanks for the info. But I must admit to being a little confused now! I went to the www.slaidburn.org.uk website and couldn't find the cap badge image displayed anywhere on it, it appears to be a site about sheep farming and a village in Lancashire, UK. So how did hammersfan find the image to download, let alone know it was on there? If he had he would have uploaded it previously, not the prior offerings. I also note that the website owner claims all images as copyright and should be attributed to him; see www.slaidburn.org.uk/copyright_terms.htm. Richard Harvey 15:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I've updated the imagevio notice and the listing at Copyright problems/2005 September 21 --Duk 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

concerming article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood
Dear DUK.

Concerning the In Cold Blood pictures: Both have the following copyright:

Image: © Bettmann/CORBIS © by Corbis Corporation. All visual media © by Corbis Corporation and/or its media providers. All Rights Reserved.

I'm not sure if I have to load this information on or if you do. Let me know.

Regards sgurtd@yahoo.com

Photos
Younghoward and Billhayden are clearly tagged as "fair use", and this tagging has been approved by J Wales (see his Talk page). I have now tagged Youngcostello PD. The rest you can delete. Adam 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:DWR1.jpg
The badge image, right down to the angles & shading, looks remarkably like the one located halfway down this website page at www.regiments.org:- where it's copyright is marked up as MoD (UK Ministry of Defence). Perhaps the webmaster can tell you where he got it from?. 86.2.137.185 09:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Images
Let me save you a lot of work. The 800-plus images I have uploaded fall into three categories Adam 15:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Those I have taken myself, which I think are all tagged accordingly. I may have forgotten about a few but I think I have tagged all of them.
 * The images of Australian politicians and Gobvernors-General, which I will defend on fair use grounds, as well as permission-to-use grounds, and which should all be tagged in the same way as younghoward if they are not so tagged already.
 * All others, which can be deleted without consultation if you so determine.

OK I will go through all the PMs and GGs and tag them. Adam 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible Image copyright infringements
Could you take a look at this article. It seems to contain a large amount of images downloaded from other websites, which do not seem to have copyright permission given.  [] 86.2.137.185 14:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of images on that page with Fair use claimed. If you disagree with the rationale given for the fair use claim on any individual image, or on their combined use in the article as a whole, you need to list it at Copyright problems --Duk 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio cleanup
First, I owe you an apology for reverting your application of a copyvio tag on the Winter Soldier Investigation article. I had assumed you were negligent (or being sneaky) when you tagged the article without listing it at WP:CP as required. I didn't realize at the time that the article had already been listed there weeks prior, and you therefor didn't need to list it.

Second, I've re-written much of the article on a /Temp page as suggested at WP:CP, and after discussing it here. Rather than try to rewrite the copyvio paragraph to your satisfaction, I've simply left it out. I was also careful to avoid including anything that would be construed as derivative of the copyvio material. 165.247.204.51 11:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't review your re-write because 1) no time, and 2) I'm not going down the path of approving someone elses writing (but if I happen to see something that looks accidentally copied I'll say something). As long as you write with your own words you shouldn't need to worry about copyright violations, and my only interest in that page is to keep it free of copyvios. Also, since the page has already been reverted and the copyvio resolved, can I suggest that you update the article bit by bit with your re-write, instead of replacing the entire article at once (this is just a suggestion, it will allow discussion on the talk page in case there are disagreements over the rewrite) ?  --Duk 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Opps, looks like you already replaced the article. Oh well, forget my bit by bit advice above. --Duk 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Duk/Archive4