User talk:Robert Adamski

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Robert Adamski. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Image uploads

Robert, I don't want to mention this on the Teahouse page but I'm concerned about the images you have uploaded. I don't think you realise it but the licence you have used to upload them implies that you are the copyright holder of the images. Obviously not true or you would be the oldest person in the world. Copyright belongs to the original photographer and the licences need to reflect this. the only u=images that the licence used is valid are ones where you took the phot For the ones that are the oldest, if you don't know the photographer I think it will be fairly safe to use a licence {{PD-old}} or one of the similar templates. For the more recent ones then it's going to need a bit of investigation unless you were the photographer. Images like File:BRUC Rev. Robert Scott at Vroom Wedding.jpg, you need to find out who the photographer was and if they are still alive get permission off them. If you want a hand working out the licences, leave a message for me here and I'll give you a hand. NtheP (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Robert Adamski. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

All the pictures are property of the church. They were scanned by me so they could be included. I have no idea who the original photographers and couldn't find a fitting copywrite to use.Robert Adamski (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, as I said above that creates a problem. The licence you've used is definately incorrect and although the physical phots might be owned by the church they won't own the copyright. Presumably as you know the dates each pastor was in office a latest possible date of each of the photographs can be established. If you can compile such a list and post it here I can have a look at which licences might be applicable. The more recent they get the more of an issue this is and some of them may have to come down. NtheP (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Ridge United Church- Personal photo 2012; current licence fine
The Bergen Church- 1863- Scanned off Church collage; replace licence with {{PD-US}}
Rev. Woodbridge- 1850- Scanned off Church collage; replace licence with {{PD-US}}
Rev. Rowland- 1853- Scanned off Church collage; replace licence with {{PD-US}}
Rev. Manning- 1873- Scanned off Church collage; replace licence with {{PD-US}}
52nd Street Church- 1901- Scanned Church photo; see Q1 below
Rev. Myers- 1882- Scanned off Church collage; replace licence with {{PD-US}}
Rev. Bergen- 1895- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
Rev. Dickhaut- 1903- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
55th Street Church- 1902- Scanned Church photo; see Q1 below
Rev. Watson- 1927- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
Rev. MacDonald- 1917- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
Rev. Steninger- 1938- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
Rev. Brandt- 1942- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
Rev. Williams- 1967- Scanned off Church collage; see Q1 below
73 St and 6 Ave Storefront- 2012 personal digital photo; current licence fine
Rev. Egner- 1941- Scanned off Church journal; see Q2 below
Elsa and Bob Vroom- 1953- Scanned Vroom photo;
Rev. Rozeboom- 1980 scanned from Church Directory; see Q3 below
Rev. Ashley- 1990 scanned from Church Directory; see Q3 below
Rev. Dyke- 2000 personal photo; current licence fine
Rev. Donnelly 2005 personal photo; current licence fine

Robert Adamski (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've marked the ones where the current licence is fine or there is an easy change to be made (which I have done). Now for the rest

Q1) Assuming none of these have any indication of who took them, have any of these photos ever been published? By published I mean placed for sale, sold, or publicly distributed. If so when? You say they are mostly scanned off the church collage - how old is this? As far as I know the photos have never been sold or publically distributed. The collage dates from South Reformed Church which ended in 1975.

Q2) Does the journal indicate who the author of the photo was? In any event what is the date of the journal? There are no credits in the journal which was from a dinner on November 8, 1941

Q3) What's the date of the directory? There were two photo directories. Rozeboom was around 1980 and Ashley around 1990.

That just leave the Vroom photo. It's a charming photo but if it's just a family snapshot we're a bit stuck. Mr. Vroom is still alive. Does that help?NtheP (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adamski (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the collage helps a lot, it makes more of them public domain assuming the collage doesn't have a copyright notice on it. The same for the journal. The other three are more problematic - Rozeboom and Ashley are just too recent to be able to deal with as anonymous publications. And the only remaining hope for the Vroom photo, and I really am clutching here is that, it too appeared in the collage? NtheP (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the directories to see what they say. The Vroom wedding was in 1953. Does that help?Robert Adamski (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The date for the Vroom's wedding makes that photo too recent to qualify for the same licence as the really old stuff. The others have qualified in that they have been published albeit in a church collage. The Vroom photo I suspect is previously unpublished? and it's date of publication that is relevant. If it had featured in the collage or a church magazine prior to 1978 {{PD-US-no notice}} would be applicable but as a family album shot it really is a no go. It's a similar issue for the Rozeboom and Ashley images, anonymous and recent just makes it virtually impossible to make them public domain. For these three images I suggest you go to Commons where you uploaded them, blank the page and add {{speedydelete|Uploader request}} to them. This will get them deleted with no questions asked. I know it's annoying but I'm afraid we have to comply with US copyright law which is very clear about these things. NtheP (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rozeboom photo appeared in the church directory published in 1984 by alan mills, Church Directory Division, Box 21608, Columbia, SC 29221. The Ashley photo appeared in the church directory published around 1990 by Prebyterian Publishing House, Church Directory Service, P.O. Box 3690, Cleveland, TN 37311. Both directories are now the property of the church. I don't understand why we can't use a personal photo of Mr. Vroom. If I delete it can he add it as his?Robert Adamski (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Robert Adamski (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rozeboom and Ashley, the next step would be to contact the publishers and she if they know who owns the copyright on those images and then to ask the copyright holder if they will grant a release.

Vroom, no he doesn't own the copyright, that belongs to the photographer. Even though he was working to the request of the Vrooms, the copyright remains the photgrpaher's, although I have to say it's unlikely there would be any complaint if that was the way it was done. NtheP (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Merrill Woodbridge

I'm not averse to adding the information in, but insist since the article is an FA on it being properly sourced and cited. If it isn't properly sourced, per WP:V, I'll have to remove it again. Do you have a link for the Prime's History of Long Island source online? I can't seem to find it on hathi/googlebooks/archive.org and I'd like to confirm that information (since none of the other sources indicate that parish). I can only find Ross and Pelletreau's history of Long Island which does not mention Woodbridge or his participation in this parish. Please advise.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the History of Long Island cited but I changed it to a reference to The New York Times. Robert Adamski (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of the NYTimes article, what page is it located on in that date's issue?. I see a date, however in the 1890s, the paper was 45-60 pages a day, typically it's usual to cite an article title or a page number. Since this isn't in the archive online, I'd have to go to a library that has it on microfilm and search for it. Again, this doesn't resolve my wonder at why no other source mentions this church or Woodbridge's call to another congregation. I'm a pretty damn good researcher and resourceful at finding things, so I'm willing to try to confirm it (after the holiday), but you seriously have to give me a little more to go on.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0716FA3A5F10738DDDAE0A94D8415B8085F0D3 "A Church's Half Century. Also I will check to see if we have South's records and see if they confirm the dates.24.90.156.150 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I have checked the Church's records and found," Samuel M. Woodbridge ordained and installed Pastor of this church December 12th 1841" and " About May 1st 1850 Rev. Samuel M. Woodbridge resigned Pastoral Charge of this church."^[1]Robert Adamski (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Robert Adamski! 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.

-- 19:57, Saturday, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

References

^ Minutes, South Reformed Church

Hermandad moved to draftspace

Hi Robert, your article on Hermandad is at the moment too promotional for Wikipedia – it reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedic entry. We try to only summarize what reliable, independent sources have said about the subject. Most people actually find it to be difficult or almost impossible to write neutrally here about things they are too close to.

We recommend those with a conflict of interest submit articles for review rather than creating them directly in mainspace. I've moved your article to Draft:Hermandad (non-profit) where you can either improve it or submit it for review.

It's actually not quite clear to me whether the organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent sources, at least not in online sources.

If the organization has gotten coverage in independent sources, I would start by just summarizing what they say. Wikipedia writes in this hyper-neutral tone, but one gets used to it quickly.

Feel free to write on my talk page if you have any questions about editing.

– Thjarkur (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hermandad (non-profit) (May 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It's not clear from the references provided that this organization is notable. Please provide the titles of the articles used in the references. Also, the contents of this article should be limited to what is found in the references you use. It appears that there is a lot of content here that is not from those references. I would recommend cutting down this article to approximately 1/3 or less of its current size. This is way too much detail for an encyclopedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hermandad (non-profit) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hermandad (non-profit), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Adamski! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hermandad (non-profit) (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vinegarymass911 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hermandad (non-profit) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hermandad (non-profit), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Robert Adamski! I'm Snowycats. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Snowycats (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC) My question was how do you appeal a determination that an article doesn't meet the notable standard.Robert Adamski (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the editor's instructions and reduced the article and deleted much of the personal information. I looked for additional references in the NY Times, Peace Corps, USAID, Google, etc. but couldn't find any more. It appears Hermandad was too busy providing water annd sanittion to poor people then to be promoting themselves through press releases, etc. In spite of this I feel their work should be rcognized by posting their history. --Robert Adamski (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hermandad (non-profit)

Hello, Robert Adamski. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hermandad".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Minutes, South Reformed Church

[1]