User talk:Mary Ash/Archive 4

Mary Ash

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Archives

Mary, I'm not sure what you were trying to do with your archives but they are very messed up. One of them is in mainspace, and the other two are in main talkspace. They need moving back to your userspace. --Chris Key 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the pages back and added the archive template to this page. --Peter Schmitt 09:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Swedish proverbs

Hello. I'm intrigued by your interest in Swedish proverbs! Are you perhaps a speaker of Swedish, or how did you otherwise aquire this interest?

"Du är inte så dum som du ser ut", as you will of course know, will not gain one many friends in Sweden. It is the verbal equivalent of striking someone in the face with a herring :) Johan A. Förberg 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I married a Norwegian American. His great grandmother arrived in the US as a young girl. I'm sorry we do not know any Norwegian as his family did not teach their children the Norwegian language. They were proud Americans and wanted to teach their children American culture. I do know how to make lefse, abelsivvers (sp?) and all kinds of good things thanks to Beatrice Ojakangas' good cookbooks. I do love dumplings too. I also bake all kinds of breads when the weather cools. At Christmas I used to bake seven types of cookies for good luck but my girlish figure does not need that any more. I still bake a few batches of cookies though. Finally, when the weather cools, I will try a few new recipes from the Swedish Cakes and Cookies cookbook ISBN 978-1-60239-262-5. As to proverbs: I like to go through WikiQuotes to see what's there. You never know what will be there next...thanks for being friendly and kind. Something the world needs more of. Mary Ash 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Schnitzel

Please stop and read the talkpage before changing the article text - readding the reference I removed was not necessary, and your addition about the etymology of kaisers is not needed on a page about foodstuffs. It would be better if you joined in the talkpage discussion before radically altering the article text. Thanks. David Finn 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

David if you do read the talk page you will realize that Hayford called for more research after describing my original article as nonsensical as there were no kaisers back then, according to him. I added the details to explain that indeed the term kaiser in reference to Caesar was used during that time period. Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone. Have a nice day!Mary Ash 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The etymological origin of "kaiser" has no relation to the history of schnitzel recipes. With research Hayford meant that the true history of the recipe has to be researched. --Peter Schmitt 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

He called my article nonsensical as the term Kaiser was not used back then. Hence the references backing up the history of kaiser. I carefully found citations and references stating the term was used by German and Slavic peoples in reference to emperors. Was trying to back up YOUR research too. I have three independent sources all stating the same fable. How is that different from Hayford's telling of the creation of the Croque Monsieur. And I sure didn't call his article nonsensical. We could claim that was fable too. We are dealing with ancient history, some of which is lost in time, so I like how you rewrote the fable part. Something I considered but did not want to be accused of plagiarism as other articles write the same way. Mary Ash 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary, you talk about the potential problems of plagiarism - that was the reasoning behind the change I made to the article. You say there were three sources used to verify the legend - germanfoodguide, GuteKeuche and berliner-schnitzelstuga. However germanfoodguide and berliner-schnitzelstuga contained exactly the same words. That is to say, one plagiarised the other, or both plagiarised a third source.

When we have two instances of sites using the same exact wording throughout an entire article, we call them mirrors of each other - there is no difference, one is an exact copy of the other. In this case it would be unrepresentative to include both sources, as each of the sites actually has only one source, the same source - that is the source we should provide as evidence to back up our assertions. The 'source' I removed was a mirror, a site that was plagiarising the words of another, and it is something that the person adding the source should have seen.

This is why we have a collaborative encyclopedia - sometimes opinions differ, and it takes multiple opinions to establish the correct approach. As in this case, articles benefit from multiple author input - the idea, as you put it, that "Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone" is really the opposite of having a collaborative encyclopedia where many authors feel free to evaluate the facts and offer an opinion. The encyclopia is built, not by one person, but by a team of people working together. One persons soap opera is actually just a small matter for the encyclopedia as a whole, and participation by uninvolved authors is exactly what is needed to turn a personal disagreement into a community discussion. David Finn 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

About photo for Russian Blue

Mary, I finally found the real name of the author of image:Russian Blue 001.gif. Please read Talk:Russian Blue for details. Milton Beychok 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg deleted

Hi Mary. I have deleted Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg as it is not clear the the copyright information is correct. If you wish to reupload the photo please see the comments here. --Chris Key 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New Citizen

Hi Mary. I have just approved the account of User:Nicole Willson who shares some similar interests to you and you may know from wikiHow. I am sure you will want to drop her a hello! --Chris Key 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

US Copyright Information

I did some research tonight. I have enclosed links for people to review. Comments are welcome:

• http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.pdf Pseudonyms
• http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl101.html Pseudonyms
• http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf Copyright law
• http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formtxi.pdf US Copyright application form

Mary Ash 05:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Mary, this is very interesting. This is the kind of thing that those who make the decisions need to see when the time comes. After the elections, we can revisit the copyright issue. Hold on to these. D. Matt Innis 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I might clarify a bit; I used to work for the Library of Congress, of which the Copyright Office is part.

It's certainly acceptable to copyright something in a pen name, nickname, pseudonym, etc. This in no way diminishes the rights of the human copyright owner (corporate is yet another matter). For example, while a book might have been copyrighted by Mark Twain or Anson MacDonald, the copyright was still owned, unless assigned, by Samuel Langhorne Clemens or Robert A. Heinlein.

Might I suggest this would be seen by more people on the Forums? Howard C. Berkowitz 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also the question of how US copyright law is applied to works that did not originate in the US, and how far US law can apply to other countries where Citizendium is hosted. David Finn 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1. In EU law, copyright runs 70 years from the end of the year of the author's death. This wouldn't be affected by use of a pseudonym, provided the real identity can be found by reasonable inquiries, i.e. in practice asking the publisher. However, if the identity is really secret, e.g. B. Traven, the period can only run from publication.
2. Individual citizens must observe the laws of the countries they're operating in.
3. CZ as a whole must in practice observe the laws of any jurisdiction in which it has assets that might be seized by court judgment, or officials who might be prosecuted.

Peter Jackson 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All good points. Can't wait till we can develop the process to hash through all of this with those that know what to do with this information so we can move forward. Until then, I agree with Milt, err on the side of safety. We're using real names here. D. Matt Innis 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{unindent)I agree with that too Matt. I wanted it to be known there is precedent for the use of pseudonyms. The US Copyright office does offer register both the real name and the pseudonym IF the registrants wants that information to be known. Some people do NOT want this information known for whatever reason. Mary Ash 15:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Very belated but very warm welcome to Citizendium from me. I'm around erratically (over-stretched in too many directions) but I've noticed your enthusiasm and determination, and am very pleased to see you here.Gareth Leng 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Metadate definitions

Hi Mary, hope you're doing well.

A small clarification: for metadata purposes, 'definition' means 'define your subject', not 'define the scope of your subject'. Hence definition of British Shorthair = 'cute stubby cat', not 'cat article and related pages'. See my edit to definition at Talk:British Shorthair.

I see you're learning the knack of the metadata page. Do you find the new layout helpful?

Very glad you decided to stay!

Aleta Curry 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Biography

Mary, some time ago you deleted your biography (from your user page), but that was undone by a constable - here is a link to where you were informed that you must not delete your biography.

I notice that you have again deleted your biography. Were you intending to restore it some time soon? David Finn 06:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary, just so you know. Deleting content from your user page does not really delete it. Anyone can go to the History tab on your user page and see what the page contained a week ago, two weeks ago, a month ago or whatever. Were you aware of that? Milton Beychok 00:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the new charter is in effect, and the old constables are still doing their jobs, so I would like to ask Mary to add something about herself on her user page, it doesn't have to be too descriptive, and then, once the councils are in place, they will be reviewing all the policies that are now on the books. Though editors have more rights to control the content on pages, they too have requirements and limits that will likely be decided by the Editorial Council, whether liberal or conservative. But, that is just my opinion, we'll still have to work our way through some of these decisions as a community. The difference is that we won't have to wait for Larry or a dead EC to help us decide. D. Matt Innis 00:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mary. How about another article! D. Matt Innis 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary, I thought your new, point-by-point, biography was a great improvement, and I don't understand why you have substituted the old one, as there did appear to be 50 words there, assuming that the rule states that as a minimum. My own appears shorter. So do please reconsider. Ro Thorpe 22:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish; but there were over 50 words in the list one. Ro Thorpe 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick word count using Open Office and without the bullets the bio stands at 64 words. Enough to qualify as the correct bio and like you I like this one better. Thanks!Mary Ash 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Why? Ro Thorpe 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Marians are a big hit, Mary. Don't forget to listen to the music. Ro Thorpe 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, CZ articles are not written just for American audiences

Mary, please read the Talk page of Roast turkey. Milton Beychok 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved Ben Franklin

Good Morning Mary, I moved your Ben Franklin turkey article to your user space. As you said, it's probably something that needs to be added to some other article - maybe about Ben Franklin. You can add some of it to the Benjamin Franklin/Draft if you like, or maybe even a subpage there. I'd think it would be part of the Wild Turkey article..., but what do I know? D. Matt Innis 11:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

South Dakota

Not from South Dakota, but grew up in the middle west (Kansas, with grandparents in Alliance, Nebraska). Am thinking of moving to S.D. for reitrement. James F. Perry 20:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We were thinking about Rapid City as a place to retire. It gets awfully cold there for me though as I was born out west in the middle of the desert. I've been to Alliance and it's a nice town. Hubby used to in the Black Hills where he grew up on a cattle ranch. I'll try to work on the South Dakota articles, if you need help. Mary Ash 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

polygny

Well, it's in Britannica: "polygyny." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/468638/polygyny>.

OED meanwhile has the following:

polygyny, n. ...

...1. A form of polygamy in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. Cf. POLYANDRY n. 1a. 1780 M. MADAN Thelyphthora II. 91 There is not a nation under heaven, where polygyny is more openly practised, than in this Christian country. 1861 Times 21 Aug. 10/2 It is doubtless this teaching that polygyny is a divine institution which has such an effect in repressing the rebellious instincts of the women. 1892 Nation (N.Y.) 24 Nov. 398/3 The license, not of polygamy but of polygyny, was completely established in the case of kings. 1957 M. BANTON W. Afr. City xi. 202 Polygyny is no longer economically advantageous, nor is it easy for one man to support more than one wife. 1994 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 3 Feb. 27/1 Certain customary practices which the Catholic church proscribed such as polygyny.

-Derek Hodges 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope you're feeling better!

That's all. Aleta Curry 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

/* War criminals and crimes */

Mary, it seems that our dialogue under this section of my talk page was a misunderstanding, as pointed out to me by David Finn. I apologize for my contribution to it and have revised my original comment accordingly. --Daniel Mietchen 09:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

PATRIOT Act article

Hi Mary,

I've moved the PATRIOT Act article that you intend working on to User:Mary Ash/sandbox/PATRIOT Act, for the time being, as you mentioned on the forums that you won't be able to work on it for some time. As it's an import from Wikipedia, effectively unchanged (by the definition at Live Articles) and doesn't have the CZ metadata template added, it really shouldn't be in mainspace yet. Regards, Anton Sweeney 17:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did check the page history. Have you read Live Articles?

"An article is live if (1) we started it ourselves; or (2) it is externally-sourced (e.g., from Wikipedia), and there have been at least three significant changes in three different places to the wording of an article. The following are not significant changes: removing unused templates, etc.; spelling changes and minor rewording; deletions; and shuffling text without changing it. It does not matter how many such minor changes have been made. Only significant changes, which involve adding or completely rewriting sentences, can make an externally-sourced article CZ Live."

I moved the article to your sandbox because we're not supposed to import WP articles without changing them, and you said you wouldn't have time to work on it for some time (I know the feeling - I'm a volunteer too). As it's a... I dunno - "non-live"? "undead"? - article, then it's fine in your user's subpage until you do have time to work on it, at which time I'll be happy to move it back to mainspace. Anton Sweeney 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article in question has not been on site for a week. I would have worked on it after Thanksgiving but in FACT ANYONE should and could be working on said article. This is a major problem at Citizendium as it seems authors claim ownership and don't expect collaboration. If you had read the talk page in question you would have noticed I specifically invited others to help edit and write it. I was trying to get the community to COLLABORATE and instead there was complaining about the article. Sigh...Citizendium is not going anywhere unless you figure out whether you are a wiki or not.Mary Ash 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, you may invite people to collaborate, but you can't make them. Offhand, the people who are experts in that topic -- not generally familiar, not having covered regional politics, but with extensive experience in privacy and terrorism law and technology, don't want to work on it. You have offered no reason why this article should get a priority.

Please -- take this as a suggestion. If you are thinking about importing a WP article, inquire on the Forums if anyone is interested in working on it. Don't dump it in and suggest, without any reason, that people will want to work on it.

As far as I can tell, we are not a wiki by your definition and don't want to be. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Email

Mary, we need your email activated, can you do that for me in mypreferences above. Thanks! D. Matt Innis 20:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)