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)