User talk:Jim.henderson

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Use the +comment tab to tell or ask me something

Fort George Hill Tunnel[edit]

Jim: I hope you had a great holiday season, and that you are well and completely healed from your wound earlier this year.

Just a quick note: the Fort George Tunnel is the one on the IRT #1; the north portal of it is right at the Dyckman Street station on that line. The 181st and 190th Street stations on the A line are a couple of blocks further westward, and there's no tunnel portal per se - the line ends underground at 207th St.

All the best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Eek! I mistook IND for IRT! Shame, shame on me! Jim.henderson (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, but all the 1 train stations between the well photographed north portal and the not yet captured south one are in that tunnel, which suggests to me that they all belong in the category. Oh, and congrats on Category:Fort Tryon Jewish Center. I was too lazy to identify or hunt the "hanging building". Maybe someone can get there on a sunnier day. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New York City commons category update[edit]

I suspect you've been moving the occasional image listed in Category:New York City, and you know I've been doing it. I'd just like you to know that tonight I brought the number of images in that category to Under 1000! As you can see there are still plenty of images that belong in Category:Governors Island, and its sub-categories, and I've considered a few subcats of Governors Island myself. ----DanTD (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

re: The Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh[edit]

Hey Jim, thanks for the photo upload to Wikipedia. Dime celebrated its 150th Anniversary on April 19, 2014.

Pierrepont Family Memorial in Green-Wood Cemetery[edit]

Jim: If you get out to Green-Wood Cemetery any time soon (I've never been there), could you keep it in the back of your mind to get some shots of the Pierrepont Family Memorial, designed by Richard Upjohn? I can't find any free or licenseable ones, and I'd like to add it to the article I just wrote on en:Hezekiah Pierrepont. I'd appreciate it (but don't freeze your butt off on my account). Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As it happened I walked by the front gate ten days ago on a nearby errand. Certainly won't go tramping up a snowy, grassy hill until my minor wrist injury heals. Drat; probably looks good in the snow. Anyway in a few weeks I'll attend a family dinner at 65th Street, and with good weather will be glad of an excuse to exercise my recovered powers in a couple miles walk including slightly rugged terrain. It's a big cemetery, about the size of Prospect Park and with vaguer maps but I think the target is about here.
Object location 40° 39′ 12″ N, 73° 59′ 40″ W View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info
Many other memorials in the cemetery have artistic or historic interest; maybe I should look to buy a guidebook. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Coincidentally, it turns out that I may have to go out to the Greenwood Heights area of Brooklyn, not too far from the cemetery, to get some additional shelves for my kitchen cabinets. I may or may not be able to try and get a shot - it depends on whether I'm by myself or with my wife, what the temperature is, etc. I'll keep you updated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jim: I was able to take shots of the Pierrepont Memorial yesterday, so there's no need to go to Green-Wood on my account. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. you were a bit off on the location of the memorial, it's at approximately (hard to tell because of the tree cover in the Google Earth image)
Object location 40° 39′ 13.86″ N, 73° 59′ 37.09″ W View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info
. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Image re-use[edit]

Hi Jim, What are the requirements around re-use of your images for presentation purposes?

I have sent several thousand pictures, and each has a license box according to Commons:Copyright tags. The majority are CC0; some are something else. All may be reused without notifying me or asking me or paying me. Many people who reuse any Commons picture like to credit both Wikimedia Commons and the photographer. That's a nice thing to do. I also would like it if they put a notice here in my talk page, though nobody has.
Some of my pictures actually require crediting me. A few are labeled as Public Domain. Even if you falsely claim to be the author of those, you aren't violating my rights, though of course a lie is still a dirty thing to do and you might be violating someone else's rights. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have seen perhaps a dozen of my pictures used with credit in various websites including neighborhood newspapers, and somewhat fewer without. Since the credit is the main way the credited uses came to my attention, I figure the uncredited ones greatly outnumber them. Either way, these uses don't violate my rights, under the release I gave for most of my pictures. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Audubon Terrace[edit]

I notice that this cat belongs to Category:Archer M. Huntington, which belongs to Category:Hispanic Society of America, which in turn belongs to this cat. Can that be right? Thanks a lot. Vzeebjtf (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) On further inspection I see there is a whole category of categories like that, so the answer must be yes :). Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravely I must have sinned, for I seem to have been punished by being appointed expert on New York category loops. Anyway, indeed such circularity is a bad thing. Someone cut another loop involving these cats last winter, but either another one grew or one survived. This will require studying the man and his connections to the place and institution. This will indicate a resolution by proper diffusion or plain cutting or perhaps a lateral link. Pleasant task, for which I hope to find time today or tomorrow. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. I just reversed the category relationship between Category:Archer M. Huntington and Category:Hispanic Society of America. Sorry to rob you of a pleasant task :). Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Splendid; thak you. If the likes of you and our friend @Epicgenius: take over the major cat wrangling, I can tend to geotagging which somehow is attractive for me. And if our friend @Beyond My Ken: gets more company in that field, I can just process my own photos. Always we have more for the thoughtful to do, than thinkers to do it. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see anything that needs to be done. Can you point me in the right direction? Epic Genius (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I remember correctly, Huntington was the force behind the building of the entire Audubon Terrace complex, which included buildings for already-existing organizations, but he also founded the HSA, which didn't exist before that time, and was created around Huntington's collection. The "circularity" comes about because of the nature of Huntington's relationship with these institutions. I, myself, have absolutely no problem with this kind of corss-hierarchical relationship between categories (I know Jim disagrees with me). HSA is part of Huntington because he founded it, but is also part of Audubon Terrace because it's physically part of that complex. Audubon Terrace is part of Huntington because he was the prime mover behind it. This makes perfect sense to me, because I'm not hung up on the notion that the "category tree" has to be a strictly hierarchical one. That idea is hardly revolutionary: think of a corporate tree which is primarily hierarchical, but also has dotted lines presenting other relationships that cross hierarchical lines to show responsibility upwards or elsewhere that is normal, or relationships sideways into other departments. Human relationships are complex, and there's no reason that our category system can't reflect that complexity -- but that's an argument which, although entirely correct, I know will not be acceptable here, so you folks go ahead and figure out what makes sense to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The way the cats regarding HSA and Audubon Terrace stand now is completely consistent with what you wrote. Vzeebjtf (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC) What you're saying is that the cat structure mirrors the real-life relationships, which legitimizes the over-categorization. I came to the same conclusion myself. I do think, however, that over-categorizations should always have a specific justifying reason, as in this case. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (The circularity was a different problem, now eliminated.) Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand the issue now. I guess that since Huntington comes first, his category should be the parent category, and the HSA category the child. Epic Genius (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we're dealing with an inadequate tool. Neat, regular hierarchical trees work well enough in the encyclopedia but that's partly because they just aren't very important there. Here, we get our nose rubbed into the fact that the world mostly doesn't want to fit into a neat, regular hierarchy. So, we fuss and change or mind and insert work arounds such as lateral links. Real Photo sharing sites use a non hierarchical atomic tagging system with a search engine that can find reliably relevant hits for searches like "Manhattan Huntington Statues 1934-2012" even though a million pictures are tagged as Manhattan but the ones we want are tagged as "National Hispanic Institute". I imagine a smart programer could bolt on such a search engine to Commons, and devise a quick, semiautomatic way to make and insert the best tag templates. However, with our developers mostly working for free, I expect this to be a low priority. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Hi Jim - thanks so much for taking some shots of the MoMA show "This is For Everyone" this week. Creative Commons will use one or more of those shots in an upcoming blog post (@ creativecommons.org/weblog, and I also know that thousands and thousands of people in the Creative Commons global community will appreciate getting a better sense of what that exhibition is all about. Can't thank you enough! JayWalsh (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased that you say so. Belatedly looking at my uploads, I'm appalled by the obvious uselessness of some and disappointed at others, but offer the excuse that my studies, such as they are, have been in outdoor and architectural work. Anyway nobody's demanding their money back, so I can chalk up the failures as inexpensive lessons to be applied to future pictures. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
They were great! We really liked this one for the post. It was also posted on Medium. Thanks again! JayWalsh (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)