For the visual appearance of attributions or citations,
see “note style” (below on this same page).
img src=’), without him granting his explicit permission in advance. In particular, providing a complete-&-accurate attribution to this webmaster is not an acceptable substitute for being granted explicit permission in advance. So no, he will not “just be happy to get the exposure”[×]. It's really not an overstatement to just boil it down to stealing. Making high-quality images, whether by chemical or digital media, reviewing them, then postprocessing them, requires a degree of mental focus that's not compatible with multitasking (as callous noncomputerists perceive the latter concept). Earning income from photography is financially challenging, because it incurs up-front expenses, whether chemical, for acquiring & processing film, or digital, not only for storage media, but also for keeping up with advances in computer-based hardware & software. And intended subjects can incur substantial expenses for round-trip travel outside a photographer's local area.[$]
From want of attention to this, important events have sometimes been misquoted by a year. In illustration may be considered the death of Queen Elizabeth 〈I〉. This occurred in what was then styled in England 24 March 1602 〈O.S.〉, being the last day of that year. In France and wherever the N.S. prevailed, this day was described as 3 April, 1603. To avoid all possible ambiguity such dates are frequently expressed in fractional form as 24 March/3 April, 1602/3. In our modern histories years are always given according to N.S., but dates are otherwise left as they were originally recorded. Thus Queen Elizabeth is said to have died 24 March, 1603.[**]Of special interest for the history of the European colonization of the eventual U.S.A., England incremented its year-number on 25 March from 1155 until it adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752[*].
For the principles that justify inclusion of notes
as attributions or citations,
see “attributions or citations” (above on this same page).
[...] representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. [....] This policy is nonnegotiable [....]But wait! Wouldn't Wikipedia consider the Vatican among “reliable sources” on Catholicism? And if a man bearing the title “pope”, garbed in white in public, expresses a “view”, does that make it “significant” for Catholic faith, morals, or practices? Does such a “view” place any obligation(s) on faithful Catholics? [+]
Arabic, which is rich in earthy phrases, loaned some of them to Hebrew. If you get into a traffic accident with a Tel Aviv cab driver you will probably hear some of them. Ben Yehuda 〈the “father of modern Hebrew”〉 would not have approved but it is inevitable.