Contents

User talk:Quadell: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:49, 19 June 2007

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Persondata on a subpage is relevant to the proposed bot, but wanted to point it out to you here rather than confuse the separate discussions. Carcharoth 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LsBark1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell, can you please tell me how to upload my image..Jordan Galland without getting it deleted.please! :O) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

Greetings. Thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, we can only use images that are released under a "free license", or images that pass our non-free content policy. This is rather complicated, and I don't recommend newcomers try to tackle it. The short answer is: we probably can not use an image you upload unless you created it yourself (i.e. you were the photographer). Otherwise, the image probably isn't free. Sorry!

By the way, questions and comments should go on talk pages, not user pages. And you can sign your comments by using four tildes, like ~~~~. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

LOL, no problem. You're learning. I hope you like it here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what if I have an email from the owner say ing I can use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs)

This is one of the least-understood things about Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants to be a free encyclopedia, meaning that anyone can copy the whole thing (including pictures) without asking anyone's permission. So if the copyright-holder says that Wikipedia can use it, but no one else can, then that's not good enough -- we still can't use it. The only way we can use it is if the copyright-holder (usually the photographer) says that anyone can use it -- copy it, print it, even modify it -- without asking for permission first. If the copyright-holder agrees to that, then we can use it. But if not, we can't. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't create test pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Instead, consider creating them as subpages of your userpage or something of the sort. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one after that was Metadata:Alexander Grothendieck. :-) I think the idea is clear, though. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Persondata on a subpage if you are interested, Pascal. Carcharoth 23:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nice demonstration of the Metadata namespace idea, thank you, but I think the point is now well made, and the content is out of date, so I marked it as {{db-test}} and it has now been deleted. Geometry guy 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have tagged this image {rk} even though a perfectly acceptable free image is available at commons, as already explained on the image discussion page. Dermot 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The non-free image can be used to illustrate the character (mentioned in the article on the actor), but may not be used in the infobox to illustrate the actor. I fixed this in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting this out. One comment, the text of the {rk} template states "no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created". Won't this lead to confusion when free-licensed images of the same person are available? It isn't obvious that the template is only referring to images of the person in very a specific context e.g. illustrating a notable role discussed in an article. Dermot 13:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. What the {{rk}} template means is something like "no free-licensed image exists or can be created that would adequately perform the same functions in the articles the image is used in, when used in the limited context called for by our non-free content policy." I'm not sure how to best say this in the template without sounding like complex legalese. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this "The image was proposed for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. The result was to Keep the image as no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this image at the time deletion was considered. However this image may be replaceable by free images in contexts outside the specific one for which this image is approved, and in such cases the free image must take precedence"? Dermot 11:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I proposed a (slightly modified) version of this at Template talk:Rk. If no one objects, I'll change it in a few days. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hs1112_12.jpg Image:Core910_2.jpg Image:Core_01.jpg

The licensing has now changed to the copyright holder has given permission for use (Which I received from the WTPS district on June 13th).

Also, Image:Core 01.jpg should've never been deleted in the first place. It was tagged "AutoReplaceable fair use buildings", and you listed your reason for deleting it as rfu, however if you had bothered reading my dispute, you would've known it was an image taken during construction of the building, which falls under WP: "particular point in the building's history" exemption, which is listed right on the auto-RFU tag itself.

I will make the proper licensing edits, once restored. Rawboard 06:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Core 01, I actually did "bother reading" the dispute. I also bothered looking at the article it was in, and I saw that the image was not being used in the article to illustrate the construction of the building, but simply to illustrate the building at all. I judged that any contemporary photo of the building would perform the same function in the article.

Regarding the others, I'm afraid that having permission to use the images on Wikipedia is not good enough. Wikipedia is a "free content" encyclopedia, and as such anyone can (and is invited to) copy all Wikipedia content and repost it on their own website. If we used images that can only be used on Wikipedia, but can't be freely used by others, then we wouldn't really be a "free content" encyclopedia. If the copyright-holder is willing to license the images under the GFDL, so that anyone (not just Wikipedia) can use the images without asking for permission, then great! We can use the images. But if not, I'm afraid we can't.

If you still feel the images were deleted in error, you can bring the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review. But without evidence that the images have been released under a truly free license, I won't restore the images myself. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping to assumptions, but i've had encounters inwhich a administrator deleted without reading the dispute, (and wouldn't even talk about it), and all you wrote as the reason was "rfu", which it isn't, since the building doesn't excist in that form (altough above you say you thinks a current pic would do the job, a simple rfu under deltion log doesn't tell me that). As for the images, I did get permission to use it on the web, not Wikipedia specifically. I didn't even mention this site when asking, but forget it, i'll just take a picture the next time I drive by. I doubt they would wanna be bothered signing the proper documents to prove such a release to the public.

As for core 01, I disagree. I specifically used that image, instead of this one because the building was just recently built. The construction of the core building was a very important event in the town/school's history, as it connected the high school, and made it one building for the first time since 1989. Previously, students had to walk across a parking lot to get between buildings. The majority of the article on the core building was about its construction, and the article was under the history section of the WP artcle on WTHS. I would've prefered construction photos of all 3 sections, as it was in the history section, and about the rise of those 3 buildings, but the 11-12 and 9-10 wings have no known online / free images.

Oh, as for deletion review, i'm not gonna bother with the first 2 images. You were right. At the time I put them they clearly were rfu, and a change in licensing, would probably result in them telling me to reupload them under the new licence. Core 1 I may, but as WP suggests, I must first invite you to take a second look, before I goto that step. Rawboard 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for understanding. Image:Core_01.jpg is a tricky case. I restored the image, but on the condition that it only be used to show the event of the building's construction, and not used to show how the building looks. In order to make that clear, I separated out a "history" section at Robbinsville High School and included the image there. I hope this works for you, and I look forward to seeing your photos of the building currently. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Denton is my cousin. I wish you had put a message on my user talk even if you were going to speed delete without giving 48 hours notice. I am not putting back up the image right now. Instead I am going to talk to Bobby to see about getting a letter something I can scan to say I can have his image. My only complaint is lack of discussion. Please remember that while we make mistakes, many of us have good intentions. And I am sure you are helping protect Wiki. Let's work together to keep people with good intentions interested. While you hold the copyright true (which is good) please don't forget: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks! Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 12:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• PS The image will be made with a personal camera so you won't have to worry about it.

Thanks for your polite note. (Often, issues with image deletion bring out the worst in people.) I'll try to discuss these things ahead of time as much as possible, to prevent misunderstanding. Please note that we will need permission for anyone to be able to use it (not just Wikipedia) in order for us to be able to use the image. For more info, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you sometimes forget to remove the blank line at the beginning of an article, when you remove a deleted image. – Ilse@ 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll try to watch that, thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your comment on my user talk page. I've posted a few questions as well. Maybe I should have posted here, I don't know... Anyway, please take a look when you find the time :) Fenrisulfr talk 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response :) Made it all much clearer. One last question though: You mentioned I could try Flickr. Am I to understand that Flickr is all free content? Fenrisulfr talk 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Sorry if I was confusing. Next to each image on Flickr, you can see copyright information. Some say "All rights reserved". These, of course, are not free. Some say "no rights reserved", or say that they're in the public domain, or that anyone can use them for any purpose. These are free. Others say they are licensed under a "Creative Commons license". These may or may not be free -- it depends on the specific license. If the image is released under the Creative Commons Attribution license (cc-by} or the Creative Commons Share-Alike license (cc-by-sa), then it's free. But if it's released under a Creative Commons "no derivatives" (-nd) or "non-commercial" (-nc) license, then it's not free. Complicated, isn't it? If you have questions about a particular photo, I can help. Also, sometimes if I find a good photo on Flickr that isn't under a free license, I try e-mailing the photographer. More often than not, the photographer is honored that I want to use the photo on Wikipedia, and is willing to release it under a free license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... sort of complicated, yes. Glad I didn't become a lawyer ;) Anyway, thanks for all the help, I understand a lot more now. You'll probably hear form me again if I find other images that need attention. Se you around... Fenrisulfr talk 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you head to the image's discussion page and help me work out a solution? Thanks, Earthsound 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied here. Thanks. Earthsound 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 18:41, 17 June 2007 Quadell (Talk | contribs) (8,971 bytes) (-deleted image) Segmented regression
What is the reason?
R.J.Oosterbaan 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I removed the image, Image:SegReg1.gif, from the article because it had been deleted. Leaving it in the article would have just left an ugly unformatted red link in the place where the image used to be.

The image was deleted because it did not have a valid copyright tag. If you made the image yourself and wish to release it under a free license, let me know and I can restore it and help you tag it appropriately. All the best. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. First time I uploaded the figure, I did not put a copyright tag out of ignorance (am new to Wikipedia). I tried to upload again with the "Attribution" tag several times overwriting the previous uploads but it did not work. Something escapes me here, and if you could help me out I would be much obliged. (With later uploads i had no more trouble)
R.J.Oosterbaan 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great! I restored the image for you, and tagged it {{attribution}}. I did this by clicking "edit this page" at the top, and adding the template. (As you figured out the hardway, reuploading over an existing image won't change the description.) I'll put the image back in the article too. If you need any more help, let me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quadell. As I believe you may be interested, I just want to let you know that I'm nominating for deletion the images of "Misses being crowned" we once discussed. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, this can of worms doesn't want to stay shut. Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer calling it a Pandora's Box. Look closer, those images were never nominated for deletion before. The Pandora's Box was opened when it was accepted that one image uploaded to illustrate a (living) model could be though to be illustrating the "historic event of her crowing". After that, dozens of images of "crowing" were uploaded to fill the gap left after removing hundreds of images of models (in the hope to create a gap to be filled by free alternatives). --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In related news, I'm sincerely saddened to see this. My strongest motivation in this whole dispute was to try to side with enthusiastic newcomers whenever there is grey area, in the hopes that we can encourage them people to become full-fledged Wikiholics. I mean, when someone doesn't care about our policies, I don't waste time on them; but when a newcomer wants to understand and follow Wikipedia policies, and sincerely wants to contribute, I try to do what I can to make this a rewarding place for them to be. In this case, however, it looks like I was wasting my time. Sigh. I suppose she wasn't as stable a contributer as I had hoped. Ah well.

In either case, wouldn't you say that this particular dispute is grey area? I mean, we frequently reproduce non-free photos of important events in people's lives in their articles. Looking through the featured articles, I find John Brooke-Little, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom, Princess Alice of Battenberg, Margaret Thatcher, etc., that have similar sorts of images. (Image:Princess Alice of Battenberg coronation.PNG is a particularly close parallel.) Would you say that none of these image uses fulfills our non-free use policy? I'm genuinely curious. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless I overlooked something, I believe that images like Image:Thatcher kaunda.jpgorImage:Sir Colin Cole and John Brooke-Little.jpg shouldn't be used (and indeed, that our policy doesn't allow their use). I like to summarize our whole policy on unfree content as "we use unfree material when it's necessary, not when it's useful". Not all events are historic significant events, and not all historic significant events need to be illustrated (although they need to be mentioned).

About the "related news", don't feel bad about the time you spent. Every line you write to help some user is logged and is still useful to be read by any other user.

I may have mentioned that to you (or in some open forum) before... but I see we (Wikipedia) are doing a very poor job in the path transforming newcomers in full-fledged Wikiholics. Not in the sense that we don't have enough "full-fledged Wikiholics" (we have plenty of them), but in the sense that we don't get the full-fledged Wikiholics to become free content evangelists. It's not hard at all to run across full-fledged Wikiholics that don't understand what free content is about. Or even worse, lots of them understand but don't value it.

I wanted to see people who come here to write about their favorite tv-series or hip-hop-bands to become free contents evangelists in one year. But it doesn't seem to happen at all. User's who are openly against free content multiply in the community, many of them even become admins.

Well, when addressing newcomers, always try to talk about free content. Never let them believe this project is something else (even though many here would like it to be something else).

...That was just a small rant. Not completely related to the discussion above. Thanks for your time! ;) --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quadell, thank you for the notice. I left a reply to your question at the same place. Here is a quick link for you. Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Quadell! The file mentioned above is a clear copyvio, we (I am sysop there and on de.wp) delete files like that from Commons day by day. It is a German soldier, likely photographed by a German photographer. Copyright in the European Union/Germany: The file is in the public domain 70 years after the artist’s death. No author is mentioned here, but maybe the guy still lives in an old people’s home. Whoever it was, it can’t be in the public domain, since it was done during world war II (no 70 years). There is no legal basis for PD-Italy (no source mentions an Italian artist) or PD-US. It was never in the public domain in Italy. Even if it was a photo by an Italien artist, it was no „simple, documentary photograph without creative input“. Regards, --Polarlys 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]