Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 23 June 2009

See also: User talk:Sfan00 IMG/Archive 2

Re: File:Intim Kabaré Poster.JPG

The image is from a photo of a poster found at a flea market in Hungary. I don't know the guy I bought it from. The organization who produced the poster (i.e. Intim Kabaré) is long defunct and I have been unable to find information about them. I believe that the entity that produced the poster has not existed since the mid-1940s. Please advise the best way to cite this document. You also suggested that I reduce the size. As the print is so small and the resolution is so low already, the relevant part of the document which mentions Miklós Vig would no longer be visible. Please advise what you suggest would be an appropriate reduction in this circumstance. Thanks -- Ambanmba (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, those 3 Images I uploaded that you posted about on my page are all owned by me.

I'm kind of new to this so I'm not sure how to edit their copyright info to say that.

Thanks --Baldeadly (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: St.Johns.jpg

This image was scanned from an old postcard given to me by my mother. I grew up in the Parish of St. John Newland you see. As I'm obviously not the originator of the photograph, and any original citation has long been rubbed away from the reverse of the postcard I'm not sure who or what to attribute the image. - sugarfish (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dublin Castle Explosion.jpg

I have no idea of the details, all I know is that it was first published in February, 1894. More details will be available if/when it migrates from Distributed Proofreaders to Project Gutenberg. -- Jim Regan (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: image question

I've told you before - no UK legislation is enforceable in the US. End of. Unless, of course, you mean American bylaws, which are normally called regulations or ordinances. That is something you'd probably have to speak to an American lawyer about, but given that such legislation is entirely local it doesn't matter unless it is a Floridian regulation/ordinance. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you link me to the particular one? Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bylaws, if they are bylaws rather than internal museum rules, would only be enforceable for New England at most (probably just the town/city, really). This might be a problem for the photographer, but not for us. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain rename tag?

You put a rename tag on the Ju 388 image. The image is of a "Ju 388L-1", which is the name of the file. What's the problem? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Easier to upload to WP

Hi SF- In response to your comment, the reason I don't upload photos to Commons is that I work exclusively in English WP and the "Upload File" button on the left sends me to the WP upload page. If I were to upload to commons, it would add about 5 steps. The vast majority of my pix are of interest to only folks in WP; for those few who want my images in Commons, they can upload them with my blessings. Thanks, Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Highway signs

To my knowledge, they are public domain in the United States as well as in Canada. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

78 record labels

For any and all of the old 78 record labels I uploaded, the source is exactly per the description. Unless I specifically stated otherwise (I don't believe there are any such cases), they were taken directly from the source as described, scanned by me from originals in my own collection. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you didn't know, most of these were uploaded here to en:Misplaced Pages back before there was a Commons. (Also before Misplaced Pages had the thumb nail function, otherwise I would have uploaded them at higher resolution.) Looking back, I see that a number of them that were tagged "fair use" qualify as PD-US-no notice (which IIRC didn't seem to be observed on Misplaced Pages at the time for some reason). I don't recall everything I uploaded on Misplaced Pages years ago. Updating a lot of such old uploads the info should be fairly obvious, but feel free to ask if there are any where there are relevent questions I might answer. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FreeSrpska Images

While I do have backup of my 2003 emails, I don't exactly know where it is, so it would be difficult for me to forward them to the OTRS. Note that the permission page actually has entire e-mail source so I don't think this is actually needed.

Anyway, I am not thinking that some of the images were used on the website itself under fair use and so they should be individually checked. See f.e. . Nikola (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:KingdomofJerusalem.png

Thank you for uploading File:KingdomofJerusalem.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

/* File:RuffedGrouse23.jpg missing description details */

To the best of my memory, there was no author information on the image in question on the Seney web site at the time that I uploaded it. So, if I had supplied author information, it would have been "unknown". The site at http:www.fws.gov/midwest/Seney/ has been reorganized since that time and the image in question is no longer present as far as I can tell. --Big_iron (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Schomburg.pdf

In regards to this, if you actually look at the PDF, you'll see it's the text from an email. I can't imagine any reason to keep it here, let alone at Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Transferring to Wikimedia a bad idea

SF- After having trouble with images I have uploaded, I am coming to the conclusion that transfering material to Wikimedia is a bad idea. Beyond the obvious question as to why material is being transferred to Wikimedia from Misplaced Pages when this material is never used in anything other than Misplaced Pages, I've encountered trouble with people logged into Wikimedia who have deleted images withwout contacting the original uploader. the wortst case with the popular giant ground sloth photo, which was on about 10[REDACTED] pages. Once it was transferred to Wikimedia, an editor there deleted it under a spurrious copyright claim that I could have easily addressed if I had known about it. In addition, information is often removed from the files that is relevant, such as the tracing of the 1810 map of Fort Madison. While the original drawing was public domain, I was happy to donate my labors cleaning it up pro bono, but when it was transferred to Wikimedia a credit for my work was stripped off, and only the editor who pushed the button to transfer the image was given credit.

I know that you are a big fan of uplading directly to Wikimedia, however this type of upload takes a great deal longer for people who work exclusively in Misplaced Pages, and still leaves the tracking issues as problems. I'm starting to realize that many of the manipulations of images that well-meaning folks such as yourself causes far more trouble than it is worth. You transfer to wikimedia to make it easier for other projects to use the images, however, no one in Wikimedia, as far as I can tell, ever uses my images for anything other than Misplaced Pages.

I was a prolific contributor of images to Misplaced Pages, but I am giving it up, and limiting my edits to just a few core articles. After wasiting too much time dealing with image issues, and having to fight off really stupid copyright claims that border on vandalism (such as one moron who thought that my photo of a post office was a violation of copyright laws), I've had enough. I'm asking you to stop being part of the problem, and until these issues are resolved, to stop moving files around. If someone has a specific desire for an image that is in Misplaced Pages for another Wikimedia project that is one thing, but wholesale shifting if files is counterproductive.

Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Dear Sfan and DS- Thanks for the responses. I understand Commons full well, and the reasons people give for transferring files to it. What I object to is the different ways commons files are treated; especially the deletion without notification. In WP it is pro-forma that if a file is proposed for deletion the original contributor is informed and can at least have a chance at salvaging it. This has happened a few times, mostly to images of no consequence, but the one incident that pushed me over the edge was the deletion of Giant_ground_sloth_Iowa.JPG This image was used on about 10 Misplaced Pages pages, including Mammals, sloth, Geology of Iowa, Iowa Museum of Natural History, and several Pleistocene pages. Wikimedia User:FunkMonk deleted it because he felt it did not have adequate copyright release. If he had bothered to inform me of this decision, it would have been a very easy thing for me to fix- I work closely with the museum that owns the model in question, and their directors were happy to see the image on line. However, I did not hear about this until after it had been deleted from every Misplaced Pages page. Compounding my frustration was a number of spurious copyright challenges on Misplaced Pages, the most annoying of which was Robert Longo Sleep 84.jpg (you can read that debate for yourself). In looking at similar images that were not so tagged, it has become clear to me that there is no consistent application of copyright. Another big problem is that any editor can nominate any image for deletion for any reason, and the burden is placed on the contributor to defend the image, and if no defense is given, the image is deleted. While most claims of copyright problems are in good faith, I began to feel that for some claiming a copyright violation is a very effective form of vandalism. Defending an image from a copyright claim takes a lot of work, more work than it took to create and upload the image. With my frustrations mounting, I decided to get out of the game. There a several articles that I still keep tabs on and want to improve, but my days of uploading images are over. Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, I've calmed down. Appreciate your help. Bill Whittaker (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Iowa Barnstar
		For supporting Rusty the Sloth, Iowa's most famous citizen, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Files and Unknown Information

If you unaware of information relating to a File, such as the source of the file. Do not fill this information like you have at File:Electronic Amplifier Class C.png due to this being possibly being incorrect. Peachey88 01:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said adding the {{Information}} box was the issue, i said adding information to the description of the image such as "Uploader?" to the source of image can cause issues because we are unaware if that file is by the author and not just some other site that released the file within the GFDL License. Peachey88 10:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Kingsnorth-12may44.jpg missing description details

Well I only uploaded that file 2 YEARS AGO, and when I uploaded it i put "Source: Royal Ordinance Survey", so what exactly do you require for "Author Information", as that wasn't a part of the form when I uploaded the file?

Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Council Bluff Photo

Sorry, I forgot that you requested the original version of the Council Bluffs photo, here it is: Council Bluffs Iowa II.jpg. Thanks for your help, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you tagged all of my images with Template:non-free reduce

I've seen many SVG logos, take this File:Coca-Cola logo.svg for example, or this File:Yahoo Logo.svg, and this File:YouTube logo.svg. I can find many more popular articles logos that isn't tagged with this template {{Template:non-free reduce.But why, and why do you tag most of my images with that thing ? Do you think it is easy to make or convert or compress or upload them (SVG images)? Why do you tagged this file File:Brighton & Hove Albion FC.svg, and this File:Thurrock FC.svg and most of the other images that I've uploaded? I've been uploading images since last year, but why now must it be tagged? And why don't you tag the three files mentioned (Coca-cola etc) and many others. Tagging is a very easy job huh? Why won't you them by yourself, or contribute? If it is wrong, why won't the bots or the admin be bothered to tag them? Can you tell me thoroughly what is the meaning of hi-resolution ? Did the rules told you that 300x300 or 400x400, 500x500, 600x600, 700x700 are hi-res ? I haven't heard of it before. I think the one that should be tagged is 1000x1000 above. You're being bias to me, why don't you reduce their size by yourself huh? I want explanation. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

SVG image is scalable, I don't think that there is much difference by resizing it. I agree if you tagged the rasters, but its a different story for the SVGs. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I will try my best to do it in 400x400 range from now onwards and yeah, I will try to take a look at the rasters. will try to convert them if it is possible. (: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image License

Hi Sfan00,

The image I uploaded is an image we created with the artists' permission that is licensed by the copyright holder using the Creative Commons wizard at http://creativecommons.org/license/ under practically every type of license available. Despite all the various versions we've licensed and uploaded, someone keeps telling us that it's not good enough. You gave me a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:COPYREQ, but that page merely tells me what permissions Misplaced Pages needs and suggests what I should tell the copyright holder when asking for permission. We are the copyright holder and we created the image and we have licensed the image and we stated that on the image's permission page and even pasted the code given to us through the Creative Commons wizard. We included a link to the original location of the image on the website for the artist depicted in the image, which demonstrates where the original is located.

Can't someone tell me the email address to email and/or just tell me what I'm not doing that's correct. These 10,000 word essays that explain everything under the sun (except what I need to know) just make it more frustrating. I would appreciate a simple answer to a simple question. Thanks. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:PokerTracker screen print.jpg

I saw your tag on File:PokerTracker screen print.jpg. At a reduced size, it is not legible. Can I remove the tag for this reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Same for File:PokerTracker 3 profit graph.jpg and File:PT3 HUD.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NOT-PLOT highlight.jpg

You tagged this image with the non-free reduce template, I've removed it since it is a free image, released under the GFDL license - like most Misplaced Pages text. Guest9999 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP edit1.jpg

Hi, Sfan00 IMG. Thank you for the message you left at my talk page. May I please ask you do not add templete move to commons to File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP edit1.jpg after I will remove it once agai?. As I explained in my edit summary while removing it for the first time there is the same file on Commons already: File:Canadian geese and goslings in GGP.jpg. The file you are talking about is a very slight edit of the original. It was done because I nominated the original to FP and somebody complained about vignetting. As soon as the nomination is clossed, this edit will be deleted. Surely Commons do not need to keep two the same files.Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Centpacrr

Whoa... you might not want to spam so many notices, epecially for images like File:CPRR & UPRR Display Ads May 1869.jpg that are clearly in the public domain (published in 1869). --NE2 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:WikipediaBinary.svg missing description details

You templated me regarding missing information for this image. I did not upload this image as you claim, I merely modified it. I can give no information on the source, but appears to be self-created by the original uploader, Dreftymac whom I suggest you contact instead. SpinningSpark 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture of iconoscope patent diagram

Hi, I'd like to use this picture in the German Misplaced Pages. You mention here that there might be some rights issue with the image (although it is public domain as all patents). What is the status on this topic? Could you please inform me once the image is GFDL-usable, and could you maybe make it available on the German Misplaced Pages. --Dogbert66 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png

Question. I noticed that you had File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png listed as possibly too large for fair use. It is a reduced image file, but I would be happy to reduce it further if you think that would still work. The point of the file is that as analog TV signals get grainy and almost unwatchable, digital signals stay exactly the same, so it is helpful to show some detail - for example in the analog version you can't even tell there is a trumpet in the image, while it is as plain as day in the digital version. 2ndAmendment (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Norwoodmunicipal.jpg missing description details

You write:

I guess I'm not sure what more needs to be added beyond the existing description, "Norwood, MA: Norwood Memorial Municipal Building, 2002." The time, the place, and the item depicted are all there. And that's the correct official name of the building.Dpbsmith (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Following me

Hi. Thanx for your post about the Hidden Mickey. I then looked at your contribs and noticed you investigating and/or picking on a bunch of items I've worked on in the past...any particular reason? DRosenbach 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Can't understand your multiple edits tagging images for moving to Wikimedia. Can't you do some useful editing instead of this pointless tagging? --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)