User talk:Bkell/September 2006 through December 2006

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bkell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wish to deleat Left Coast article

To me, Left Coast is a term used by Republicans to attack any person who is a liberal and who lives on the West Coast. Its not an Encyclopedic term (But maybe a Dictionary Term) its a hate word. please contact me on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum Serpentine (talk • contribs)

I don't think "Left Coast" is a term of hate by any means. I don't even think it's particularly pejorative, although one could make a better argument that it's a pejorative term than that it's a hate word. In any case, if you want to nominate the article for deletion, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion.

Also, in the future when you leave messages on a talk page, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will be substituted with your username and a timestamp, so that it is easy for others to see when and by whom the comment was written. —Bkell (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bkell

I have a question, what tag can i put in a photo of the National Geographic Magazine, of August, 1976.

Caracas 2000 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably can't use the image on Wikipedia at all. The image is almost certainly copyrighted and unlicensed, so it would have to meet the stringent criteria of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. Without knowing what the image is and how you plan to use it, I can't give you any better advice. —Bkell (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possibly Unfree Image

Bkell, the image is rightly taken by me, and it is my university's picture. It was taken in connection with the development of the university's website, and this image is listed there, so I gave the source.

The Licensing area is a little bit confusing. Guide me on if I err.

UXuf September 6, 2006

Image tagging question

Howdy again, I have another question about IfD tagging. CSD I9 specifies that images which have been superseded by a well-licensed commons image, are orphaned, and have been tagged with {{NC}}/{{NCT}} for at least a week are elegible for speedy deletion. My question is: is there a template of some sort that will let an admin know that all the I9 qualifications are met, and the image can be speedied, kinda like {{isd}}? Would I just use {{db-reason}}? And as a follow-up question, do other people do that, or would that even be a good idea? As it stands now, old NC/NCT images don't seem to get cleaned up very often; I'm sure it's just a question of the admins not having time and/or desire (heh) to grind through all those image pages. Thanks. — Wwagner 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Speedy deletion templates. For most of the speedy deletion criteria, there is a corresponding {{db-xx}} tag; for example, {{db-i4}} for images that qualify for speedy deletion under CSD I4. So logically there should be a {{db-i9}} tag, but apparently no one has created it yet. —Bkell (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossword

How about: Poke a Venetian in the eye" for BLIND?

Try this one: Amphibian went crazy (4) Mjefm 14:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Poke a Venetian in the eye" doesn't separate into two halves (a definition half and a wordplay half), and it's not an &lit. clue, so I'd judge it as a poor cryptic crossword clue. "Amphibian went crazy" is fine, but it's pretty easy; you could make it a little harder by choosing a less transparent definition. —Bkell (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Images question

- Bkell,

This is Burnwelk....you have tagged three of my images under "possibly unfree images". I admit that they are screen shots taken from TV but I don't want them deleted. My question is how I go about providing explanatory info for the images in question...I cannot find where to go to fix such a problem.

- Burnwelk

You can edit the image description pages for these images (Image:Salute2ladies095.jpg, Image:ILUVthe70s045.jpg, and Image:Nashville004.jpg) to replace the {{PD-self}} tags with a more appropriate image copyright tag. You should also leave a note at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 12, where these three images are listed, explaining the situation. —Bkell (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done...I have changed the status of all three from self-made to TV screenshot, also left a message explaining everything at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 12 as well.

You need to actually edit the image description page (click the "edit this page" tab at the top), not reupload the image. In fact reuploading the same image with a different licensing option doesn't change anything, for some reason. If you look at Image:Salute2ladies095.jpg, for example, you'll see that it still says "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain." —Bkell (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just made the corrections, they should all be now licensed under TV screenshot, please make sure the possibly unfree images page and the wikipedia brass knows about this - Burnwelk, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I had no ideal about my images they had said free use so I thought they were ok.MagnumSerpentine

Gulf Oil and the Betelgeuse incident

Brian. It was me that created the Betelgeuse incident article and secured its promotion to Good Article status. I will be most grateful if you refrain from removing material from the article without some prior engagement on the article's discussion page. best wishes Bob BScar23625 07:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Brian. Thanks for your latest posting on the article's Discussion page. I have transposed our full exchange onto the Image Discussion page and will add the relevant Fair Use rationale to the Image in the next few hours. Perhaps this all serves to illustrate that it is not wise to involve oneself casually in an article one has no interest in?. regards. Bob BScar23625 07:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sean Bianco image

So what should we do about it? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 21:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (I've archived my talk page, that's why I replied here)

Well, if no one does anything, Image:BiancoSean.jpg will be deleted in a couple of weeks, as it's listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. You can contact the copyright holder of this image to see if they would be willing to release it under a free license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information). Otherwise, if you believe that the use of this image in an appropriate Wikipedia article qualifies as fair use, then you should change the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag (which seems to be baseless) to an appropriate fair-use tag.

If you plan to do something about this image, please make a note under this image's listing at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#September 16 so that other editors know what's going on.

Also, when you archive your talk page in the future, maybe you could avoid archiving ongoing conversations. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll know about the status in not too long.

One other thing: If I save Image:Franz Schubert.jpg to my computer, crop it, and upload the cropped version, should I put {{PD-self}} on it or {{PD-art-life-70}} (the current tag)? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you aren't really the creator of the content, so {{PD-art-life-70}} would be more appropriate. If you modify a work in the public domain, then you hold a copyright to your new work to the extent that your modifications exhibit creativity. For example, if you write a movie script based on a play by William Shakespeare (as 10 Things I Hate about You is an adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew), then you hold the copyright to your script, but obviously you can't prevent someone else from writing another movie script also based on the same play. But cropping isn't really a creative operation, so you don't really hold a copyright on the cropped image. Therefore the {{PD-self}} tag, which says that you as the creator of the comment release your creation into the public domain, sounds too generous. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. (Hey, I might crop a few other images that need it!) :D — $PЯINGεrαgђ 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to crop JPEG images, I would recommend using a program called Jpegcrop. Other graphics programs may uncompress the JPEG before you crop it and then recompress it again. This is a problem with JPEG images, because information is lost in the compression process, so the recompressed image will be of lower quality than the original. Jpegcrop doesn't have this problem. —Bkell (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Portknockie page photos/postcards

Hi Bkell,

I notice that you've disputed the copyright of the images I uploaded to Wikipedia. While I agree that I am not the creator of the works, they are (likely) out of copyright postcard images that I scanned from the original postcards I have in my posession. Could you advise me on what you believe would be the best course of action regarding releasing these images on Wikipedia?

Cheers, nathan

When were the photos taken? When and where were the postcards printed? It takes a surprisingly long time for copyright to expire. Without knowing when the postcards were printed, we cannot assume that the copyright has lapsed. —Bkell (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no source information whatsoever on the postcards, so this cannot be verified without extensive efforts to trace back to the original printers, which is unlikely to be possible. Can these not be used under the fair-use policy or some other method? I understand the need for respect of copyright laws, but it would be a great shame if these interesting historical images were removed from Wikipedia simply because the copyright information is not forthcoming.

Cheers, nathan

Point 10 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy requires that all images used under claims of fair use have proper attribution of the source of the material and attribution of the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is unknown, then point 10 is not satisfied, so the image fails to meet the requirements for a claim of fair use. Moreover, even if the copyright holder can be determined, these images may still fail to meet point 1 of the policy, which requires that no free alternative could be created. The postcards show rock formations and a hotel; there is no reason that some Wikipedian could not take photos of these things and release the photos under a free license.

The goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose. These postcards are indeed interesting, but we cannot include them on Wikipedia if they are copyrighted and unlicensed except under the very strict criteria of the fair-use policy. Ideally we should have no fair-use images here, as such images go against the very goal of Wikipedia itself. —Bkell (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, worth a shot :). Now I am assuming that situations such as these (unknown provenance) have arisen before on Wikipedia and there has been a solution that is satisfactory within the laws of copyright. Since you seem to understand a great deal more about image copyright law with regard to Wikipedia do you have any constructive suggestions that might allow these images to be used on Wikipedia?

You could do some research to find out who holds the copyright, when the postcards were published, when the photos were taken, and so on, and then contact the copyright holder to request a release of the image under a free license (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). Otherwise, I don't think these images can be used on Wikipedia. Some people seem to think that they can upload any image to Wikipedia, as long as they cleverly pick the appropriate image copyright tag which will allow the image to stay, but that's not how the image tagging procedure works. Some images are copyrighted and unlicensed, and we simply can't use them here. —Bkell (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, there is no source information whatsoever on the images so research would be incredibly difficult to conduct into their origin. I understand the reasons, but I think it is very sad that images such as these cannot be used on wikipedia.

Lee Gregz/sandbox

Hi Bkell,

Ive noticed that you removed some images from my sandbox, as you say tey are copyrighted. But a majority of the images i scanned from my own books and put them on wikipedia. Also i thought that you are allowed book covers, but please correct me if im wrong.

Cheerz, Lee

Fair-use images are allowed on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia fair-use policy. But, by point 9 of this policy, they are allowed only in articles, not on user pages. I removed the images from your sandbox, because that is a user page, not an article. —Bkell (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

I would agree with you that the two logos are purely decorative and do not add significantly to the article. The Wikilinks in the article will take the reader to the proper "Gulf" or "Total", so there is no confusion. Copyrighted images Image:Whiddy.JPG and Image:Betelguese.jpg fail WP:FUC #1 as the map and the image of the memorial could both be created as GFDL (I am assuming the memorial still exists). Those images are also poorly sourced (what does "tourist board leaflet" mean and who is the copyright holder?) and do not have a fair use rationale for use in the article. The only legitimate fair use image is Image:Betelgeuse1.JPG, but it has no fair use rationale for use in the article either, so there is a problem with that image also. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I will copy this message to Image talk:Gulf.png. —Bkell (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Promotional

I read now your contribution on Template talk:Promotional, about what is not covered by that license. As I witness a lot of images uploaded with this template that do not fall under the license terms, I think it is urgent to add a text clearly excluding those images. Can you do something?--BaldClarke 01:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Jeremy Browne.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeremy Browne.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with you. The permissions have been explained clearly here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Pictures_from_libdems.org.uk_permission --Liberalis 10:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There was apparently no mention that the picture came from libdems.org.uk. But I can't verify that, since the image was deleted almost three months ago. You could talk to an administrator. —Bkell (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops

I was going to use the SalvadorDali and Gala image in uncyclopedia. Is this only for wikipedia? Sorry.

For my friend Bkell

For being my friend and all that goes with it,
I, $PЯINGεrαgђ, give you this cream tart. Enjoy!
A nice little break from image questions. :)
Well, almost—since I'm really saying thank you
so much for all the image and signature help you've given me.

happy Turkey-Day!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi^ŋ! --Randfan _{please talk talk to me!}

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Rand fan !!

Cheers! :) —Rand fan !! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Steel square

Hello Bkell,

I believe it was July that you edited my page on the Steel Square. Thanks for the compliments. The imges in question were deleted by the censor police. It is a little bit frustrating drawing all the images and having them deleted. I did one with a Steel Square on a lacewood background that illustrated the Octagon Scale on the Steel Square. I did notate that the square was made by Empire Tools. Why would they object to free advertisement on Wikipedia? I am a little confused on the ground rules and how to contest a random conclusion. I agree that the images are important to the discussion. I did take a photo on my computer table. Is that a problem? I read over the changes that you did and it enhansed the article. I need a little help on the image alignment.

Johnalden,Steel Square

Hello again Bkell,

I just uploaded a Jpeg to insert in The Steel Square article. I have been unable to insert Image:Hip Rafter Side and Level Cut.jpg after numerous tries. Do you have any advise? also I read all your edits and they are fine. If there is anything that is unclear tell me so I can edit it. The image alighnment is difficult for me being a novice at this.

thanks Johnalden

Hello, John. To place the image in the article, simply copy this code:

[[Image:Hip Rafter Side and Level Cut.jpg|thumb|This is the caption.]]

This will insert a small "thumbnail" image into the article, such as the one we have here. You should change "This is the caption" to a meaningful caption before you save your edits.

I think the reason that your images may have been deleted was because you did not give any licensing information. All images on Wikipedia need information about their copyright status and how they are licensed. If you created the images yourself, then all you need to do when you upload them is to choose an appropriate option from the "Licensing" menu. Some good choices include "GFDL (self-made)" if you want to release them under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, or either of the Creative Commons licenses listed there if you prefer those terms better, or "You created this yourself and release it to the public domain" if you want to abandon all rights (so anyone can do absolutely anything they want with it with no restrictions). Personally, I release all of my contributions into the public domain, but it's your choice.

If you are the creator of these images, you might consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons instead, where they can be used by any Wikimedia project, not just the English Wikipedia.

Let me know if I can help you out. I've been really busy lately, but I'll try to do what I can. —Bkell (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bkell,

Thanks for the info. I tried to insert the image

in different places and was unsuccessfull.

There is a redundent image in a pdf file. I cannot delete it. Is this causing a conflict?

Johnalden , Steel Square thanks

No, the redundant image isn't causing a problem. You successfully inserted the image into your reply here. What problems are you having, exactly? I don't see any recent edits by you in the history of the steel square article. Are you remembering to click the "Save page" button to save your changes? —Bkell (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bkell,

If you look in the Steel Square you will notice that I inserted and saved

The problem that I am having is that once I insert the edit ,

I can not preview it. It does not show the thumbnail. I inserted all the other images with no problems plus on your page. I can not figure out what I am doing wrong. Jack 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. When I touched up the article back in July, I "commented out" some of the code, so that it would still be there if the images were uploaded again, but would have no effect in the article. Anything in the code between  will not show up in the article itself. —Bkell (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bkell,

Thanks for the information. Is this code specific to Wikipedia. Where can I find more info on the code so I that can study it. I plan on inserting the images in between your code and then deleting the code and save it. So, basically you did this so that all the alighment and editing does not have to be redone. Jack 02:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The  comment syntax is actually an HTML thing, which got it from SGML. But it works in Wikipedia as well. For a description of some of the things you can do in Wikipedia, see m:Help:Wikitext examples. —Bkell (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,BKell,

I have 2 questions

I would like to discard them. I do not believe that I am authorized to do so. How is it done. They have been redone with drawings and it is to complicated with the copywright deal to use these guys.

Also my wife drew a colored pensil drawing that I wish to upload. She has a copywrighted this drawing.

Does she notate anything in the upload section?

Hello Bkell, I just went to your user page and checked out your Help:Table. That is an awesome job you did there. It demystifies a lot of Wiki code and has answered a lot of my questions. I only regret that I did not find it sooner. --Jack 11:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Those images you listed are already gone, so you don't need to worry about them.

If your wife wants to upload her drawing, she will need to give up some of her rights to it, by either releasing it under the GFDL or one of the acceptable Creative Commons licenses (Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 or Attribution 2.5). She can release it under both licenses if she wants. By doing this, she still retains the copyright, but she agrees to let anyone use it for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial, subject to the basic restrictions set forth in those licenses. The GFDL requires any work that uses the drawing to also be released under the GFDL, and the Creative Commons Attribution licenses require users of the drawing to acknowledge your wife as the source.

Another possibility is to release the drawing into the public domain, which would mean that she has irrevocably abandoned all rights to the drawing, so anyone can use it for anything with no restrictions. This is what I do, but some people are uncomfortable abandoning all rights to their work.

I'm glad you found the table help useful. It's not something I made; it's part of the standard help pages. —Bkell (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian, do you feel retarded when you describe Creative Commons? I know I sure do. Stack 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cylon

That was pretty funny! :) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Central Logo

About the picture http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image_talk:Central_logo.jpg. I tried to revert it to the original logo posted by Danmiles, but all it did was resize the logo that is there now - the one that looks like the arizona cardinals. So I uploaded the proper Queensland Rugby League Central Division logo: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Central_Qld_Capras.jpg. Hence why the central_logo.jpg image nolonger links anywhere. Steeden 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts worked fine, but your browser probably had the old image in its cache. Doing a hard refresh of the page should show the new logo. But if the logo you wanted exists somewhere else, then Image:Central logo.jpg is redundant and unused, so it will be deleted in a week. —Bkell (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)