User talk:Elcobbola/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second opinion

Can I get your opinion on the image question [1]?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎

You commented at the prior FAC and many issues have been resolved. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Declaration entered at the FAC. Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You commented on the third issue and not the first. Do you have any knowledge about the first issue. Also, I have responded again to your third issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back at FAC, Elcobbola!!! I hope this wasn't a one-off comment :) Karanacs (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll start stopping by again when my opinion is requested, but a return to "regular" reviewing left to my own devices might need to depend on how that goes. Эlcobbola talk 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's very nice to see you pop on my watchlist, Ec ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed two of the three concerns and await my co-author's assistance for the third. If you agree that they are resolved could you please strike.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is File:20080517 Crown Fountain towers from overhead.jpg up for deletion at commons?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason therefor was given at the deletion request. Whether the towers themselves are eligible for copyright is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. I don't share the opinion of the nominator and have commented at the request accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 11:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about artistic integrity at the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Are you ready to strike your opposition?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I just wanted to make sure it looked alright to you. I take it that it does. :) Эlcobbola talk 13:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Now we have an oppose based on your change. What do you suggest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not based on my change, it's based on using a film instead of an image. I never said to choose the film over the image, merely that having both was redundant. Frankly, the notion that our readers would need a film to understand that water spouts from the mouth is absurd, but I chose not to press the issue as the film vs. image question in these instances is not one that's been adequately explored. I'm content with the current media, but it's an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. J Milburn's comment is not unreasonable. Эlcobbola talk 14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

Ec, since I know nothing about Commons, I don't know how to deal with the situation at User talk:Buster23#Friendly request. The image is original research and incorrect, but the uploader won't agree to remove it. Do I have to IFD it, do I need a commons account to do that (yuk!), or can the image just be tagged as disputed or OR or something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the inaccuracies capable of being corrected (i.e. the image would have complete and genuine basis in the relevant literature) or is it not salvageable? If it can be fixed, a revision can be uploaded and the old version deleted without bureaucracy. If the diagram cannot be made legitimate, the process would be the Commons version of IFD. You could always unify your login if you don't want a separate Commons account or, of course, I could nominate it for you. I have no knowledge in this area and I suspect neither would other commentators at the Commons, so I'd really recommend the former so you could participate in the discussion. Эlcobbola talk 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It could be fixed, if the uploader would do it, but so far, he doesn't seem willing to, and I'm not sure he understands the OR line. So I don't know what to do next. I'd rather he fixed it or deleted himself, so as not to stir feathers. But if he doesn't, I'll have to IFD it. Since Commons commentators won't be familiar, I guess that will mean the burden will be on me to provide citations showing why it's inaccurate, rather than the burden having been on the uploader to cite a source for the image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Correct, the burden would not be on the uploader. Comments is merely an archival site; it doesn't have a developed NOR policy because it's not in the business of dictating content to other projects. The thought is that en.wiki has its own NOR policy which it ought to be enforcing (i.e. if the image is "wrong", don't use it). That said, you need to demonstrate that, by virtue of its errors, the image does not serve an educational purpose and is thus out of the Commons' scope. Incorrect molecule diagrams, maps, etc. commonly come up for deletion and are usually deleted per the nominator having received no comments (again, commentators often lack the prerequisite knowledge to say whether it's right or wrong, so they generally steer clear). That being the case, simply stating that Chronic Tic Disorder and TS are mutually exclusive might be sufficient unless citations are actually requested. Эlcobbola talk 00:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That one's a no-brainer, since it's in the DSM. I hate the fact, though, that the burden is on me to go over there and get an inaccurate diagram deleted. I'm having a lovely vacation :) There's something about whenever I decide to travel that prompts someone to start in on PANDAS or TS; it never fails. Thanks, Ec. If the incorrect graph is still around when I return, I guess I'll have to deal with it. Of course, by then, all sorts of sites will have picked it up and propogated it. Rather disturbing that we can put out original, uncited research that easily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
At least it gives you something "to look forward to when you return. :) Buster23 seems willing to address the problem. Perhaps s/he would be willing to delete this image until the new version can be created (i.e. without prejudice towards recreation)? Uploaders can request speedy deletion of files with errors. I'd be happy to take care of it if Buster23's agreeable to that idea. Эlcobbola talk 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see now he's more amenable, but I've got to go attend a BBQ in my honor, with people I haven't seen for 20 years. Much more fun than this :) If there's anything you can say there to help him out, I'd love you forever (even more than I already do !!  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Sorry, Sandy, I didn't get this until now. Buster23 appears to have updated the image. Does the revision resolve your concerns? Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ec! It's still original research, and has some strange unsourced components, but as it stands now, it's no longer so grossly inaccurate that I'll care if it gets propogated on Google. As long as it's not added to the article, I can live with it now. Thanks for the help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hello, I am a rather new user but I was referred to you. I'm starting my first Good Article review, and I came across some pictures of ancient wall paintings that are licensed under a variety of free licenses. However I believe that since they are faithful 2D reproductions, there is no creative input and therefor it is a derivative work that must also be licensed under the public domain? I am referring to File:Sanghamitta.jpg in particular. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, with the caveat that you ought to say "solely" instead of "also". Because faithful 2D reproductions are considered devoid of original creative input (for our purposes, of course - this is not the case in all jurisdictions), the only germane license is that of the work being reproduced. Derivative reproductions of 3D works, conversely, require (free) licensing of both the original and derivative. Эlcobbola talk 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again sorry to bother you but I was going to review an FAC and a file caught my attention. Three-dimensional, permanently displayed sculptures, etc. are protected by freedom of panorama, no? So I assume a video would be as well (talking about Crown Fountain.) If so, then the non-free video could certainly be replaced. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The United States does not have freedom of panorama (although there is a provision limiting exclusive rights on architectural works). As such, the video on Crown Fountain retains full copyright and there is no non-free video to be obtained unless released by the copyright holder. Эlcobbola talk 23:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons problem...

This is a copyrighted photo (you can see the photographers copyright mark there next the the chest of the horse.). In fact, I KNOW this photographer, he's Scott Trees, and he doesn't release photos for Wikipedia or Flickr, so what needs to be done for this? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Scott's website and did some (quick) TinEye and Google Images searches and didn't find a likely source for the Flickr uploads, so I don't think it will work as a speedy. I'll open a normal deletion request and explain the situation. The best way to go about this, however, would be to have Scott Trees email OTRS and indicate that he is the copyright holder and has not released it under the license claimed. Once we get such an email, the image can be deleted immediately without the need for community input. Эlcobbola talk 19:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
My guess is it's from a magazine cover, it has that "look", probably Arabian Horse World or Arabian Horse Times. Unfortunately, my collection of those is woefully incomplete. I'll drop an email to Scott and let him know what's up. What's the email for OTRS? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Dropped him a note, gave him the page number and told him to talk to Commons direct. Blech. That's pretty dang brazen, to not wipe the copyright notice! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've set up the request here; I think it's a reasonable case given the information I have, but feel free to comment there if I've left out anything that might be useful. The address is permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org; he should reference the image (File:Spanisharabian.jpg) to help expedite things. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Heard back from Scott, he's going look up the photo and double check that by some weirdness he didn't sell rights for it that would allow that, but I highly doubt he did. I also notice that the Flickr account has a number of suspicious pictures that look like ads. Do have one question, what's "Flickr washing"? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Although it's defined here, the term, in actual use, merely means a Flickr user has uploaded and licensed works of which they are not the author. Despite what the definition seems to imply, there's not necessarily an assumption of deception or underhanded motives on the part of the Flickr user or Commons uploader. Эlcobbola talk 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one File:VientoDeWashoe-2006USSportHorseNatChHunterHack (887391113).jpg which is from the same Flickr person, and has even been deleted from Flickr. This is Don Stine's] work, but I'm on the road and can't deal with it, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I set up a deletion request as before. Again, Don might want to email OTRS for the sake of expediency. Эlcobbola talk 14:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know Don and I'm on the road, so it'd be Monday before I'd have the time. the only reason I noticed this one was that we were upgrading photos in the Arabian horse article and this newest one was suggested as a possible. And thankee much for taking care of this on Commons. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And for you...

The Photographer's Barnstar
You definitely deserve this for all the help you do with strange requests on images. Glad to see you around more! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! Эlcobbola talk 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MemChu

That nice image you uploaded made its way to the lead of today's mainpage article :) I hope that woman lives happily ever after ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. :) Эlcobbola talk 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

2009
Proposed date: Saturday, October 10.
Details under discussion.
Please share this with anyone who may be interested.
Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Smartphones and netbooks

Re your recent comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy #Proposal to increase the default thumbnail dimensions: The point about netbooks is valid, but my understanding is that smartphones such as Blackberries ignore the image sizes specified by Wikipedia, and use their own sizes. I mentioned this in an earlier comment I made in my thread. Is my assumption incorrect? If so, I'd like to correct my earlier comment. Eubulides (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't personally used the internet feature on a Blackberry, so I can't speak to them. My iPhone, however, does indeed utilize its own proprietary scaling. I included smartphones because I was unsure whether such scaling existed on all software platforms. If it is a ubiquitous feature, then smartphones might not be terribly applicable (although it may also depend on how the scaling is programmed; if an image is larger on a "full" OS, will it not also be proportionally larger on the smartphone? Will that have readability implications?) Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that the feature is indeed ubiquitous on mobile phones. I'm certainly no authority on the subject. Apple has the marvelously ambiguous "If you include very large images on your pages, Safari on iPhone might alter the layout of the page to accommodate the smaller size. For best results, you should supply reduced size images."[2] I guess more experimentation is needed to find out exactly what would happen on iPhone etc. if the default thumb size were increased. Eubulides (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. My underlying concern is precisely that this is being undertaken with no research. What resolution are our readers actually using? How has it changed over time? What are the trends in terms of the devices being used and the way people are using them? (To say nothing of consideration of the importance an "average" user places on images. If we assume most hits come from causal Google searches, how important are the images really?) I suspect the opposite of what the OP sets forth regarding resolutions may be true. If I'm incorrect and data do support the notion that high resolutions are being increasingly used (and that such an increase will continue), then of course it makes sense to increase default size. So, Mr. Hart, where's the beef? Эlcobbola talk 20:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/John Christie (murderer)/archive 1

Hi Elcobbola, I've addressed the problems you had with the images in the John Christie (murderer) article on its featured article candidate page. I was wondering if you'd like to respond to them. Cheers, Wcp07 (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sholes and Glidden typewriter

Updated DYK query On October 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sholes and Glidden typewriter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 00:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image advice

Hello. You're name was suggested to me in a discussion, as someone who can help with image copyright and use questions. You may be able to assist. I current have an article Makinti Napanangka at FAC, about a contemporary Indigenous Australian artist. The page lacks any image of her artwork. In Australia, the artist holds copyright in their works, regardless of the sale of the works or of where they might be hanging. A question has arisen of whether an image of a work, or of part of a work, might be able to be used in these circumstances. I don't actually have such an image, so I think the question in practice is whether an image such as this, from the National Gallery of Victoria, might in some way be appropriately reproduced. Do you have any comment? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hamiltonstone, Australia has freedom of panorama (FoP). If an artistic work, such as a painting, is permanently situated in a public place, it is not an infringement of the artist's copyright to photograph that work. (Your statement of "the artist holds copyright in their works, regardless of the sale of the works or of where they might be hanging" is technically true. FoP, however, does not invalidate copyright (i.e. the artist still holds it); FoP only limits certain aspects of its exclusivity.) See Section 65 of the Copyright Act of 1968 for the actual statute. That said, a photograph of the painting (assuming it is indeed permanently located in an area accessible to the public), would indeed be "free" enough for our purposes.
The secondary issue that was brought up on Malleus' page is whether the creator of such a photograph is him or herself entitled to copyright (e.g. by virtue of choice of filters, lighting, etc.) There is case law in the UK to support this notion (thus the threat of litigation from the National Portrait Gallery), but a lengthy discussion on the Commons established that this will not be recognized. Эlcobbola talk 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much - I had been quite unaware of section 65, a significant oversight on my part. Unfortunately, i don't know that it is going to help in this case. The National Gallery of Australia prohibits photography in its galleries, the Art Gallery of New South Wales has a specific ban on photographing Aboriginal art, while the Queensland Gallery states that photography of the permanent collection is permitted "for personal use only", which I do not think covers publishing on WP! I am not aware of other works by Makinti permanently on display in a public area. There may be one in Darwin's public gallery, but that is about 3000 kilometres away from here. Is there any scope for the fair use of an image such as the one linked above? I ask following Eubulides' comment at the FAC discussion. This notice on the NGV website is not very encouraging. Thanks for your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect you might have missed the issue with the derivative works (forgive me if I’m wrong; I want to be sure we’re on the same page). When one photographs a creative work, there is, the potential for several copyrights in one, so to speak: the work being photographed and the photograph itself (a derivative work). In the United States, such copying of a 2D work (e.g. a painting) is generally considered “slavish” reproduction which is not expected to pass the threshold of originality required to generate a copyright for the photograph. This is also, rightly or wrongly, the position adopted at the Commons after the aforementioned discussion. That being the case, for our purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Joe Q. Wikipedian or the gallery itself has taken the photograph, as there would be only one copyright—the one held by Napanangka. Accordingly, although the gallery may request private use, that isn’t expected to be a position with any legal or enforceable basis (again, this is from a US/Commons standpoint; Australian case law, like UK case law, may differ).
Eubulides' comment about fair use probably pertains to his/her assessment against NFCC#8: that an image would provide a significant contribution to the reader’s understanding. I agree that it would. NFCC#1, however, only allows fair use when a free version is not available and " could [not] be created". Given that Australia has FoP, I suspect a free version could indeed be obtained or created by, for example, finding a gallery-taken photo of a permanent work or by traveling/enlisting the services of a wikipedian 3000 km away. Эlcobbola talk 14:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I follow. Do you have a view about the definition of "permanent"? I ask because, while I am aware of a number of Makinti's works that are permanently owned by public galleries in Australia, I cannot prove one way or the other whether they are permanently on physical display - however, they are permanently on display on the gallery websites. Would that be compliant in your view? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hope you don't mind, but I have copied the above discussion to Talk:Makinti Napanangka, and thought it might be best if discussion continued there rather than here, so all discussion is at the one place. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi - I'm still hoping you will look at this proposal and give a view at my talk page or at Talk:Makinti Napanangka. This image issue appears to be the sticking point at FAC, so I am hoping to resolve it as soon as possble. I am reluctant to upload the actual picture that i have until I have an opinion from an experienced editor regarding the fair use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I'd commented on the first question and neglected the second; I'll remedy that. Эlcobbola talk 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hi! I'd like to know if Commons accept a seemingly sneaky photo taken at the place where the permission is required. Please see this discussion. It would be grateful if you would leave a comment there. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sholes and Glidden typewriter

Hi. I have started the review of Sholes and Glidden typewriter for GA status. See Talk:Sholes and Glidden typewriter/GA1. Regards SilkTork *YES! 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the article, and made a few small changes. I wouldn't now have a problem with the prose at GA level, but I'll put the review on my watchlist in case there's anything else I can do to help. BTW, the dual image at the head of the Design section isn't displaying properly on my laptop; the images appear one above the other, not to the right and left. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, it stacks up for me too when I print the article to work in hard copy form. I have a better image of the "later" model, so I'll upload that and a version in which it is combined with the "early" model so we needn't rely on that dreadful multi template. Thank you kindly for the copyediting; your input is greatly appreciated. Эlcobbola talk 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the article's fine for GA, but that image of a typewriter on top of a sewing machine stand with a treadle carriage return is one that'll stick with me for the rest of my life. There's a serious lesson to be learnt there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This user helped promote Sholes and Glidden typewriter to good article status.

. I've finished quibbling! Good article, well done. SilkTork *YES! 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive8&oldid=1091505802"