User talk:Videmus Omnia: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Jun 2007; Jul 2007; Aug 2007; Sep 2007; Oct 2007;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:30, 7 October 2007

This user is a member of the United States Armed Forces and may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time, but will most likely return.
Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

Please leave a new message.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Videmus Omnia/Archive/Jan 2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Alexz Johnson Picture

I see that this has been flagged for speedy deletion because of potential copyright concerns.

As far as I can tell, the picture was taken by the proprietor of an Alexz Johnson web site in Toronto, and is probably OK on the copyright. But I'll check into this further and seek proof. I have asked the originator to upload a high-res version, which should be available if it was taken with a digital camera.

I'm the main author of the text for the Alexz Johnson article, and have no involvement with the picture, except for the fact that I think it's a good picture, and that it adds a lot to the article.

In due course, I'll be getting other pictures from Epitome Pictures, the producers of Instant Star, under a Creative Commons licence, with documentary proof.

As I mentioned, I'll look further into the copyright status of the picture you flagged, and will update you on what I find.

User:JD_Fan 29 Sept 07

Thanks, I appreciate it. I've been seeing a lot of copyvio photos being uploaded to illustrate that article, most of them stolen from her MySpace page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note on Alexz Johnson Picture

OK, I was able to chase down the source of the picture. The only place where it has appeared, as far as I can tell, is on the web site of the person who uploaded it and who claims that it is hers - a claim that I am inclined to believe for the time being.

Here's my note on all this.

Let's give this a bit of time before any action to delete this photo. As I mentioned, if the uploader doesn't get back to me soon, I will check it out with CTV and the producers of the show.

JD Fan 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - thanks for staying on top of this. The best thing would be for the photographer to contact OTRS with a written permission. One thing that makes me a little skeptical is the lack of camera metadata on the photo, but that doesn't always mean the photo is not legit. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Videmus Omnia. You have new messages from ArielGold at User talk:ArielGold#COI template.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Thank you so much for the pretty blue barnstar, Videmus! I'm really glad you like the variety of templates, and if you'd like your own, I'd be more than happy to make you some! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

overuse of non-free images

Hey, Viddy. What was that template for articles with more non-free image than could reasonably pass NFCC#3? I came across Johnny 5, but forgot how to tag it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quadell - it's {{non-free}}. Cheers! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Keane-On a Day Like Today.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Keane-On a Day Like Today.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall images

Hi Videmus. I just recieved about 20 bot messages for Image:RandallHopkirk10.jpg and th eothers. Can you see a problem with this 10 point rationale? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they were just missing the article title in which they were to be used. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you please tell User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images that the Bollywood blog images are legal. It seems to have begun tagging new uploaded images thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm getting tired of receiving bot messages for Randall and Hopkirk. What is wrong with Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg ? Please respond on my talk page thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right so it is the name that is needed then?. Because it certainly meets the 10 point rationale. I just don't want to be drilled a 50 kb beta bot command for the tagging again . Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a way to do that - I knew I could somehow. Could you add this for Template:Filmrationale - its just I do so much work on here i need it to be as efficient as possible and not have to expect bot messages again. Could you add it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t think so its just a long term problem that needs sorting. All I need it a Rationale for fair use in ..... title for this rationale so I can add the title where appropriate on each page and it not affect the actual template. Whatever you can do to rectify the problem would be superb ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g [1] - how can I modify it so I can add the relevant title in the space on each image and it not affect the template each time? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is to convert it to something like Template:Non-free use rationale but requires minumum of effort to add the title etc. So the template will give automatic details of the ten point rationale and terms of use etc in this nice looking box. PLease try to do something this evening thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have in mind but at present this template is in the form of a nav box. PLease can you get this to be recxognized by the bot and please help convert it to whatever. All I want is a box I can copy everytime and just add the titles source to it 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HI Tim you haven't answered my question. If you think the rationale I have added to Image:Una giornata particolare).jpg is good, I can continue uploading images with a box like this. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK tanks. I tried to have a go at converting it to a template with parameters but got too confusing. If my current design as a navigation plate stylewhich gives a full rationale and cites the article and date etc prevents the bot from drilling me messages this is all I want. Any editor looking at that can't contact me about it as invalid now . Let me know if you have any further developments Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost


Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View

Shortcut : WP:POST

Automatically delivered by COBot 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Victorias-secret-embrace.JPG

There is no guideline during upload what size it should be on. Please enlighten me since I am not very familiar with image guidelines. Number1spygirl 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally for non-free images the guideline is the size needed for display in the article, or 0.1 megapixels, whichever is larger. You shouldn't need to resize it yourself, there are several volunteers with decent graphics software who normally work the resize requests. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messages to User:Collard

Just a heads-up - Collard wasn't the original uploader of those Enterprise pics, he just does a lot of image resizing. You may want to check the image history to find the real uploader(s). Good find on the free pics, by the way. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was getting around to it, leaving them one at a time. Thanks for the heads up, though, Oh, and you'd be amazed how many good pictures the government has on actors. I just overhauled the image description page for Image:PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg. Taric25 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Image:Expander.png

Betacommandbot tagged it as disputed rationale, which is wrong since it's free. You changed that to a "no source" tag, but it's a free image. Is there a documented requirement that free images must explicitly provide a source? In any case, the source of that image is clear enough: it's a screenshot of a particular free program. EdC removed the no source tag and I agree with that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IUP says that images need to have a source, this is so the copyright status can be verified by others (as the 'no source' tag says). It should be sufficient to specify what software this is a screenshot of (see WP:IUP rule of thumb #2). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like he specified the source when he removed the tag. I reformatted it into the {{Information}} template. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast replies. I asked because I just looked through IUP yesterday and was unable to find any firm requirement for a source (there is an explicit requirement of sources for nonfree images at WP:NFCC#10). "Rule of thumb" may be the problem - I would interpret that phrase to mean "suggestion", not "requirement", and many of the bullets in that section are actually suggestions, or are vague enough to be nonactionable. I have generally not added much information for GPL images I create and upload myself. I think the issue here is that IUP needs to be more clear about the source requirement, if there actually is one in practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main thing to keep in mind is that someone has to be able to verify the image is free. If you specify the software the screenshot comes from, and someone can Google that software and find out that it's free, that should satisfy the requirement. You're right, the policy could use some clarification. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-UA images

Your retagging of PD images will be reverted as disruption. talk first, tag second. --Irpen 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa!

Hold your horse buddy. I was looking into the military insignia issue in my upload log :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. I'm trying to clean up the licensing issues for images using the deprecated {{Military-Insignia}} template. I'll hold off for now. Cheers - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see that and thanks for your patience. I accept that there was a copyright violation regarding the Air force and Navy pics. But I the one who create Commissioned Officer ranks of Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Army. If you look closer to this page then you will notice what I'm talking about. If you are going to delete all my military insignia images, then I would like you to recommend to delete my above mentioned pics too. Happy editing --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. What if I change my military rank pics into fairuse as this one? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lahiru - the problem with that particular image is that it's copyvio from here (the filename is even the same). It might be valid if an equivalent image came from a Chinese government source as opposed to uniforminsignia.net (which claims copyright on its images) - I need to do some research on Chinese copyright. It may even be PD coming from the right source. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tim my prob is non of the Sri Lankan forces are allow their stuff to the public for free due to the danger of misuse by their opponents. But I can upload these pics [2][3]as fairuse but non of these are not good in quality wise as the uniforminsignia.net once. Luckily I have made my self the Sri Lankan Army's Commissioned Officer ranks, but I didn't had any free time to create others. What shall I do? May I give up all my military rank pics? or change into the fairuse because there is no free or good quality images available in the cyber space? Awaiting your reply. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the rank insignia themselves are copyrighted, and no free equivalant can be made without being a derivative work, then you should have a case to use the {{Non-free symbol}} license. I would just make sure that the fair use rationale specifies why the images are not replaceable with free ones. (Just my opinion - I'm afraid I'm no expert on international copyright law.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Then I'll change my images into {{Non-free symbol}} to keep those without getting deleted. Surely I'll set the fair use rationale as you said. Thanks for your replying to my messages and I appreciate your kindness.

Happy editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That commons gallery

Aha! I think I found out what's going on on that porn star's gallery. The user is the person in question. Here: [4]. I have no idea what's the appropriate response, though. But the page is protected for now. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it's someone who thinks they're helping the person in question - Sasha Grey's username is User:Madjabuds (though I think she also used some socks when that username got blocked for vandalism on Commons.) I've corresponded with her via MySpace - she doesn't care about the other photos being present on Commons so long as the one she donated is used on the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I feel like you're our "Ambassador to the stars", Wikipedia's representative to those alien creatures we call "celebrities". Or maybe you're more of a naturalist, trying to understand their strange behavior, social customs, courtship displays and rituals. "This vandalism looks like celebrity spoor -- one was here less than an hour ago." :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - most of the "stars" I correspond with are of a pretty low order of magnitude...I remember how cool I thought it was the first time I got a response from one (it was Kelli Maroney) but now it's just routine...and some of them are downright annoying.

So are you saying I'm the Steve Irwin of B- and C-list celebrities? Crikey - I hope I don't share his fate! :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abbundando.jpg

Regarding the status of Image:Abbundando.jpg, I have left a message at the image's talk page. Please note, this image is a mugshot and falls into public domain. The copyright holder has been expressly stated as the New York Police Department in the image summery, and fuffils the criteria listed in {{mugshot}}. 71.184.39.125 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing any of that, but why do you keep removing the {{non-free reduced}} tag? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUR expedited request

I see you participate in WP:FUR debates. In fact, you seem to be the big cheese at WP:FUR. I would like to call your attention to an expedited evaluation request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#October_5. I have contacted many page participants and think you should keep an eye on this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Following your request I've removed the nonfree images from my user page. I don't get it why rules apply to some images and not to others, even if they're all in the same category comic covers or panels. I usually provide enought information but some of my images still get deleted. Copycat989 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Quickimgdelete bug

Hi! I just noticed your problem on Howcheng's talk page. While I can't fix the template immediately, I can offer you a simple workaround: in URLs which have an equals sign in them, replace each = with = . That way the template doesn't get confused by the equals (which it tries to associate with a parameter) while retaining a viable URL. Hope this helps you out. ObfuscatePenguin 03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at it properly, the problem is with the underlying parser functions and their treatment of =, rather than with the template; it was already capable of handling URLs with = in them, but instructions were lacking, so I've provided some instead of even thinking about messing with the deep-level juju of the parser functions. Basically, you don't need to replace each = with =, so long as you add url= before the URL, which, thankfully, is much easier. ObfuscatePenguin 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that - thank you! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[5] Just left a comment on the page you might like to read. :) Jmlk 1 7 03:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my pics

Why are you deleting all the pics that I have uploaded?

get a life man

Mercenary2k 10:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...

I get the message. You can leave me alone now and I'll see if I can find out more about the copyright of the 19 images previously of no source. jnothman ^talk 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete request

Hi! Could you delete picture please? I don't have enough privileges to delete it myself. And also if you're an admin I would like to ask you to delete my userpage too. I'm kind of done with this fascist wikipedia. Copycat989 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're not an admin could you please direct me to one. Thanks.

Yeah image deletions policy sucks. Anyway it was fun while it lasted. A tag and a description is enought by my standards. See ya' Copycat989 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Copycat989 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

I've updated the Project Spam page you sent me. I'm not trying to spam anyone, I just thought the interviews/articles in question were helpful resources and so I added the links. There's more explanation on the page, but if you really feel that the links don't add anything to the page, feel free to get rid of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.170 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG crusader bot?

I was curious - have you ever considered a JPEG crusader bot to convert photographic GIFs that should be JPEG format? Or are you strictly a PNG fan? :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not, because that would lose a bunch of image quality on top of the massive quality loss by saving photographs in GIF in the first place. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses to messages on my talk

Hi, I've been a bit sloppy lately about responding to queries (e.g. "why did you delete my image?") on my talk page. It would probably look politer if I stayed away from Wikipedia completely while going slow on responding to talk page questions, so that people couldn't see I was online while I was ignoring them. Actually, I've got a few real life issues on my mind at the moment, and I find that I have time for edits that don't take a lot of creativity, while I postpone answering questions that require me to research something and compose an answer. I just want to say that I very much appreciate the way you've recently been helping out when someone asks a question at my talk page. (And Quadell, if you're watching this page, I extend my thanks to you as well.) I hope to get back into the habit quite soon of answering questions promptly, but it is a bit of a relief to get up in the morning or to come home in the evening and see a question on my page has already been answered by you. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - happy to help. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badly tagged image

I just wanted to point out that Shepherd Book's photo was sourced and fair-use-rationaled when you tagged it. --SarekOfVulcan 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no source URL and no evidence of previous publication outside Wikipedia per WP:NFCC#4. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, pictures are occasionally published offline, I've heard.--SarekOfVulcan 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to the pair of you. The source is mentioned in the upload details in the file history section:

http://www.foxhome.com/firefly/main.html (click on "cast"/"Book")

(although, strictly speaking, one should click on "Ron Glass" instead of "Book", as the character name isn't currently listed). It would not take a huge amount of work to include that somewhere more visible. --Scathlock 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 296: / Line 296: @@
 :Actually, there's no source URL and no evidence of previous publication outside Wikipedia per [[WP:NFCC#4]]. [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]] [[User talk:Videmus Omnia| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 ::You know, pictures are occasionally published offline, I've heard.--[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
+This may be of interest to the pair of you. The source is mentioned in the upload details in the file history section:
+ http://www.foxhome.com/firefly/main.html (click on "cast"/"Book")
+(although, strictly speaking, one should click on "Ron Glass" instead of "Book", as the character name isn't currently listed). It would not take a huge amount of work to include that somewhere more visible. --[[User:Scathlock|Scathlock]] 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

v t e Non-free film-related media rationale
Rationale for fair use in The Bugle Sounds
Description:	Poster for The Bugle Sounds 1942.
Source:	http://movies.toptenreviews.com/reviews/images/m49557.jpg
Rationale for use on wikipedia:	1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject. 2.The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. 3.The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. 4.The image has been published outside Wikipedia; see source above. 5.The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. 6.The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. 7.The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title. 8.The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself. 9.The image is used in the article namespace. 10.The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder.
Resolution:	The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork.
Replaceable?:	As a film poster, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the images from the movie poster would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary.
Compatibility with wikipedia?:	Use of the film poster in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.