![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Okay, after reading through some of the many pages on image uploading, copyrights, and licensing, I have a few questions that I hope somebody can assist me with.
I am a hobbyist photographer, and I have many images that could be useful here on Wikipedia. However, I have some concerns:
Thanks --
Okay, I have some followup questions.
Note: I guess "modifications" would have to be defined so as to exclude reasonable modifications, such as display at various resolutions.
Moondigger 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to Bertolotti for the answers to questions 1 and 2 below. Does anybody have the answer to #3? Moondigger 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to ask these questions, so I guess I'll post them here with the "helpme" tag and see if I get a response.
1. I edited several articles prior to setting up a user account, and the edits are showing up accredited to my IP address(es). Is there any way to remove the IP address attributions and replace them with my login name?
2. One or more articles on the site contain the following warning: "Because of recent vandalism, or to stop banned editors from editing, editing of this article or project page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. Please discuss changes, or request unprotection." I have no desire currently to edit any of these articles, but I am curious: what criteria are used to determine who a "new" user is? i.e., At what point will I no longer be considered a "new" user, and therefore able to edit such articles?
3. One last question. Can login names be changed? If so, will all attributions be updated, or does the old attribution stick to an edit?
Thanks...
I hopo I was helpful :-) -- Bertolotti 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I read your entry on FPC talk, and looked at your photos. They are definitely FPC worthy, if they could be just a little larger (you do have the originals saved? ;-) If you could re-upload the two images at, say, 1400 x 1000, I'll volunteer to nominate them on FPC and do the coding work. Greetings, -- Janke | Talk 07:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I do have higher resolution versions that I would be willing to license if the license could be limited to Wikipedia and related services (foreign language Wikipedias, Commons, Wiki print editions, etc) only and no-derivs. I outlined some of my feelings about this on this page, in the "New stuff" section above. The "assume good faith" philosophy is a bit hard to subscribe to given past experiences.
As to the FPC stuff... the guidelines specify a minimum of 1000 pixels. But it appears there's an unstated, de facto higher minimum. If featured pictures must be 1200 pixels minimum, then that should be the stated minimum. If they must be 1400 pixels minimum, then that should be the stated minimum. Telling somebody their properly-licensed, guideline-matching image is too small leaves a bad taste.
Either the licensing should allow me to specify non-commercial (except Wiki and related) + no derivs, or the stated guidelines should be adhered to with respect to acceptable resolution. Note here that I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of Wikipedians; higher-resolution images would already have been posted if my licensing could be limited to Wiki and related only. Frankly I think it's naive to assume that outside commercial entities won't exploit the contents of Wikimedia Commons for their sole commercial benefit without giving anything back to the Wiki community.
I find Wikipedia to be an amazing resource. That's why I decided to contribute my time and writing. Obviously I'm more wary about contributing photographs, and I doubt that will change.
Sincerely -- moondigger 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
One followup comment. There seems to be a trait of human psychology which dictates that what's acceptable isn't really acceptable. I can best describe this by example. Let's pretend the stated guidelines were changed such that they specified 1400 pixels as the minimum. I believe that within a short time after the guidelines were changed, FP candidates that met those guidelines would be dismissed as only meeting the minimum, and that they should actually be larger -- say, 1800 pixels in one dimension.
In my way of thinking, it shouldn't be that way. If the stated minimum were 1400 pixels, then any FP candidate that was 1400 pixels on the side should be met with enthusiasm. "It's illustrative of the subject, technically sound, aesthetically pleasing, and meets the minimum resolution requirement. Support!"
Given that the stated minimum is actually 1000 pixels, there shouldn't be any debate about 1000-pixel images either, and they should be met with the same enthusiasm described above. That's not to say that even higher-resolution images wouldn't be welcome or garner even more support, but those that do meet stated minimums should not be dismissed. -- moondigger 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You said (on FPC talk): I'm not going to nominate my photos. First, because doing so looks complicated; I don't want to screw up the other candidates somehow with poor formatting. Second, because if there's a de facto requirement for featured pictures to have resolutions higher than the stated 1000 pixels, the nomination will be voted down anyway.
Nobody says a FP has to be any exact size. 1000 px is the accepted "norm" stated on the nomination page, but as our comments clearly indicate, larger ones are preferred. However, your images are so good that I see no reason why they couldn't get featured status in their existing size. As for the complicated nomination procedure, don't worry, I volunteer. In fact, I'd like to nominate the two you mention on FPC talk, but since you seem to have ambivalent feelings about it, I'd like to have your permission first (not that it is needed, since the photos are uploaded under GFDL... ;-) Greetings, -- Janke | Talk 11:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you are hesitant about your photographs I was wondering if you sell them. Some people here relase certain images into the public, and make sure they link their site on the image page as well as on their user page, hence generating sales for other photgraphs. So you might want to consider doing that. Also I belive the selling of prints of public images is perfectly legal. - Ravedave 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I really have seen no other "tutorial" than the one on the FPC page itself, int the "Nomination procedure" section - and I must admit it took me a couple or three edits to get it right the first time. But never fear - if you mess it up, someone else will fix it for you, that's how things work here on WP... PS: Re the "unauthorized commercial use" you mentioned: Did you ever pursue it further? Basically, at least here in Scandinavia, an unauthorized use of a copyrighted image entitles you to at least double compensation. Happened to me once - I got a nice wad of dough when an ad agency used my animated characters without permission. But, they paid voluntarily. Going to court for something like that would be insanely expensive, at least in countires where lawyers never keep their hands in their own pockets - here, it has to be 40 below for them to do that... (I hope you're not a lawyer... ;-) -- Janke | Talk 05:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in reply. No, I've never been. My comment that it wasn't good as an FP for the Canyon itself reflected that there seem to be many other shots of different parts of the canyon that equal yours as depictions of the canyon. Yours, however, DOES do the best job (a VERY good job) illustrating the composition of sandstone, and in a natural formation as well. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I really appreciate your opinion about my Eurasian Nuthatch photo. I've seen your edit and got a question whether you could help me in refitting that picture. Personally I've got only little experience in digital graphics edition, so it would be awesome to have someone willing to help. I could send you by email or place in Wiki the original caption that is in better quality. Jojo 1 08:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Image:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg's peer review. Have you given the photo the once over you suggested? I tried last night, but I (somehow) only have Photoshop 5 on my current home desktop computer. Worst case I'll just do it tommorrow when I go into work (as a photo tech, much nicer copies of Photoshop) just didn't want to duplicate your work. Staxringold talk contribs 00:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Moondigger,
Thanks for you comment, but I think my monitor is pretty good actually. It's a Polyview V17E 17" LCD. I can see three of the four dots on the FPC page. I do find bright photos better than dark ones, and this may be part of the reasons my edits are "bright", but I think probably the main reason is that I'm used to getting photos ready for printing, and brighter is generally better in that respect.
Anyway glad to see you around FPC, you've got some nice photos! --
Fir0002
00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
Image:Lower_antelope_2_md.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
|
Seems vaguely silly to inform myself that my image was promoted, but this is part of the procedure. -- moondigger 01:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The cricket fielding positions image is actually stored at commons, so the page at English Wikipedia doesn't have any text or anything. That's not a problem - simply add the tag to the blank page, and it will behave as expected. The image and description comes from Commons, then the tag will come from the local page. Stevage 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I've just uploaded my two Eurasian Nuthatch photos. Unfortunately I've got only jpegs not raws. These photos are not cropped so you can cut them at your convenience. Thanks for help. Photo 1 and Photo 2 Jojo 1 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Wave Cut Platform may be a 'not promoted'. See FP talk page. -- jjron 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Moondigger,
Thanks for your edits on this nom, however they did not gain support and are not used anywhere else. Do you mind if I delete them? Thanks, --
Fir0002
00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
An image you uploaded, Image:March on Washington edit.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture. Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it. Raven4x4x 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually took down the contrast in photoshop in order to make the skyscrapers closer to the headstones. But I like your image as well -- Plowboylifestyle 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't put your Havasu falls pic up for FPC I will, its awsome, looks like a painting. - Ravedave 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I should take you off my watchlist otherwise I am going to comment on more random crap all the time :p. I noticed you trying to arrange your images, it's a PITA to make a gallery of odd shaped images. To do it without the <gallery> check out the table at the bottom of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. - Ravedave 19:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Petrified forest log 1 md.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueens edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Congratulations, and thanks for taking them for us. Additionally, since your original Cavalry Cemetery image, Image:CalvaryCemeteryQueensNY.jpg, wasn't promoted it isn't used in any articles. Would you mind if I deleted it as a redundant image? Raven4x4x 08:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi moondigger... thank you for you coaching in Adobe RGB vs sRGB. I am still getting the hang of Wikipedia, and will follow advice.
By the way, your photography is excellent... upload some more!
-- tomascastelazo 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Constitution Pg1 edit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Moondigger, I enhanced one of your images under "Milky Way" to bring out details. Unless somebody has their monitor adjusted just right, your image is difficulty to see. Feel free to remove it if you object to an enhanced version. --tablizer
Follow-up: I saw your message. Thanks for adding the license tag. For some reason it did not prompt me for a licensing category this time. If you want to replace the image with one enhanced from the original (non-compressed), I won't mind. Take care, -tablizer
Would you mind taking a look at that articles talk page? There is a poll there about which image should be the main image for the article. It's gotten a ridiculously small response, with only 5 or so votes we'll never reach a consensus. ONUnicorn 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading your comments on FPC and... well, I don't always agree but I know very little about photography. (referring to Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg discussion) How can I tell when colors are natural? Also, is it always a better looking picture if it's natural? (or is your argument that if it's vignetting or blownout, etc. for artistic effect it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article?). Also, if you know of any little reference on this kind of thing that could help me become a better judge then please do tell me. Thanks. gren グレン 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Marumari - I'm getting ready to nominate your Zebra Heliconian image. Given the current tension on the FPC page and my tendency to be a stickler on image quality, I have a feeling any nomination I make will be heavily scrutinized by some of the participants. I have no problem with 1000 pixel images -- all of mine were 1000x667 originally, until I was strongly encouraged to go larger. I just think it would be prudent to go a little bigger with your Zebra Heliconian image prior to nomination, especially given the comments made about the resolution of your Mexican Wolf image.
Also, I'm thinking it could be improved with a bit of edge sharpening. If you'd like, I could give it a go... just supply me with a file to work from. (I can handle pretty much any format, RAW included.) If the thought of somebody else working on your images bothers you, then just let me know if you will be making a bigger version available. Thanks... -- moondigger 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
What this fellow is saying is that a copyright on such a thing as lighting may well exist, but it simply doesn't apply or exist in the laws where Wiki is published, thus can't apply to Wiki itself. Does it, and can you answer this clearly? I've asked him for an example of what he states, so I guess I can ask you too for factual confirmation. If you can, please do, as without solid proof this will be a neverending circle of 'what if?'.
BTW, this contributor had no say one way or the other on the photo; his question was on the basis of the copyrigth vs. US law (and by his perso page and references he seems to know what he's talking about) so there was absolutely no question of 'like' or dislike. Let's stay rational in this. THEPROMENADER 08:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice you had concerns about the copyright of the image on the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider delisting page. I've asked the original uploader of the picture, Jmcc150, to comment on that page so you may wish to discuss the issue with them. If we can get this cleared up once and for all it would be great. Thanks. Raven4x4x 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
WB, I see you got some good vacation photos. I have nominated Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg like I said a would a long time ago. I think its a great pic, we'll see if you support or oppose :). - Ravedave 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(moved barnstar to user page)
Despite my opinions on your Havasu Falls photo, I decided that this was in order after I took a look at all of the other photos you've uploaded. Keep em' coming! -- Nebular110 05:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you put a speedy deletion tag on Image:Havasu Falls 1 md.jpg at Commons. Do you really want it deleted while the Featured Picture discussion is still open? User:Angr 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
Image:Horseshoe Bend 1 md.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
|
Congratulations again. Raven4x4x 09:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I came across your userpage and saw the images you've uploaded – wow. Just... wow. You're so talented! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I cannot access your wiki e-mail, so I answer here. Yes please, I'd like you to make a try... The image in question is here - the editor of Live Steam magazine loves it, wants it on the cover, and we have discussed the low resolution. The problem is, she wants to crop it to a vertical format, thus using only half of the available pixels... If you can do something with some specialized software, it would be great! (I've done what I can in Photoshop, but need something even better...) You can find my e-mail address low down on this page. Thanks, -- Janke | Talk 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
THis picture is sweets. This is my new background for my destop. Thanks, Leffer/Moondigger!
It's obvious that your a professional. How do you reduce grain in the picture? Because i saw an image that you've reduced the grain. I'll be glad to know and what is the program you use. Thanks a lot. Arad 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\
Just letting you know as a courtesy that I used your gallery as a template for mine. Hope you don't mind - finally got around to putting my featured images into a gallery. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
This is to let you know your Featured Picture Image:Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 19, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations. howch e ng { chat} 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Moondigger - Just wanted to let you know I didn't think your closing the FSM image nomination was fishy. Even if the image had 80% supports, with those lengthy arguments, it was clear no consensus had been reached on it - and consensus is, after all, what the 2/3 threshold is supposed to reflect. Debivort 04:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I re-ordered the pictures because I noticed someone had changed it to newest-at-bottom again, which it hadn't been for a while. Now you've changed it back, I won't revert it again until I explain why I put the newest at top. Firstly, it's because all the other lists are in that order, secondly it's because I'd have thought it just makes logical sense? As it's a page about newest whatever, surely the newest things should be at the top, as that's where people are going to look. HornetMike 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated your photo Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for Featured Picture status. Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Flounder camo md.jpg for discussion. Regards, howch e ng { chat} 17:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lake Fryxell edit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I recently cranked out a new and greatly improved version of Pi-unrolled.gif and (why not?) nominated it for FP. Since you commented on the nomination of the previous version of the same graphic, I'd like to invite you to comment on the new nomination. Thank you. John Reid 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
Image:Flounder Camo md.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Fir0002
10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
|
Congratulations -- Fir0002 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, inadvertent. Jclerman 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)