User talk:3dnatureguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Template:3dnatureguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

TheRingess 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for Image:Coptic bust.jpg, which is a highly interesting picture. Probably this is the first time I've ever encountered any wikipedian contributing 3D images! I was wondering if you're a professional photographer? Keep up the good work. --BorgQueen 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a documentary historical film director, and a 3D photographer. I'm jazzed about what can be done on line with objects in 3D.I'll be putting some of the 2000 USGS National Park 3D pictures into various Wiki pages, where approrirate. Check the image out with red-cyan glasses, preferably plastic ones.3dnatureguy 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You list "Photographed in 3D 2005 by Allan Silliphant from a private collection in Caifornia. No restrictions on use." on the image page for this picture. Are you Allan, in which case you should use a different license like GFDL-self or PD-self, or at least a statement on the page saying that the image was created by the uploader. Otherwise you will need to provide evidence that this person has released his rights. Rmhermen 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A simple statement on the image page that the uploader and author (image creator) are the same person would clear up the ambiguity. Rmhermen 00:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello(from cohort)-"Amarna letters"

I am recent to wikipedia, (last summer); I trained on a little bit of the Amarna letters. But have since been in Egyptian type stuff. like category for Sistrum. I made the "category: Egyptian artefact types". At any rate if a stray clay tablet letter comes your way, .... I have mentioned some Text corpus, corpora on a page i've been doodling on: List of archaeological world treasures (major and minor). Any how the clay tablet pictured on "Amarna letters" on scale of 1-10, deserves a "1". Talk to u later (alligator). (Note, I'd love to do more with Hieroglyphs, I made page Gardiner's Sign List, and on Shen ring, I helped on the page, but i think someone from europe added a closeup of the actual hiero.--later) --MichaelMcAnnisYumaAZ--Mmcannis 07:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know why he is talking to you - you had nothing to do with either of the images in Amarna letters did you? -- RHaworth 07:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cadillac

You have added a number of pictures to this article but the pictures are not properly described on their image pages. If you took the pictures you need to indicate this. Otherwise you need to list a source and show where they release their copyright. Otherwise these sorts of pictures will likely be deleted. Rmhermen 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Copyrights Issues

Hi, I notice you have been uploading lots of image lately. You have been using the edit summary "Photo journalist waves rights" in combination with {{GFDL-self}} or some similar summary. Could you please be more explicit that the uploader (3dnatureguy) is the creater of the image. Maybe with edit summaries something more like this:

Photo of whatever taken by User:3dnatureguy in 2003, and released under the gfdl.

I notice you often claim "All rights waived to Commons" or "Photo journalist waves rights" and then tag the image with the GFDL. The GFDL is not an all rights waved license and is not the same thing as public domain. The most appropriate license if you actually want to wave all rights to the image is {{No rights reserved}}. Also you claim to be donating some images to the wiki commons but are actually uploading to the english wikipedia (not the same thing), if you want these images available for other wikimedia projects it would be a good idea to upload them to the commons directly.

It is important that these issues are rectified on all of the photos you have already uploaded. Images with questionable source or copyright claims are deleted off wikipedia within seven days of being tagged as such. --Martyman-(talk) 09:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I notice you say up above that you are planning on uploading thousands of images. Can I suggest that you upload them to commons so that they don't all have to appear in articles. Many articles are already suitably illustrated and adding further images just crowds the text. This is gotten around by using {{Commons}} as shown at the bottom of Canberra. --Martyman-(talk) 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Placement

Thanks for all of the efforts that you've put into the auto articles of late. Have one favor to ask though, when placing images in an article, could you use a right justification instead of left? This helps to keep the article text and images inline with one and other. Also, if you have a non-3D images (which are very neat), we'd welcome those too. Stude62 22:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D image comments

Hi. Your edit summaries for you image uploads are still sub-par. The form I suggested above makes it very clear tha the uploader created the image and has the rights to release it under the appropriate license. Also you are muddying matters by your claim to be waiving all rights to the wiki foundation, and then tagging the image as GFDL. The GFDL is not an all rights waved license, in short it requires attribution and requires that all derivative works also retain the GFDL license. By uploading to wikipedia you are not only waiving your rights to wikipedia but to everyone in the world who may wish to use your images, for example to use on their competing 3D buisness. Also could you please try to leave comments on user's talk pages not their user pages. Also are you also User:Nativeborncal as many of their early image uploads still claim a non-free license and can be deleted on sight.

Secondly, I and a few other editors are concerned about the quality of the 3D images for people not wearing the glasses (the great majority of wikipedia readers). I feel that the images should not be treated as standard article illustrations. Illustrations in an encyclopedia should be used to clearly illustrate the article, they are not their on their own merit and are not for decoration. My best solution would be to have the 3D images available at commons and link through to them using an appropriate template. I know you claim they are no where near as bad as the old images and that you will send out a few free glasses but that is no conscilation for the great majority who have to look at illustrations that show significant colour artifacting. I also have concerns that you may be trying to spread 3D images on the wikipedia as a mehtod of try to increase their public acceptance and thereby increasing sales for anachrome. I have being trying to stimulate discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and intend to judge general wikipedia feelings through trying to get a guidline passed in regards to the use of 3D images. --Martyman-(talk) 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to above: 3D "compatible image technique" is intended to allow images with encrypted stereo information to be postedfor general use. Obviously there are 3D images that would look terrible on a general reference site. Anachrome is a techniquethat is practiced without "royalties" or certification by hundreds of photographers, world wide. It is an "alternative"methodology, because it trades off extreme 3D effect for "compatability. There is a National Association of Stereoscopy,that has thousands of supporters. Most Wiki editors are not members. Most Wiki editors know knowthing of the recent advances in 3D. The very same thing was true in 1935 when Eastman Kodak introduced Kodachrome. It took years for National Geographic much less the Encyclopedia Britianica to include color photos on a large scale. Anachrome is analagous to this. It is superior to previous simple 3D in regards to color. It is used, and mentioned by USGS website dealing with the US National Parks. The advise the public that there images will look best with Anachrome filtering. To lump Anachrome with crude, poorly layered 3D images would be unfair.3dnatureguy 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The USGS page you talk about is a specific 3D website. I have no problem with that and feel it is a great resource for people who have easy access to the required glasses and actually want to wear them to browse the web. What you are doing at wikipedia is the equivelent of the USGS replacing the images on their main webpage with a 3D ones. This would significantly reduce the quality of their webpage for users not fanatical enough about 3D to have there "anachrome" 3D glasses handy. I am lumping "anachrome" with crude 3d images because it still shows visible artifacts that I and many others think detract from the image, and leaves a very unproffesional taste from a website claiming to be an encyclopedia. If and when anachrome becomes as popular as colour photography, I will give up complaining and you will be welcome to come back and replace every image on wikipedia with a fantasticly 3D one. Until that point I believe these images should form a secondary layer on wikipedia rather than be used as primary illustrations. --Martyman-(talk) 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the above two comments to the talk page of my proposed policy Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations --Martyman-(talk) 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Martyman: I don't doubt your good motives. I too am interested in a great Wikipedia. I have been involved in museum and documentary work since college days. My historical film on the Navjo Indian "Code Talkers" has been well recieved,even praised by critics. All new technologies must consider the issue of "backward compatibility". Anachrome, unlikely earlier forms of simple stereo acheive that. here are some images at thumbnail size. Are they not vivid? Are they not capable of teaching or illustrating a point? The fact is that "false color" electron microscope image of a virus, or the output of NASA's new "STEREO" 3D solar dual orbiters of the sun, or anything small and hard to interpret, gains from 3D presentation.

Recent custom job.

right Modern Custom in "compatible" 3D.

Modern, but very Basic '32 roadster .

Commodus in lion skin in 3D.

I have responded to your latest comments at the proposed guideline page Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations. Could we please try to keep all discussion of the proposed guidline on that page. --Martyman-(talk) 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Also please stop re-editing your comments as it takes further responses out of context. If you wan tto make a new statement please start again. --Martyman-(talk) 02:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy: Please work with us to develop a policy. To do that, please take further discussion to one place, Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations and please don't reedit your comments once they are responded to. That's the discussion style here. If you choose not to conform to it, your comments may tend to be regarded less favorably, as it will be taken as evidence by some that you've not studied things here sufficiently to be proposing policy changes. Hope that helps. 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppyness

Hey 3dnatureguy, first an honest thank you for your contributions! But please:

• Do not clutter articles with too many images
• Do not mix left and right thumbs in one section
• Add appropriate captions to your images "compatible 3d image" is not an on-topic caption, the reader is interested what can be seen on the picture, not how it was taken. I suggest adding {{3d_glasses}}.
• Use preview. Many of your image tags were erroneous (the left or right tag appeared in the caption without having the desired effect).
• Upload your pictures to commons so that other language project can profit from your contributions.

Sorry for sounding blunt, but the value of your contributions would be increased greatly by following the points above. All the best --Dschwen 09:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D images

Hi 3dnatureguy. I see you have managed to log into your account. Maybe we desrve an appology for being accused of blocking you? Anyway, I am not happy that you have decided to continue uploading these 3D images before the issue of the proposed guideline is figured out. Just making the thumbnails smaller and placing "warning" icons on them is not a fully satisfactory conclusion. May I also point out that you and User:Nativeborncal (who i believe is you but you won't answer the question about) have uploaded many images still tagged as non-commercial and not properly describing the creator of the image. This is unacceptable and they will have to be tagged for deletion if you do not fix the description pages. I will repost a few questions you seem to be dodging over at the propose guideline page, please come and answer them. --Martyman-(talk) 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martyman. I really do respect your dedication, and I'd like to totally co-operate with you and the other editors, who I see are all serious Wikepedia contributors. I haven't added new pictures, only the little icon that I think helps to define the nature of the image. An editor in Germany, came up with that, not me. But it is a good visual interface element, in my opinion. It could be made smaller, but that is not my icon. I think the size of the images has been some ofthe problem, so I have tried to reduce their size, as an example to show you and those concerned.I'm assuming that only you are seeing this, so please take it as a one o one. I take no offense, and in fact, truly apologize for any disrespect that you may think I may harbor. I don't. You're just a dedicated contributor. I will work with you, and I certainly will stop forging ahead willy-nilly. Maybe what I've posted has had a bias in favor of good 3D at the expense of my annoying idea of "compatability". It floats my boat, but clearly not yours! I get it now. There is in fact a different level of 3D, that I might call "minimalist". Only perhaps, 1 person in a hundred would see it at half page size without glasses. Here is an example:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3dnatureguy (talk • contribs) .

I appreciate that you are trying to comprimise with us. Unfortunately it is not the size of the thumbnails that I have a problem with. Images on wikipedia are not decorations they are serious encylcopedia article illustrations and thus should be able to be viewed full size and printed at will, not restricted to thumbnail size so that you can't tell they have artifacts.

As to the more compatible 3D images, I don't think that is a real solution either. Even assuming they are as good as you claim (which I doubt), if we do not have a policy on this and there exists a precedent, then anyone can come along and upload 3D images of whatever quality they want and claim there are no rules against it. Personally I think the optimal solution would be for one of the options suggested on the guidelines to be utilised and then the 3D images could be optimised for ultimate 3D quality without any consideration of their 2D appearance. --Martyman-(talk) 21:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the camera example above is pretty resonable, but have have a few points to make. Can you possibly argue that the 3D effect in that image is anywhere near as good as the one next to it? Also I would potulate that a lot more than 1 in 100 could pick the degradation if it was placed side by side with the 2D version. Also the particular image is good for not showing a lot of 3D artifacts as it has no detail at a depth, and suggest if you applied the same filter to an image with a detailed high contrast distant background the artifacts would still be noticable. I would be much happier if every 3D image uploaded to wikipedia looked like the one on the right (with far superiour 3D effect) and also followed one of our guidelines and was paired with a 2D image or made available through a specific 3D images link to commons. PS. could you please answer the questions I posted at Wikipedia Talk:3D Illustrations on that page, thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Street_in_Ven.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Street_in_Ven.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I resent your summation of the 3D image proposal on your user page. The proposal is not a ban of 3D images it is a guideline on how they can be most smoothly intergated into articles. The proposal suggests they can either be linked to inline if supplied with a coresponding 2D image or alternativly through a link provided to an dedicated image page. I do not believe that displaying the thumbnails smaller is at all an acceptable comprimise, becasue the thumbnail itself is not an acceptable illustration for a wikipedia article. Illustrations should be a much higher than thumbnail resolution so they can be viewed at full size, for both detail and printing.

Rather than rule out you uploading the thousands of images from US National Parks I whole heartedly encourage it, just put them on commons where they will be availble for all and not causing problems on articles. In fact without this guideline you would have been unable to upload these because there would have been massive objects to totally overloading articles with too many images. Please try to understand that the proposal is not in anyway trying decreasing the number or quality of 3D images on wikipedia it is just an alternate way of including them.

On another note, as you have not yet corrected the copyright information on many of your uploaded images (despite being requested to many times) they will have to be tagged for deletion. --Martyman-(talk) 05:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also while you you rapidly uploading new better looking images to use as examples on yout use page, why not add a few of the one you have already added to articles. For example Image:Brass Lion Wine container.jpg Image:Interior of Silver Arrow cockpit.jpg and Image:Allosaurus Refleshed.jpg. --Martyman-(talk) 05:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You mis-state my assertion:The Proposed "Ban from Articles" The images here were from Wiki uploads except the USGS stuff...and the little reclining statue. I'm begining to sense a certain "mean spiritedness"...I hope I'm wrong! Wiki needs good faith between contributors3dnatureguy 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is not to ban images from articles. The proposal is to stop their use as inline illustrations. 3D images with a 2D version available would be available in one click just as the situation is now, and stand alone 3D images would take 2 clicks. This is hardly banning them, essentially for people who want to see the 3D images the only difference would be the thumbnails appear in 2D (which they virtually do anyway with the scaled down 3D images).

I see nothing mean spirited about suggesting some of your more average images be used as an example of what you have been uploading, as this is what you have already been adding to articles. I find your refusal to understand concepts such as how to properly fill out an image description, and what the wikipedia commons is, incredibly frustrating, to the point where I wonder if you are doing it on purpose. I have shown good faith in trying to work this out through discussion, and come to a compromise that satifies both the 3D user and the great majority of wikipedians. If I was feeling more impatient, I could just go around removing the images from the articles, to see what concensus forms, so don't you dare acuse me of being mean spirited. --Martyman-(talk) 12:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, firstly on the issue of image descriptions. You do not have to reload anything to edit the copyright details. You can simply go to the image description page and click edit. Descriptions should preferably comply pretty closly with the example I have given previously on your talk page. The reason I have been harping on this, is because I spend a lot of my time on wikipedia removing incorrectly labeled images, normally they are tagged to be deleted as soon as I come accross them. I have been cutting you some slack because you are an active wikipedian, and your intention is to release the images freely, it is just that you have writen the wrong things. Any image marked as non-commercial can be speedy deleted off wikipedia. To remark the images on your older account (many of which are marked non-commercial) you should log in as that user, so that it is obvious it is the copyright owner changing the terms. A few things to remember is that the description should explicitly state your username and that you took the image. All rights waved is not the same thing as the GFDL. If you truely want to wave all rights (including attribution) you should replace the {{GFDL}} with {{No rights reserved}}, also the USGS stuff should preferably be tagged with {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}. --Martyman-(talk) 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, the issue of the images themselves. Let me say I personally enjoy 3D images and a few years ago spent days stuffing around with photoshop creating my own, which I had to view through a couple of pieces of lighting coloured gels. If I owned some glasses I would definatley go through and enjoy all the images you have uplaoded to wikipedia. That being said I would rather not accept any 3D glasses from you, to avoid complicating issues. Unfortunately I still don't in any way want to comprimise the 2D quality of wikipedia's illustrations for the 3D effect, added to that is the fact I would also want the 3D images on wikipedia to look as good in 3D as they possibly can. The proposal is intended to achieve both these goals.

• Firstly, if a 2D version is provided then there is no issue with reduced 2D quality and it opens the door to enhanced 3D quality to be used. The 3D image would still be advertised with the 3D glasses icon and would be availble within one click exactly the same as they currently are.
• Secondly if the 3D images have no available 2D version they would be grouped together on an associated Commons page where they are still easily available to users with glasses handy and wish to view them.

Please carefully look at User:Martyman/Sandbox2 which demonstrates both methods (though with a nasty B&W 2D version). Please try clicking on the Image, 3D glasses, 3D commons link etc. to see how it is intended to work. Then please give me feedback on what exactly is unacceptable about the arrangement. --Martyman-(talk) 00:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyman has a good idea, if it applies to future photography

3Dnatureguy likes Martyman's concept, with one caveate. It should apply only to images taken after January 1, 2006. The reason being, that both I and honestly at least another several dozen science/art/education/photographers who like the technique, can start saving both sides in their archives. I can make a general announcement on the various on-line 3D photo groups that Wiki editors are giving us the oppertunity to post dual purpose images. With the nice little icon from our German contributor, we can dispense with any reference to "compatible 3D" and even go with some deeper type. Thanks for the effort in working out the mechanism. Just give the best of the present pictures a date-based exemption, and I will delete the ones that can't be pass reasonable muster. Any other editor can deep-six the bad ones as well. I will try to fix that awfull "Charlemagne brass jug", because it is historically important. Please check out the posting of Zhou Enli on my user page. That is truly a "compatible" image, but I agree, the icon and split file is a fair and reasonable solution. Thanks Martyman, for your dedication, I sorry to have given you a rough time,frankly I didn't get to your sandbox soon enogh to see what you were coming to. I will be presenting at the National Stereo Association Convention this summer, and will encourage others to submit good 3D in terms of artist, and image quality and a good flat full sized image. Please let me know what size, is best compromise to save bandwidth while providing a good 2D resource as well. All this being said, I still intend to proceed more slowly than in the recent past,and with due regard to neatness and clutter issues, as per User:Dshwen3dnatureguy 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, unfortunatly the existing images clause is not really acceptable. Images that do not have a 2D version available will have to be re-uploaded to commons and made available through the 3D commons link (Which I agree is not the ultimate solution). As you have already pointed out there are thousands of 3D images out there that could continue to flood wikipedia if this guideline contained an exemption for existing photographs. I fully welcome all and one to start uploading high quality 3D images to wikipedia that are linked to a 2D version, though there is also the problem of over illustrating articles, which means that once an article is suitably illustrated any further images 2D or 3D will have to be added to the commons page. --Martyman-(talk) 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Above comments copied to Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations to get further fedback on User:3dnatureguys suggestion. --Martyman-(talk) 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the above to comments to Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations to get other editor feedback on your suggestion and will respond further there. Also please try not to keep editing posts after you have posted them, it is a pain when I have copied it somwhere else and they get out of sync. --Martyman-(talk) 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons (misunderstanding maybe?)

I'm not sure if there isn't a slight misunderstanding between us about uploading the images to commons. This does not nescessarily mean they will not appear in articles. Images uploaded to commons can be inserted into articles as if they had been uploaded to en.wikipedia.org. It makes absolutely no difference for the contributor (as long as the pic is under a free license). The big plus is that editors at wikipedias in all other languages will immediately be able to use your pictures as if they had been uploaded to all other wikipedias. I'm sure it would only be in your best interest to use this opportunity. --Dschwen 08:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False claim

TRADITIONAL ANAGLYPH 3D IMAGE: from a recent Wikipedia article

I find your claim that the traditional anaglyph on your user page is from a recent wikipedia article very misleading. The article in question is about the technique, there is absolutely no intention of this type of use being effected by the proposed guideline. I see this type of claim as totaly lacking good faith. --Martyman-(talk) 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is not a false claim...the facts

The bad image in the upper left hand was posted on Wikipedia until about one month ago. It was an illustrataion that somebody thought a 3D anaglyph image was suposed to look like. As it is one of no more than 2 articles on Wikipedi that directly concern 3D anaglyph technique, it was bad to have such a poor example. The new type of images, which I advocate have good color,good gamma, good detail, and above-average contrast range. I have challenged the author of this proposal to produce evidence to back up his claim. Find the worst 5 of the group and post thumbnails of them on the discussion page of the proposal.

[edit] This will set a dangerous precedent.

A tiny fraction of the editors, with no input from the body of general users will BAN "compatible" 3D FROM ALL ARTICLES, except a micro-fraction of one-percent, a promising new internet image technology.It is frankly,a kind of Ludditism, techno-phobia,trying to pass itself off as "quality control", by prior restaint censorship. Why doesn't somebody have the guts to post 30 or 40 thumbnails in a the same context as the "proposal". I have tried to get a fair "trial for this technology", but it is proceeding like a "kangeroo court". This is a lot like the "Lord of the Flies". Rules of Prohibition need to be made by a true consensus of a "cross section", not just the actively offended.(Sorry to say) That formula underlies most lynching. Judgement, not in the courthouse but, behind the courthouse. Martyman,please post more supporting evidence (bad pictures). You suggest "across-the-board bad images", "now and in the future". Post even the "worst five"! You'right about the Charlemagne wine jug! Not good! (must have been tired!) But find 4 more as bad, Do it, please. Show the "jury"! I have to say Martyman,you are worthy contributor. Maybe if you saw how cool Australia looks with the mountains in relief from space, you'd consider the ancillary applications that will be banned.3dnatureguy 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We have posted a selection of bad images. Are you even following the proposed policy discussion? I have pretty much had enough of you, must be purposly being this obtuse. How can an example of what an anaglyph looks like be held up as an example of bad 3D when you yourself claim that that is what they do look like if it wasn't for your new "internet technology", and if you had any idea how wikipedia works you would see the image is still illustrating the article in question as it should be. You have failed to make any direct comment about my mockup of how the proposal will work, and have pig headedly insisted that a few editors a concensus does not make, without any feedback on what are the drawbacks of the proposed policy. The flip side if one deadfast fan does also not a concensus make, and if they stand to profit be the popularlisation of this technique then their inability to listen to reason or engage in acceptable feedback must be further questioned. I also highly resent having to argue website usability and design with someone whos website looks like this. --Martyman-(talk) 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3dnatureguy, let's keep all the talk on this in one place, in future we are probably not going to copy your comments over to Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations, instead you should participate there. The way things stand now, the discussion is too fragmented. If you have a concern about not enough people being in on developing policy, participate there. We have went around and posted notices to many places where image interested people hang out. Policy is never set by absolute majority, that's no how Wikipedia works. It is set by consensus among those interested enough to participate, and who do so calmly and reasonably. Your current user page, and some of the headlines you use on this page, are not really very calm, IMHO. Hope that helps. Happy Editing! ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response at Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations

I have responded to your last comment at Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations. --Martyman-(talk) 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1959 Fin Image of Cadillac page

Just a heads up - I have removed the 3D image of the 1959 Cadillac fin from the Cadillac page, not because its 3D, but because the description didn't discuss anything about the fin, its designer, etc. While its an interesting image - it might be better suited in an article that discusses tail fins. Stude62 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Image Mess

Hi, over at the 3D proposed policy we have been trying to sort through all of your uploaded images to prepare to move them to commons. Unfortunately the amount mess is really making it very hard. You have uploaded some images up to 3 times often labelled as different things each time, and your copyright tagging and image description leaves an awful lot to be desired. How can we use these images as encyclopedic illustrations if even the uplaoder is not sure what exactly they are of? We are currently considering if we can delete all of your existing images off wikipedia and let you start again, hopefully a lot more carefully, and following the new 3D images guidelines. --Martyman-(talk) 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linked 2D/3D images

Hi. If you have any paired 2D/3D images it would be great if you could try uploading a pair to see how you go. The relavent instructions are at Wikipedia:3D Illustrations under the implementation section. Please let me know if you need any help understanding the proccess. --Martyman-(talk) 06:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for not being scared off from contributing by this whole 3D thing. I am very glad that you are still interested in contributing high quality images to wikipedia. I don't see any reason we can't come up with a useful way to link multiple views of a subject together on the image description page. Again when you get some test images to upload, I would be happy to work with you to figure out the best way of doing it. --Martyman-(talk) 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8000 images? really?

Were you going to donate all 8000 to Wikicommons? Because for that many images, I might actually be able to look into making software that could create a 2d images based on the 3d ones. Such software DOES exist, and I might be able to talk one of the software companies into letting me use the software for this project, if there are really oodles of them. --Alecmconroy 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes I have 8000 "so-called" compatible images. Make no mistake, Martyman has convinced me it is a bad idea for Wikipedia

What is to stop people with older technology, and poor quality from posting crap as the main illustration. I truly am with Martyman, and will make use of his dual file approach. I am greatful, and even proud to be associated with a great new idea like Wikipedia. I will fully co-operate, I will learn these interfaces much better, so as to not multiple upload anything else. I have NO HARD FEELINGS, just the opposite. Reason won this round. I have been down with an infected wisdom tooth, and a related ear infection. I promise to do everything according to Hoyle. There is no perfect software AUTO-FIX for 3D images without going to black and white. Martyman was right about that too. I will try to fix a small percentage of the posted images, or dig through back-up CDs for the originals. Please don't post anything on the discussion pages, containing my earlier points. Martyman was fundamtentally correct, while I was opening the door to potential garbage 3D, as the main illustration. Dshwan's little icon is a good interface. I would suggest that once the 3Dimage is linked and displayed it might be a good idea to have 3 or four links for details, side views, or alternate angles. That is the way that a 3D layout is typically shot. Not one picture, a statue, for example, but three angles. I'll have some test images for Martyman within a day or two. Thanks for the hard work Also, I any editor finds a great image on Commons I will try to convert it to subtle 3D, such as a great NASA illustration.3dnatureguy 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I might add something, just because they may not be the best fit for wikipedia, they are not neceseraly not worth contributing to other wikimedia projects. If uploaded to commons they could be used to produce a wikibook that could be used to spread 3D to the masses. You should check out wikibooks to see if this is something you would be interested in contributing to. Anyway simply uploading these images to wikicommons makes them available to all the wikiprojects including the wikipedias (in all languages).

Also can I please request again that your new images (2D/3D pairs) be uploaded to commons so that they are easily accessable to editors of other language wikipedias as well as our own. --Martyman-(talk) 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about not being able to release them freely on commons but unfortunatly if that is valid, it would also be a problem uploading to wikipedia. As you are releasing you images under a free license there is nothing stopping anyone using the images for any project they want, including commercial projects. Uploading to wikipedia offers no more restrictions on use than commons does. --Martyman-(talk) 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Then by that argument if you upload "PRE-SPOILED" 3D images to commons and include a description (or include in a wikibook) then you are also not going outside of your photo journalist realm. I don't see how contributing to a wikibook would fall under any different cover to contributng to wikipedia, and if it was a 3D specific book you would only be uploading your "PRE-SPOILED" images anyway. I just could see many of your 3D only images being a useful resource for the creation of a cool wikibook, which would help your goals of increasing acceptance of 3D anagrlyphs as a modern illustrative medium. --Martyman-(talk) 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I look foward to seeing many exciting 3D photographic contributions from you. If they could be uplaoded to commons for use on wikipedia it would still be preferable, simply as that then opens them up to usage on other language wikipedias without the uploader having to go to the effort of downloading and re-uploading the image themselves. I am not sure I fully follow your explination of the restricted use implications of museum photography, although as long as you are happy then I am too. You mentioned a no front or back cover restriction, do you mean on your other work or your photos posted to wikipedia? The GFDL doesn't contain such a clause and is probably not compatible with one if you did want to add one either. On another note I beleive someone at some time mentioned there where sites on the internet where they will send you 3D glasses for free, I don't want you to have to send me any (I think I have caused you enough trouble already) but wouldn't mind getting a pair to properly appreciate these images. --Martyman-(talk) 06:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Please, please please, upload your images to commons rather than en wikipedia directly. This opens both methods of including the images in articles in case of aritcles being over populated etc and helps other language wikipedias. There is no difference to the way they work on wikipedia they just reside on a different server in teh same server room. --Martyman-(talk) 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alright!

Ok, but I'm going to self impose a 900 pixel max on the long side of any flat picture, so as not to be giving away printing master grade images. Since the 3d is inately non-standard I will post up to 1500px in 3D. I need your help in the proceedure, and also with the order of steps involved in the linked posting to an article. I will always provide a short caption based on my notes. For the last year, I have been shooting actual museum display cards, and keeping those files with the images. From this point on, all images, left and right will be saved, and a close shot of the display card. I will rescale all 2D images I have to 900px max,and 3d to 1500px max, and up them load them with release to Commons...I insist on sending you some full color glasses. The most powerful paper glasses tend to murder the color, the plastic kind work noticably better. Use the e-mail on the website I am associated with to give me a mailing address. I'll send ten in seperate mailers so you can send them to editors in Australia or New Zealand who might be interested in seeing the "Full Effect". I will also send a list of FREE glasses sources. 3dnatureguy 19:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

900px on the long side sounds like a great solution, it will still be very usable for wikipedia. I am a bit worried about uplaoding a photo of the museum secription card though, copyright on 2D works of art and text remains. So technically the card (an dit's image) will be copyrighted to the museum. It would probably be best to type it into the description page and note that it is quoted from the particular museum. I am keen to figure out the best method of linking multiple images together. So if you upload a set of images to commons please post their names on my page and I will have a play to figure out the best way of doing it. PS. I like the way you have switched to a consistent naming scheme, it might be good to think of one that includes the angle description as well. Maybe something like old art-front-2D, old art-front-3D, old-art-right-3D, old-art-left-3D etc. --Martyman-(talk) 21:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to still be uploading to wikipedia. If you upload to commons you only have to upload them once as they are instantly available on both systems. You also are still not putting enough care into your image decriptions. You must explicitly state that "User:3dnatureguy took the image and is releasing under the GFDL" if you don't get these points accross it can lead to ambiguity in the copyright status and images being tagged for deletion. --Martyman-(talk) 21:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your mention above of uploading a close shot of the museum display card, not accusing you of doing anything wrong. --Martyman-(talk) 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Elgin horse 3d.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Elgin horse 3d.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|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, please check 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. Thank you. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

Hi again. We have been working on moving your first lot of uploaded images over to commons so they can be used in the creation of the 3D galleries as specified in teh second part of the guideline. Anyway an editor on commons is insisting that many of them cannot be uplaoded there because of the non-commercial claim you have put on them. Can you please explicitly state you agree to the non-commercial restriction being lifted, otherwise the images in question will have to be deleted from both commons and here. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 11:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3-D glasses

Hi 3dnatureguy; I wonder if you would be kind enough to direct me to a source of good 3-D glasses. My cardboard glasses leak red light through the blue filter and are not very satisfactory. I can see enough to be intrigued, however. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Beskouros.jpg

Hi, could you include some license info for this image? "Same as the other image" is not very helpfull without saying what other image you are refering to. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC) It is the same image, just gamma corrected. That means it looked bad and I fixed it in Photoshop. It was called "ThebesKouros" previously. Ok, now I get it. "Thebes" sorry, I read the name as "The beskouros". I'll fix the name.69.232.0.5 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Caracalla_3d.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Caracalla_3d.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Hi 3dnatureguy. I just stumbled across your user page, and I am amazed at all of the discussion about 3d images that's gone on--I had no idea there was anything like this going on. You seem really enthusiastic about Wikipedia and about adding 3D images to it... I'm curious as to what your motivation has been? Thank you for your contributions, and I hope to see you around for some time to come! ~MDD4696 04:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1907 Olds.jpg listed for deletion

SoothingR 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you being so hard to deal with?

I have asked repeatedly if you agree to remove the non-commercial claim from your early uploads. People have gone to a lot of effort to sor through your earlier uploads, remove the duplicates an dmove them to commons, we are now having issues with some of them having originally being marked as non-commercial. Please give us an answer so that we can avoid images being deleted. Also you have been asked repeatedly by multiple people to upload the images to commons not to wikipedia, and yet you are still uploading them here. Please try to understand that it makes no difference to the way the images are used within wikipedia, but it opens up other uses. Why do you keep ignoring these requests? You seem not to want to cooperate with us. --Martyman-(talk) 10:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are also re-uploading 3D images which you have already uploaded. Please don't do this. Use the existing copy, you are driving us back in to the situation where your uploads are a mess of confused files with multiple duplicates. Please try to think about what you are doing and not make a mess that someone else has to sort out. --Martyman-(talk) 11:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop what you have been doing and rejoin the conversation. I do not believe your hand recreated 2D images are anywhere near good enough for use on wikipedia. Image:Neanderthal 2D.jpg look sabsolutley atrocious, there is no way you can tell me that you think it is acceptable 2D image quality. Don't start going on about thumbnail size or anything like that, good wikipedia images should be viewable full size without the nasty artifacting visable int hat image. --Martyman-(talk) 11:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Points

Look I am going to spell this out in point form. You seem to be continuing to miss our points.

• Uploading to commons does not stop the linked 2D/3D image system from working.
• An image uploaded to commons is imediately available for use in any language wikipedia without re-uploading, so uploading to the english language wikipedia saying "it can also go to commons" is a waste of time when it could have gone straight there in the fist place.
• Some of your early uploads which we have spent the time to move over to commons are marked as non-commercial. We need an explicit statement saying you approve of that clause being removed or the images will have to be deleted.
• Stop making a mess that other poeple have to clean up. Stop uploading duplicate images. You are uploading duplicates of images that you have previously uploaded (and are still available for use). You have even uploaded duplicates in some of your latest uploads. This is totaly unacceptable.
• Your hand re-created "2D" images are not good enough.
• Nobody cares or is arguing about how many glasses where shipped last year.
• Please respond at Wikipedia talk:3D Illustrations.

--Martyman-(talk) 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't go

Haven't heard from ya lately. I just want to say, I hope you won't leave Wikipedia. You've got a lot of passion, a lot of intelligence, and a lot to contribute. I know the whole policy thing felt very totalitarian for ya, but it really and truly only involves a very teensy tiny part of the Wiki world. If want me to, you could send me your images I'll personally make sure they get uploaded and place in a spot that people can get to them. You could email, or I could set up an FTP server for you, or I could give you my PO box and you could send me a CD or DVD.

I'm really sorry I didn't figure out a way to make automated 2D images from your 3D-- it would have been the perfect solution. I emailed like five super-genius computer science professors from all over the world, but ultimately, we couldn't figure out a good solution.

Anyway-- if it's just the licensing concerns, that's up to you. But if it was the policy nonsense that drove you away, please reconsider. Nobody, absolutely nobody, wanted the end result of this whole thing to be the departure of a good contributor. -Alecmconroy 06:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Greek soldier 3d.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Greek soldier 3d.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|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, please check 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. Thank you. -SCEhardT 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Laetoli 3d.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Immigration reduction

I removed your addition to Immigration reduction because that article is about a political movement, not the various legal and political actions taken in that area. Illegal immigration to the United States or a similar article would be a more appropriate place to include the info. -Will Beback 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool!

Wow! Cool images! I had no idea we had any 3D images on Wikipedia, this is great! How do you produce them? I don't have any glasses but they look sweet! X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about one of your pictures

Hi 3dnatureguy. We got a question about one of you pictures by an author of an upcoming book who likes to get in contact with you. If you send a mail to info-en@wikipedia.org mentioning the ticket number 2006112910015336 I will forward it to you. --Avatar 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:1080par.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1080par.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)