User talk:Huntster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] The Open Door image
Just wondering, how exactly is the cover of the above image not fair use? If you are referring to the fact that Eacz12 uploaded one under CC-by-SA, that doesn't count. A scan of a copyrighted image maintains the status of the original image i.e. the one uploaded by Eacz12 was still under full copyright of Wind-up and/or Evanescence (a scan doesn't have sufficient originality to be copyrightable). If this isn't what made you say that my image wasn't fair use, please tell me what did. But I'll just point out that the image uploaded by Eacz12 has exactly the same status in copyright and he/she does not have the authority to licence it under CC-by-SA (since either way about my image, you seem to be supporting the view that he/she does). This also applies to the image of Fallen and Anywhere but home. If you do not believe me feel free to confirm this by asking at WP:COPYRIGHT but do not upload any more images under licences which you do not have the authority to issue or replace properly licenced (fair use) images with ones uploaded as such - unless you have another reason for replacing mine (again, scanning it does not give you the right to licence it) - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) All I know is that this issue was discussed with a couple of admins, who stated that scanned images are equated with digital photographs, and that they do not fall under fair-use, similar to how you can take a photograph of any other product (vehicle, sofa, etc) and it be a valid exclusion of FU. Perhaps CC-by-SA is the wrong tag, but I'm convinced by both the above statements and by that logic, that these are valid images. No offense, but I'm getting somewhat perturbed by the rediculous amount of contradictory information presented here. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I accept that someone else has said otherwise, but I can assure they're wrong in this case (unless I'm misinterpreting what you said). I would advise you to confirm this at WP:IMAGE or WP:COPYRIGHT, or alternatively if you'd rather see an example of a case which proved they are not independantly copyrightable you could also look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. To summarise, the Library had made digital copies of paintings whose copyright had long expired. Corel reused the images without permission on the grounds that the copyright had expired (even though Bridgeman created the digital versions). Bridgeman subsequently filed suit. In the end the court ruled in favour of Corel, citing that digital copies of images aren't independantly copyrightable as they show no originality, or at least not sufficient originality (applies to US law, which is what is applicable for Wikipedia). If you want to see more detail, like I said, just take a loook at the article. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also the photo thing was certainly wrong. For example, a photo of a chair is yours to copyright, because the chair isn't a copyrighted work. Even if you photograph something which is copyrighted (for example a logo) in many cases it will still not be infringement unless the copyrighted work is the main idea in the photo. For example, a photo of a television does not infringe on the logo of the manufacturer, because it is not the main idea in the photo and would not be particularly prominent but it may infringe on the rights of what is displayed on screen (e.g. a TV show). - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) Thanks, but after discussing this on IRC this morning with both regular users and admins, I'm at the point of throwing up my hands in disgust, especially with one of the closing statements by an admin being "Admins don't know any more about copyright than you do." While it may be true, this is a disturbing statement to make, as it calls into question the ability to accurately assess the licensing. I frankly don't care anymore if you nominate every bloody image for speedy; perhaps the articles would be better off without any images, free or fair-use (a policy which I consider to be a joke, given the number of holes and the vagueness in which it is presented). Anyway, do whatever you want, I'm quite finished caring. In any case, I'll toss up a message on the main Ev article, and I suggest it might be a good idea for you to do the same. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned about the copyright problems myself in this case (but I do agree they need to be there). Whoever said that on IRC today was very wise. Knowing how the copyright works is not neccessary for adminship. The main reason I was against the images is because they have the same copyright status as ones from digital sources, but the digital sources (such as iTunes) will be better quality. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) Thanks, but after discussing this on IRC this morning with both regular users and admins, I'm at the point of throwing up my hands in disgust, especially with one of the closing statements by an admin being "Admins don't know any more about copyright than you do." While it may be true, this is a disturbing statement to make, as it calls into question the ability to accurately assess the licensing. I frankly don't care anymore if you nominate every bloody image for speedy; perhaps the articles would be better off without any images, free or fair-use (a policy which I consider to be a joke, given the number of holes and the vagueness in which it is presented). Anyway, do whatever you want, I'm quite finished caring. In any case, I'll toss up a message on the main Ev article, and I suggest it might be a good idea for you to do the same. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also the photo thing was certainly wrong. For example, a photo of a chair is yours to copyright, because the chair isn't a copyrighted work. Even if you photograph something which is copyrighted (for example a logo) in many cases it will still not be infringement unless the copyrighted work is the main idea in the photo. For example, a photo of a television does not infringe on the logo of the manufacturer, because it is not the main idea in the photo and would not be particularly prominent but it may infringe on the rights of what is displayed on screen (e.g. a TV show). - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I accept that someone else has said otherwise, but I can assure they're wrong in this case (unless I'm misinterpreting what you said). I would advise you to confirm this at WP:IMAGE or WP:COPYRIGHT, or alternatively if you'd rather see an example of a case which proved they are not independantly copyrightable you could also look at Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. To summarise, the Library had made digital copies of paintings whose copyright had long expired. Corel reused the images without permission on the grounds that the copyright had expired (even though Bridgeman created the digital versions). Bridgeman subsequently filed suit. In the end the court ruled in favour of Corel, citing that digital copies of images aren't independantly copyrightable as they show no originality, or at least not sufficient originality (applies to US law, which is what is applicable for Wikipedia). If you want to see more detail, like I said, just take a loook at the article. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Das Ubergeekness of the Clan
Yep, it must be in our blood. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nf utvol (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) Hey! You found me! My username is much easier to find than yours...I didn't think to only capitalize the first letter. Yeah, if you ever have any questions about the wiki, just ask. Also, there is an IRC channel that's great to hang out in, and occasionally ask questions, irc://irc.freenode.net, channel #wikipedia. Also, when you write on other folks' talk pages, remember to sign your post with ~~~~ (four tildes), so that it'll put your name and time at the end, like so: -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Whee, will do. What prog are you using for IRC these days? The first capitalization is a glitch in wiki anyways, never intended to have any capitalization... Nf utvol 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- (X-Posted) That's a good point, though there is a template somewhere that will at least allow the article title to display in it's intended format, even if the actual title is malformed. I'll attempt to find it. I'm still using mIRC, newest version. It simply works. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Are you perchance going to be available any evening this weekend? I'm coming home and was contemplating a trip to Nashville.Nf utvol 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Evanescence
(X-Posted) Hi, regarding your recent edits to Evanescence songs, please do not link to YouTube videos featuring copyrighted material. This is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the remainder. May I be informed of any related Wikipedia guidelines? Ktsquare (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- (X-Posted) :Well, it's hard to point to specific guidelines without frames of reference, and I'm certainly not an expert in these matters; I just have knowledge of many items that I've come across in my time here. For example, copyrighted imagry may be used on Wikipedia if it falls within Fair-use criteria, but videos and other related material cannot be reproduced in full because that violates certain copyright laws (this includes news broadcasts, music videos and full songs, television episodes, and the like). Like I said, I'm not good at dispensing information without having specifics to work off of, so if you have any procedural questions regarding specific events or occurances, I'll do my best to help, or try and refer you to someone/someplace else that can give you better information. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What?
(X-Posted) Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Evanescence. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have a question for you, how is adding a album and singles chart [[[vandalism]]? It makes in better! It shows the number on the rock, hot 100 charts for Evanescance's albums and singles! If you have a problem then tell me mre, because showin what i did was better not bad!--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- (X-Posted) Okay, perhaps this one was a bit strong. However, we have pages that are mostly dedicated to providing chart information, such as Evanescence discography. There really is no reason to include that information on every page of Evanescence, when it can more appropriately be accessed from that page, or from the Album articles. Also, you added something about a 2007 release, that is not verified, and looks completely made-up. That is what really prompted the above tag. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I hope this makes sense. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand now what i di was wrong, thankyou for telling me. But the 2007 release hasn't been released yet but will, if you want to she that i'm telling the truth go to www.allmusic.com and look up Evanescance. When you get there go to Discography and it will show that album.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- okay, thankyou.--Musicaltheatrewiz 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Apologies
I could have sworn that I had the grammar right there, but looks like we never stop learning ^_^ Thanks for fixing my mistake and setting me straight, apologies for reverting your good faith edit. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) Hey, don't worry about it; like you said, we never stop learning. It's true wisdom to understand that fact :) Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frederick Baron
The same IP continues to add an external link. I am not sure of the policy re a link of the subject of the article - but it seems unnecessary to have mulitple links. If you can help (I see you deleted it once), it would be great. I think this same person continues to add this. THanks. Jance 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it for the time being. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: AFD BattleFront III
(X-Posted) Regarding Battlefront III, perhaps it would be best to AfD this article. That seems to me the most reasonable thing to do, given the complete lack of information we have on it. Personally, I tend to believe those articles that were originally introduced, but I'd be just as happy to have the article removed and wait for more concrete evidence. What say you? -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more -- I watched a week or so ago, someone nominated it for speedy deletion, but it never actually was deleted. If it's nominated for deletion, you have my vote. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shepard Smith
You beat me to the "cite a published source edit"! I happened to be watching Smith's Studio B show last friday 1/19 at 3:30 and he told his side kick Jane Skinner that he is "Happily divorced". Engaged men don't say that, especially not on TV. I'm going to check around for video. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misstory (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- (X-Posted) See, I'm just talented like that ;) However, even if you find a video, we cannot link to it, because doing so would violate copyright laws. Citing sources is definitely a finicky thing... -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Video
Hey, Why have u deleted all the Video info from all that Evanescence singles articles??? Armando.O (talk|contribs) 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Barnstar | ||
I, Eacz12 hereby award you a Tireless Contributor Barnstar for contributing tirelessly to the Evanescence, related pages and many other articles. Keep up the good work and please, don't stop contributing!!! Armando.O (talk|contribs) 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] re: Myspace
Hello. How does one know that a particular myspace is the OFFICIAL myspace of a person/band? (there are many fake myspaces). Cdrod431 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Regards and thanks for clarification. Cdrod431 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Will do. Cdrod431 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evanescence
Armando.O (talk|contribs) 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, why don't you join the project?? You are one of the best contributors on the Evanescence's articles. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- See my talk page. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Replied [[my talk page|here]]. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Commons
A question...if the Evanesence logo is licensed under the CC BY SA 2.5...shouldn't it be uploaded to Commons? (yeah, I know I'm a noob :S) Armando.O (talk|contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Good call on XM Satellite Radio external links. Vees 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] See also
See also is better for the sections, because actually, the sections don't talk exactly about the albums but the current events that happened during each album era...The sections could be even without the that section templates... Armando.O (talk|contribs) 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
This is for all your good work on the Charmed articles!
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
Good job on all your work on the Charmed articles! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
- No prob, you deserve it! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Evanescence
I didn't see your edit until I returned to History to access the vandal's talk page. When I noticed that my revision had deleted some of your changes, I reverted to your edit. Sorry about that! --Ann Stouter 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Matthew Jay article incident
Hi Huntster. Thanks so much for your support and for cleaning up the mess of my talk page. p.s. I believe that R. Magowan is actually Ms. Rachael Magowan so feel free to edit your message to reflect her correct gender! --Paul Erik 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Style question
I used to find it "curious" as well, but Mel Etitis (talk • contribs), a university professor of English, said a while ago that many major manuals of style stipulate that numbers under 100 should be written out. I also think it reads nicer, but I won't be bothered if you revert.
By the way, I've seen some of your edits to the various Evanescence articles, and I just thought I'd tell you what a great job you're doing. You help to keep Wikipedia from "going under" :). Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MTSU Horseshoe & Pressbox
I have a better picture, I just thought this one looked cooler, and made it seem a bit bigger than it actually was. Also, I'll get on the pressbox one too. Thanks for pointing that out. I have a few more pictures, mostly of athletic stuff, but I'm waiting on Spring to come to take more pictures for Wiki.Raider ATO 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I don't know how to get Wiki to be cool with pictures other than taking them myself. I have an aerial image from the 1952 yearbook showing what the campus looked like then. It's pretty amazing how much has happened since then. These last 50 years showed a lot of growth compared to the first 50.-Raider ATO 07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[Image:MTSU_1952_Aerial.gif] <-- There is the aerial. -Raider ATO 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have 2 pictures from Operation Full House (largest crowd in the Murphy Center) but neither are mine, and I don't know where they came from. I imagine the DNJ. I'd have to do some searching. -Raider ATO 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MTSU Group
Thanks for joining! Sorry I've been out of contact during my midterms. JNAllen 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William Boyd
No worries. It appears that (s)he does not realize that "Will Boyd" has been redirected to "William Boyd (musician)". :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)