User talk:Jsnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] TV icon.png image

  • In reference to Template:Tv-stub-- I'm absolutely willing to drop my objections to Image:TV Icon.png if you're willing to privately send me a 300-pixel-wide version of your photograph to prove that it's not based on the copyrighted image. But as far as I can tell, it's a pixel for pixel duplication of the original image, which I've been using for eight years now on my own site in a licensed form, so I'm pretty familiar with it. Now, if you managed to reconstruct that yourself from new sources, I've just got to tip my cap to you for an excellent job. If it's not an exact copy of the original, it's a perfect reconstruction. But I have to admit it seems less likely to me that you made an original shot using a TV model that looks pixel-for-pixel identical to the infringing image. Hence my assumption. If it is based on a real source photo, it should be easy for you to clear up any doubts. Jsnell 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"In reference to Template:Tv-stub-- I'm absolutely willing to drop my objections to Image:TV Icon.png if you're willing to privately send me a 300-pixel-wide version of your photograph to prove that it's not based on the copyrighted image."
Had you privately and politely requested such evidence in the first place, I might have been willing to oblige. At this point, my principles dictate that I adamantly refuse to bow to your demands. To do so would be tantamount to condoning your reckless accusations, and would reinforce the notion that the onus is on me to disprove them.
"But as far as I can tell, it's a pixel for pixel duplication of the original image, which I've been using for eight years now on my own site in a licensed form, so I'm pretty familiar with it."
Have you actually tried reducing the image in question (minus the rabbit ears) to 30x22 pixels? I just did, and it did not turn out "pixel-for-pixel identical" to my icon. It's close, but the same could be said of any photograph of a similar TV model (which I deliberately selected) when reduced to such a small size.
One especially notable difference is the fact that my icon contains two "pixel-for-pixel identical" dials; the bottom dial (which doesn't exist in real life) is an unaltered copy of the top one.
"Now, if you managed to reconstruct that yourself from new sources, I've just got to tip my cap to you for an excellent job. If it's not an exact copy of the original, it's a perfect reconstruction."
I used precisely one source image. Aside from the aforementioned copy-and-pasted dial and standard cleanup, I did nothing to alter the actual appearance of my grandmother's television set.
"But I have to admit it seems less likely to me that you made an original shot using a TV model that looks pixel-for-pixel identical to the infringing image. Hence my assumption. If it is based on a real source photo, it should be easy for you to clear up any doubts."
What if I were to publicly accuse you of plagiarizing one of your Macintosh articles and lying about its origin (without warning or prior discussion)? How would you feel if I were to subsequently demand that you submit proof of authorship, as though you were on trial (and had unilaterally been deemed guilty until proven innocent)? Would you comply? I certainly hope not. —Lifeisunfair 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not bringing this to your talk page, by the way. It's so long that I thought you would miss it. In any event, don't worry about the image -- I have generated a new TV icon which will hopefully defuse the situation altogether. Jsnell 05:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"Sorry about not bringing this to your talk page, by the way. It's so long that I thought you would miss it."
You believed that I would be more likely to notice your message on a talk page to which I'd never posted a single remark? Does the orange "you have new messages" notification banner seem inconspicuous to you?
"In any event, don't worry about the image -- I have generated a new TV icon which will hopefully defuse the situation altogether."
Why would removing my icon (while maintaining that I'm a thief and a liar) "defuse the situation"? —Lifeisunfair 07:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you've gotten so upset about this. The image you posted is essentially identical to the one that was replaced. It was replaced almost immediately upon the old one being deleted. The old one was clearly posted with utter disregard to copyright regulations, in an abuse of Wikipedia's policies. My assumption was that you were attempting a quick-fix alteration of the image and vouching for it on Commons simply to shut me up about the copyright violation of an image I am extremely familiar with. If you refuse to provide me with greater proof that the image is yours, you're right -- I will just have to take you at your word and trust that your image is a remarkable replacement for the original image, in which case I have to congratulate you, because it's almost pixel perfect.
(By the way, if I wrote a story that was identical to the topic that another person had written a day before, with the same quotes from the same people, people would accuse me of plagiarism. Even if I claimed to have gone back to those sources and asked them the same questions and gotten the same answers. Because that would be extremely suspicious.)
Finally, I apologize for not bringing it to your Talk page. Frankly, nobody's ever posted to my talk page before -- I wasn't aware that Wikipedia sent up a flare when someone posted to it. Jsnell 18:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"I'm sorry you've gotten so upset about this."
Yeah, being branded a liar and a thief tends to have that effect on me.
"The image you posted is essentially identical to the one that was replaced."
Again, that was the idea (to closely match the appearance of the original, while eliminating the copyright violation). Here at Wikipedia, this is not an uncommon occurrence.
"It was replaced almost immediately upon the old one being deleted."
1. The infringing icon has not yet been deleted. (Not enough time has elapsed since you filed your report.)
2. I uploaded my icon more than two days after you removed the infringing icon from the template. How is that "almost immediate," and how long do you think that it takes to photograph a TV set and create an icon? (How long did it take you?)
"The old one was clearly posted with utter disregard to copyright regulations, in an abuse of Wikipedia's policies."
You must truly enjoy hurling baseless accusations. Jennifer Godwin (a respected Wikipedia administrator) obviously mistook the image for a NASA creation. It was an honest mistake.
If you wish to be a member of the Wikipedia community, you need to assume good faith.
"My assumption was that you were attempting a quick-fix alteration of the image"
Again, such assumptions are frowned upon here.
"and vouching for it on Commons simply to shut me up about the copyright violation of an image I am extremely familiar with."
On the contrary, I took your report very seriously, and responded by rushing to create a suitable replacement image.
"If you refuse to provide me with greater proof that the image is yours, you're right -- I will just have to take you at your word and trust that your image is a remarkable replacement for the original image, in which case I have to congratulate you, because it's almost pixel perfect."
Thank you, but there's nothing remarkable about the similarity. Don't you realize that such television sets are extremely common? Don't you also realize that reducing two similar images to a tiny display size leaves very little room for disparity?
"Finally, I apologize for not bringing it to your Talk page. Frankly, nobody's ever posted to my talk page before -- I wasn't aware that Wikipedia sent up a flare when someone posted to it."
Apology accepted, but Craigy144 posted a standard "welcome" message on June 23. —Lifeisunfair 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't believe television sets with spinner knobs have been common since the early '80s. That was part of the reason I was suspicious -- who has access to an old TV set with a spinner knob anymore? You are apparently fortunate that your grandmother has an old TV. :-) As for Craigy's note, I assumed that was part of the standard sign-up for a new Wikipedia user. Yours is the first direct user feedback I've gotten.
As for my "baseless accusations," I don't know Jennifer Godwin from Adam, but I do know that a stock photo of a television set can not reasonably be assumed to be government property just because it's posted on a NASA web site. Unless NASA's been taking lots of stock photography lately. This is part of why I flagged that image in the first place -- it struck me as being an abuse of copyright law and of wikipedia's own anti-infringement policies, as well as a mockery of the stock "NASA images are fair use" policy. I'd say that a reasonable person could've seen that image and realized it wasn't NASA imagery. Image posting on Wikipedia is really tough; it's easy for people to write new content, but it's much harder to generate original, non-infringing images. I understand that. But just because it's harder to generate non-infringing content doesn't mean the bar should be set any lower. I've seen numerous examples of images on Wikipedia that are of dubious parentage; in the end it's my belief that posting those images does a lot of harm to Wikipedia's reputation, because the site's content comes into legal question. That's a bad thing.
That's all I've got to say. I can't apologize any more than I already have. Best wishes, good night, drive safely, and tip your waitress. Jsnell 01:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Jsnell, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man(Talk), 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have any interest in Template:MLB

please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sun God

Concerning Sun God: I understand that when the in-page smaller thumbnail is viewed for, say, low-bandwidth users, that the detail may be lower, but just clicking it once would offer the same level of detail as it previously possessed. (See Image:UCSD-Sungod.JPG vs. Image:Sungod.jpg, the size of statue is nearly the same).

(And of course, one further click on mine would show the full 1712x2304 photo; resolution which the previous version cannot provide.)

But moreover, and most importantly, I firmly believe that a complete picture is superior, even simply in principle:

  1. A 1712x2304 resolution is available;
  2. The pedestal is an integral part of the statue and cannot be cropped out;
  3. Seeing background trees can provide information on proportion that a cropped version could not.

Surely, you agree that convenience is a valid sacrifice when the alternative is irreversible loss of information?

-- Znode (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've enlarged the thumbnail on Sun God (statue). I do think a close-up of the statue itself would be useful as well, perhaps as a separate image in the Sun God article. Jsnell 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea where I should put the cropped version; putting it to the left or bottom looks pretty bad. Perhaps you can find a good spot? -- Znode (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Damn you inclusionists :). I still feel that it's terribly redundant, not to mention the fact that the cropped image has to be recompressed, which is loss of information. (I'm a mergist, obviously). -- Znode (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a "sculpture" template that may solve all problems... or not. Jsnell 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That looks great. -- Znode (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New baseball article improvement drive

Baseball Greetings fellow WikiProject Baseball member! Just a quick note: there is now an article improvement drive just for baseball-related articles at WP:BBAID. Please take a look and vote on an article or add one of your own. Once an article has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia, California

A number of California history articles have been receiving attention, and in looking at the Columbia, California edits you had made some time ago, I was curious about the statement you added that Columbia was (for a time) the second-largest city in California, and that it was considered briefly for state capital status. I've been unable to find any confirmation or citation that supports either of those statements. Would you be kind enough to pass along to me the source of that information, so that information can be included in other California history-related articles. Thanks! NorCalHistory 16:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all knowledge I remember from growing up there. There's a Museum in the state park that I believe had that information, but I don't have a copy of the source material. There was also a book, The World Rushed In, that had lots of background -- my parents own a copy, but I never had one myself.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/s/n/User_talk%7EJsnell_4183.html"