User talk:Kjetil r

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kjetil r, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ragib 28 June 2005 15:42 (UTC)

[edit] Brin

I've added a patent nonsense tag to the article Brin, marking it for speedy deletion by administrators. If you disagree with this, you may remove the tag, but I will then nominate it for a deletion vote under the deletion policy. Please avoid adding non-encyclopedic articles to Wikipedia in the future. --MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

• Sorry...just reread the speedy delete guidelines. As you created the article, you may not remove the tag, though feel free to put it up for VfD, in which case I will remove the tag.--MikeJ9919 30 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Hi Kjetil r, just a minor point on categories: if you add someone to Category:Norwegian footballers, you do not need ot add them to Category:Norwegian sportspeople or Category:Norwegian people, because once you put them to the footballers category, it already is in the other two because of the hierarchy. This is done to avoid over-categorization and categories with too many articles, which would become useless. --Dr31 4 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

• I see, thank you for clarifying this. --kjetil_r July 5, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

[edit] Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direct upload of photos to Commons

Thanks for putting the Kongsvinger photo on Commons.

Is there a way to directly upload a file from the Norwegian sites to Commons? It would make it much easier than my current patch - to download & upload again. And it would keep a cleaner trail of origin as well.

Thanks - Williamborg 00:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (I'll watch your page, so replies here, if easier for you, are fine).

Unfortunately I do not know of an easy way to move files from the Norwegian sites to Commons. Such a tool would save much time, as I move a lot of images from the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia to Commons. kjetil_r 02:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your doing so. Williamborg

[edit] Sven O. Santa

It took 3 1/2 months before anyone reacted. Couldn't you at least BJAODN it? Eixo 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:So_some_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_walk_into_a_bar....#From_Sven_O._Høiby. kjetil_r 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, my Santa-SvenO will now live forever! Eixo 22:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norsk (bokmål) & Norsk (nynorsk)

Okay. Thanks for explaining the confusing situation. In light of this, I have changed back the links on the Commons to Norsk (bokmål) and Norsk (nynorsk). From what I've read about Riksmål, I'm not going to put that back for now, unless you can convince me again :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that any one language dialect writing system is superior. I hope it's better this way. —UED77 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerrard image deletion??!?

i would like to know why you have listed my photograph of Steven Gerrard for deletion?! My best mate took that photo standing next to me in the crowd with a zoom lens. It is perfectly legal in every possible way. Please reverse this stupid decision.

thankyou, Alii h 21:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I will answer in your user_talk. kjetil_r 21:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You sir are a jobsworth idiot. The big version is licensed one way. The small version is edited and licensed another way. Both licenses are within the ethos of "sharing". Both are valid in the eyes of the author.Alii h 21:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Alii h, are you always so unfriendly? If the license used here at Wikipedia is ok in the eyes of the author, all right, then the image should noe be deleted. It would have been easier if you said so at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 10 instead of calling me an idiot here.

I can see that you have uploaded many images of Liverpool players, and this problem applies to all of them. The page here at Wikipedia says one license, but the link to flickr says something different. You should specify that these images are licensed under a different license at Wikipedia, so that other contributors do not think they are nc-only and then listing them for deletion. kjetil_r 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am unfriendly because I'm annoyed that the Peter Crouch photo was deleted without any notification. I hadn't saved a copy of the edit, and still haven't gotten around to redoing it. If you had honestly doubted the author's consent you could have mailed him via Flickr. Personally I think you just like deleting photos that people have put time and effort into uploading. I will at least credit you with notifying me this time. aLii 22:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. there are MANY photos of footballers that are MUCH more deserving of deletion. I suggest that in future you concentrate your efforts on the multitude that are stolen from comercial websites rather than photos taken by the public, but using two slightly non-matching licenses on different sites aLii 22:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, maybe I should have mailed the author. I often do so in case of doubt, but for some reason I did not this time.

I am not sure why you think this is "anti-Liverpool vandalism", I have (of course) no interest in removing content from Wikipedia unless the content is a copyright violation.

If this licensing issue is solved, I will copy the images to the Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in other Wikipedias. They are nice images, your friend is a very good photographer.

The uploader should according to the rules of Wikipedia always be notified when an image is considered for deletion. You should tell this to the person whom deleted it, beeing an admin he should know this. kjetil_r 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is getting late, but tomorrow I will mail your friend asking for permission, and then forward the mail with the permission to the Wikimedia foundation using the OTRS system. I will then transfer the images to Commons. This will prevent all future misunderstanding regarding this licensing issue. kjetil_r 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have emailed him asking whether he could change the licenses. Having the image simply marked for deletion seemed a bit rude without any prior warning, hence my annoyance. The page Steven Gerrard gets vandalised pretty much everyday, again adding to my annoyance.

Regarding the Peter Crouch image, one day it was there and then it was gone. No explanation, no record of it ever having been there, so how am I supposed to follow it up with whomever removed it?! The photo on his page now should probably be deleted itself, ha, but I'll let you do that as you think yourself the expert in this situation. aLii 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see this in the log. Your friend's image was deleted by User:Kungfuadam, with the cryptic reason "csd i3". I am not sure what is the maning of "csd i3", you should ask User:Kungfuadam.

The current image of Crouch is tagged as a promotional photo. This is most likely not correct, and I will thus list if for deletion as a (possible) copyright violation. I agree that there are MANY other photos of footballers which are more deserving of deletion than your friend's. kjetil_r 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool Images

Excellent work! aLii 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Det var väldigt duktigt av dig att ordna upp tillståndet angående Image:Xabi Alonso.jpg och de andra bilderna! Thuresson 22:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons image

Hi. I've just done a major overhaul of Image:Spanish Empire.png, which you uploaded to Commons a few days ago. If you could at all find the time it might be worthwhile to update the image and description there. Cheers, Albrecht 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. kjetil_r 10:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kossak

Frankly speaking I'm not that sure (note when was the image uploaded). The author has donated most of his works to the Polish nation and it is currently held in a national museum, but I'm not sure whether that means Public Domain or only Polish Domain. Anyway, it's a two-dimensional depiction of a work of art and as such is for sure usable in wiki. //Halibutt 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your wrongful deletion of screenshots...

In America where Microsoft is headquartered there is no law preventing screenshots of Windows from being reproduced for illustrative and instructional purposes. Your explanation on the Wikimedia Commons site is that screenshots of any Windows program are subject to speedy deletion due I suppose to a misunderstanding of applicable copyright law. Microsoft however views such screenshots as a form of support and possibly free advertising rather than a violation of its copyrights which apply to imitation or duplication of its program screens in competing software products. Such publication is in fact common for creators of Windows operator capability tests such as are performed to test temporary office workers seeking employment in fields that require knowledge and use of any Window's product. Just in case your wrongful deletion was inspirited by a mistranslation of English or of American copyright law or simply a misunderstanding of the target being addressed by the phrase "no redistribution" you need to understand that this statement does not apply to screenshots but rather to an executable program that is created by submission of the user's source code to the compiler. Since these images have already served their purpose in the discussion and can be sent by email to anyone who has a question they do not need to be restored although your understanding of the law needs to be updated. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have answered you here. Kjetil_r 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statues, sculptures etcetera

Hi mate, care reviewing this: User:Dr Zak/Statue. Dr Zak 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the Lee Lawrie Atlas photograph

It was an early wikipedia posting of mine. It is my picture and I'm not sure what the issue with it is now, but it's up there for free use by one and all. Carptrash 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunatly, your photo may not be used freely. Only the artist who made the sculpture may grant such a permission. If you want to keep your photo on Wikipedia, you should claim fair use. --Kjetil_r 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Image:MSU_Bronze_Sparty_2.jpg

Hi,

Recently you tagged one of my photos that I uploaded to Wikipedia as not having source information with the pui tag. If you had bothered to read the page on Image:MSU_Bronze_Sparty_2.jpg, you would've clearly seen that I wrote:

I also applied correct licensing to the page. You can see other photos I took during this session on my user page, User:Jeffness

Please take a bit more time to read the full contents of the image page before deciding that it is possibly in violation of copyright.--Jeff 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I looked into it a bit more and read about copyright of photographs of statue's. I changed the license tag on the image to {statue} which reflects its' use as fair use and explains fully copyright law regarding statues.. I Wish you would've done that at first and tried to explain more instead of doing {pui} and placing that copy and paste text on my talk page. Then I wouldn't have been so confused. --Jeff 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I do not consider the use of this image in the article Michigan_State_University as fair use. The licensing tag says that "to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs (...) qualifies as fair use". One is not doing such in this article. I therfore still think it is a copyvio.

I can to some extent agree that I should have explained it more in detail, but I tagged a lot of photos of statues in the US as PUIs that day. Of course I should have tried to include a link to Commons:Derivative works, but when I do a lot of them, I often forget.

I have retagged the photo as a PUI, as you have not provided a fair use rationale. Please do not remove the tag until this case has been resolved.--Kjetil_r 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LLAtlas.jpg

My mistake. It's gone. -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your image with Jimbo

I have to ask where you right hand is. The image looks incriminating, LOL. Cheers! Royalbroil 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember! I was most likely holding a cigar og my camera... :-) --Kjetil_r 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Heykal.jpg

Regarding your note here, i changed the licence of the image [1]. I found the image at Arabic wikipedia [2] where it is tagged under public domain according to Egyptian law where images are protected for 15 years only [3].If you feel this is enough, please remove the {{no source}} template.--Wedian 01:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you can provide a source that confirms the date which the photo was published, and a source that confirms that the photo was first published in Egypt, then the {{no source}} template can be removed. Sincerely, --Kjetil_r 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing of Image:SmetanaStatuePilsen.jpg

The Image:SmetanaStatuePilsen.JPG was uploaded by Lumidek on 20 July 2004. The {{GFDL}} tag was added by Quadell on 4 February 2005. There was no information on the image source. Conscious 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Russ Chandler Stadium.jpg

Are there any necessary attribution details for Image:Russ Chandler Stadium.jpg? Template:Cc-by-2.5 offers a parameter in the event that there are. --Iamunknown 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Drews did not specify how he wants to be attributed. Kjetil_r 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. IMO, Mr. Drews was not adequately informed about the license. See [4]. The license is conditional: the reuser must attribute the way specified by the licensor. I'm not sure 2.5 is meant for someone who doesn't specify a method of attribution. --Iamunknown 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of users who upload their photos as cc-by to Wikipedia and to Commons do not explicitly specify a method of attribution. Do you suggest that the licenses of these images are void?

Mr. Drews states that “I, Jon Drews, do solemnly swear that I agree to the creative commons license cc-by-2.5 (as listed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ for the following image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Russ_Chandler_Stadium.jpg .” The user asking Mr. Drews for this statement specified the terms of the license. I do not really see the problem. Kjetil r 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Kjetil r, I don't. Because, frankly, I am not a lawyer. But I'm not sure you are either, so I'm inclined think neither of us really knows if the current licensing status is appropriate. --Iamunknown 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Post a note at commons:Village pump, and ask for feedback from other users. I am BTW a computer scientist, and certainly no lawyer. Kjetil r 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, would you consider looking at my note at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Right now it's at the bottom. I'm really concerned that it is a copyvio ... and no one has responded yet. To make matters worse, it is on the front page of this wiki right now. If you have any comments, feel free to post them there; if not, thanks for your consideration. --Iamunknown 06:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image for deletion

Hi, I just noticed your nomination for deletion of the image Image:Ted_kulongoski.jpg. I did not originally upload it, but would like to resolve the situation. The user who uploaded it is on wikibreak, and has expressed frustration regarding images he uploaded being nominated for deletion without adequate instruction on how to properly express permission. I believe it would be a great disservice to Wikipedia for such a productive editor to stop contributing permanently, and would like to assist him and educate him.

Could you please help me do so, by answering these questions?

• What is the appropriate way to assert permission, once it's been granted? I happen to know the former Deputy Communications Director who was cited, which might be useful.
• What aspect of the justification given do you question? (The authority of the Deputy Comm. Director, the veracity of the claim, …?)
• What can be done to avoid this sort of hassle in the event of future uploads, with permission, of copyrighted materials?

Thank you, -Pete 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete.

I understand that our image policy is difficult to understand. The uploader of this image is not the only one who has difficulties understanding what to do.

1. The copyright holder should use the declaration of consent found at Commons:Email templates. Many permissions are ambiguous, by using this template one can avoid that. This statement should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, so that it can be stored for future reference (the uploader correctly did that part)
2. The problem is that the statement is too ambiguous. We need explicit permission for commercial use, and for the right to make derivative works. The statement "You have permission to distribute the Governor's photo far and wide" does not mention these issues.
3. These kinds of problems are common. I guess that the vague upload form is the core of the problem. The form does not really mention what to do with images you have permission for. I personally like the solution at the French Wikipedia. Try going there and click “Importer une image.” One is not taken directly to the upload form, but rather to a walkthrough explaining what to do in different scenarios. This solution forces the uploader to actually read the instructions. Also, the Commons upload page (you will need a Commons account to view it) does specify what to do better than the English Wikipedia does it. It is my opinion that some of the elements of the Commons upload page should be inported into the English Wikipedia's page, and that this would have reduced the possibilities of misunderstandings.

If you think you can get a proper permission for the copyright holder, please go ahead. If you are doing so, please write a note at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images so that the image will not be deleted until the issue is resolved. If you need assistance from me, please do not hesitate to ask me, as I would be happy to help. Chuck (Kjetil r) 04:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. As I've noted elsewhere, I'm attempting to resolve it; I think your instructions are sufficient. When this is resolved, I would like to help improve the form and the problems you identify in item #3. I have encountered similar problems at the Commons site, and can say from personal experience, this is very discouraging when an editor is attempting to make a good faith contribution. I believe Wikipedia should address this issue in order to retain quality editors, and will do what I can to make that happen. Maybe you can help when it gets to that point? -Pete 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help you. Kjetil r 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks