User talk:Cody-7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cute Momo Hemo 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Cody-7, 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:

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

==Your recent edits==I Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I put more explanation and suggestions in the Mars talk page but they are archiving everything. Did you look? Carrionluggage (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kawoosh film.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kawoosh film.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Stargate (device)

Please do not revert non-free image removals which comply with Policy. Please familiarize yourself with that policy. Repeated violations of the non-free content policy will lead to a block. βcommand 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I noted why I did so on the talk page - and I removed an image near the bottom to compensate. I believe we are reaching a consensus on the talk page that although there are many non-free images on the page, a long article deserves more images -- and many are important to commantary. And it's NOT against policy as there's no "magic number" for amount of images. And what are you watching this page 24/7 like a hawk? Cody-7 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Stargate (device), you will be blocked from editing. βcommand 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think that this was vandalism, and have commented on BC's talk page about this warning, I do agree that while discussion is ongoing, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and leave any questionable images out of the article while discussion is ongoing. --Onorem♠Dil 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the "benefit of the doubt" goes that you find offensive, BC has basically dedicated the past couple of years to fair use issues here, and has taken nearly constant abuse for some very needed work. I trust his judgment on almost every discussion I've witnessed in that time. You are more than welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but you still need to abide by consensus. My only point in posting to his page was to point out that when edits clearly aren't vandalism, using vandalism warnings isn't appropriate. --Onorem♠Dil 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Onorem. I'm sure he's really done some great things for Wikipedia; however that does not give him the right to make his opinion the consensus. And about the image I'm arguing about (Maybe you can provide some input): doesn't the fact I had just deleted one non-free image (and then requested one be re-added) count for something? It would essentially not raise the number of non-free images since Betacommand's last edit before I came along. Suddenly we're arguing about the image because of NFCC violation; even though the wormhole image [[1]] probably deserves a spot on the article rather than the film chevron [[2]] (which was removed from the article by me) that he happily left in the article.
I can give sufficient reason for it to be there same as many of the other images on the page, however because so many are very strict on their interpretations of the NFCC it doesn't look like the article will ever have another non-free image added again; not to mention that length of an article seems to fall on deaf ears. Cody-7 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. Is Betacommand an admin or something? Why does he have banning / suspension rights? (His user page iself does not seem to state any of that). How does one get looked highly upon in Wikipedia, anywhay?
I agree that his opinion alone is not consensus/is not policy...and I've made that point on his talk page. The number of fair use images isn't nearly as important as the individual arguments for why each specific image is needed. Removing one to add another isn't necessarily going to work in every case. No, BC isn't an admin, but you don't need to be an admin to give out standard warnings. I happened to disagree with the type and level of warning he decided to use in this case, and that's basically the only reason I got involved. --Onorem♠Dil 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't vandalism. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

how is this fewer pixels? the older version has 35500 pixels and the version you uploaded has 292320 pixels. 480000 pixels is the standard television resolution the version you uploaded is 61% less while the old version is 7% of the original. βcommand 19:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally uploaded the 720x406 one to replace a version which was captured from TV that had to be auto reduced due to invalid fair use info a while back. The 720x406 image is from a DVD capture sizing 853x480. The original capture is 409440 total pixels wieghting 477kb, and the compressed capture is a total of 292320 pixels weighting 121kb. I thought that would meet fair-use criteria. That's what I meant by fewer pixels.
Somehow it got auto resized back down even though I thought I had met the criteria... I just re uploaded it. I can reduce it more to say 640x360 if that would meet the criteria better. Cody-7 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But the current version works fine. I dont see a need to increase the current resolution eight times. βcommand 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Current version works fine? 250x142 pixels is not even mobile phone resolution, and is only suitable for a thumbnail. I already had an argument with someone about image resolution and meeting fair use criteria on the talk page (see here: [[3]]). We eventually reached the conclusion that as long as the image has proper fair use copyright info and the resolution is reduced from the original media it's fine. It's an image illustrating features on the stargate, just like the rest on the page; none of the others have been reduced this much and I don't think this one deserves to either. I'm going to upload a 640x360 version with a little more jpeg compression; that should be proper resolution to see details, and still meet fair use. That's reducing the image to TV broadcast resolution. I don't see reduction needed any further. Cody-7 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The current version is sufficient to illustrate the article appropriately. See WP:NFCC section 3b. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe it is. 640x360 should be sufficient. And I'm well aware of the NFCC; would you mind telling me what about this image makes it not meet the NFCC at that resolution like the rest of the images in the article Stargate (device)?
640x360 is not unnecessarily high resolution; and as already noted in the fair use template I attached to the image, it cannot be used for piracy or hinder the owner's profit on the product. It's one single, TV resolution still from a 45 minute episode. That is in no way against any of the guidelines in the NFCC. Being reduced 56% certainly meets criterium 3b, and it's not an entire work as, like mentioned, is one frame from a 45 minute episode.