User talk:Falc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Perplexed

Hi, Judson.

Aside from imposing the founders' philosophies about "Information" being free (which seems rather generous a position to take with someone else's research or art,) why is it that Wikipedia "must" have so broad a license on pictures to accept a license for this venue?

THANKS!

--JT 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is free content. It is a philosophical decision that we have made. I can explain it, but I don't know if it would convince you. It isn't just something that jimbo decided from above though, it is something that we all agree with, otherwise we wouldn't work on it. I have to say also, it's not a position people take with other people's work. It's something that every content creator needs to decide for themselves. Many people don't want to license their work under free licenses, and that's fine! That sort of licensing structure isn't for everyone, or everything. Other people are willing to do it though, and want their work to be as available as possible. If that doesn't describe your wishes, don't think people are chastising you, be thankful the images got removed before they were copied all over the internet :) - cohesion 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't begin to explain why you and yours (since you profess this belief/philosophy) will ONLY accept permission to use it here if an artist or copyright holder grants its use EVERYWHERE, commercial and non-commercial, as well. I'm left at a total loss as to why you (or anyone else) would even want to try to impose such a contribution upon others. Isn't it their right to choose who they want to gift? Or when you give a guy a buck because you're feeling like it, does that mean that you must give EVERYONE a dollar?

It's very simple. If you don't want to give the same privileges to everyone, you simply don't contribute. And of course, knowledge isn't property like cash; it doesn't change hands, it just keeps on giving. ;) --Kjoonlee 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If we were talking Knowledge, I'd certainly agree. Obviously I do agree, or wouldnt' contribute here. But we're not. We're talking about creative and intellectual endeavors. A photo has a cost and a value, and putting it up for free at a commercial level pretty much means that it has NO value to a publisher anymore. A limited license to Wiki would preserve my other rights and value, while giving the world that view. If WIkipedia were for-profit, I wouldn't even CONSIDER contributing for free. So why would YOU guys want to go giving that image to people who would sell it as part of their Product on a commercial level? I find some of you awefully generous with other people's property. You pay for music, or do you insist on the artist "donating" that, too?
No, I think you are confusing cost and value. Anything can be free of cost, but may have enormous potential value. You are free to sell your contributions to Wikipedia to others at a higher price. --Kjoonlee 05:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And of course, some musicians do indeed donate music to the public. http://creativecommons.org/audio/ http://www.archive.org/details/etree --Kjoonlee 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia content is poisoned. Reusers are NOT free to "sell it as part of their Product on a commercial level". They want to have full copyright of their products and would not accept the share-alike clause. (See also below.) --Petri Krohn 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"No", I'm not confusing the two at all. Something like $20,000 was spent on the expedition, and I gave up two months of my life living and sweating in a 4th-world hell to be there and get the pictures. They cost something, and they have value. In fact, these are the ONLY close-up pictures of these falcons that exist at this time. So they have both cost and value. You're correct, I still have the prerogive of denying the world the view, rather than letting Wiki. shove their philosophical bent down my throat and imposing it upon my hard-earned property.

As to musicians, yes, some do. I have some of my tunes up that way. But that is my CHOICE, not something imposed upon me. Imagine what they would say if you told them "If you let me have this, you can't sell it or put it on a commercial album." That's effectively what happens, because a publisher doesn't want images which are already free to the world.

I could probably find one picture which was inferior, but why should people get a poor quality look at these beautiful birds just because Wiki. is being stubborn about MY property (instead of taking the gift graciously and gratefully?) --JT 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You could be gracious generous and upload the picture after you sell it. --Kjoonlee 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SIGH... I suppose I could.. and I might. But in the meantime, the world goes without it because you guys are trying to impose that perspective on my property... and I've yet to see any of you address any of the points I've raised. Nevermind. Enough said. You think my stuff should be free, and I don't agree. But I'll bear it in mind when I'm by your house next and feel like raiding your refrigerator and taking your car, since you think "knowledge" should be free. After all, the Knowledge to take that picture and the Knowledge to make a car both cost the same nothing, right? --JT 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you drop by my house in Second Life (if and when I get one) I'll be glad to. :) --Kjoonlee 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU FDL does not give EVERYONE permission to use your work as they please

(In response to your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions)

Using a license like CC-by-sa or GNU FDL does not deprive you from using the image commercially at a later point. The share-alike clause makes it unusable for most commercial publisers. The GNU FDL license is a strong copyright poison, using a Wikipedia derived image in a printed book would make the whole book free content. This is something no publishers wants. The images will still maintain part of their commercial value. (You wanted to publish them on Wikipedia anyway, so you can not expect the full commercial value.) In short, you are not making them public domain --Petri Krohn 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that you see the world as divided between free or "non-commercial" as in free beer and commercial. We at wikipedia see the world as divided between free as in freedom and non-free or "commercial". The differense is not great, but the new distinction was the great mental leap (by Richard Stallman) that enabled the free software and open source movements. Both free and non-free coexist, and the free does not prevent the non-free from making money from their copyright. --Petri Krohn 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Petri, thanks for your comments. It wasn't so much that I "wanted" to publish them on Wikipedia, as I very much appreciate the lack of quality pictures of the birds. Before I went there and took those pictures, there were no close-ups, and distant shots are terribly misleading. But I am not willing to give free rein to the world on them in order to gain the "privilege" of sharing them with Wikipedia's non-commercial project/endeavor. It's Wikipedia's insistance on telling me who ELSE I must grant license to (in order for them to accept my gift) which leaves us at odds. Frankly, I find it a bit cheeky.

As to our difference of perspective, while I may agree that it would be good for information to be "free" I do not think that everything falls into that category. A song, a photo, a painting, a piece of fiction, these are not Information in that sense. Consider this: At one point, most everything that is now common knowledge was the result of painstaking research, genius or other force/effort. Newton, Galileo, Vivaldi, Pasteur, Curie, etc., these people all made significant contributions to the world... but they also had expenses and efforts. Today their works are Public Domain, but even Michelangelo got paid SOMEthing. The Star Trek universe you envision will only work when that same society which would benefit from Free "knowledge" also funds my expeditions to Africa, etc.

Do you see the distinction between Information (i.e. the world is round, and water freezes at 32 degrees F) and Intellectual Property (i.e. Simon & Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water", a Picasso painting, or a novel someone writes)? For the former to be Free costs no one, while the latter being Free would deprive the copyright holder of their due. Accordingly, that the RNF is found in specific areas of W. Africa, and a further description of those places and the times of year, etc., may be knowledge that one is willing to share (though it costs money to gain that knowledge,) but a painting of a RNF would not be expected to be Free. To impose the free license against the true willingness and likemindedness of the individual is to initiate force/compulsion towards someone who was trying to do something ghilanthropic, IMO.

I will look into the CC by SA terms, but it was stated to me that, in a nutshell, I would have to give up copyright in order to share it here, essentially share it with everyone everywhere (even if they were to put it into a book and sell copies) and that's not something I'm willing to do. But you can cite my book when it comes out.:)

I do appreciate your input and thoughts. I still don't quite see why it's NECESSARy to the functionality/existence of Wikipedia that it be there for others to "borrow" at will, though. If Wikipedia chooses to give away license to ITS content, that's Wiki.'s prerogative, but need not mean that my prerogative is removed from me.

I leave you to it... --JT 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cullen Finnerty additions

Hey, T-dot. Thanks for the adds on the Cullen Finnerty article. I was kinda adding some more to it and we were both editing at the same time. Yours was a far more concise version than mine. (Writer's fault, used to getting paid by the word.:) ) Thanks for the help. If you watched the game, this guy is amazing, deserves his 15 minutes more than most. Peace, JT --JT 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD MORE - I am in the middle of fighting a "speedy delete" on Cullen's article - please add everything you can - I agree that Cullen is a hot NFL prospect and deserves a page. I did not mean to overwrite you or anything. Please add more!!! --T-dot 21:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is not in any danger of speedy deletion now, and I have removed the Notability concern tag, since you have established notability. That was the problem in the first place, it did not assert notability. Keep up the good work. Hu 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HU and T-Dot! I'll bow out a bit, since we're both engaging in Editing conflicts, and T-Dot seems to have much of the same info as I, but better Wiki skills. I'll check back on it to add more later. --JT 22:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I'm tired now. Your turn. Please, please feel free to add more stuff you find on Cullen. GVSU is also in the process of updating their web pages and news articles too, and undoubtedly more news and info will be posted in the coming days. I think that Cullen's stats are up to date now thru today's game, but a second set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Some of the NCAA commulative stats were confusing if not contradictory back at GVSU's web pages, but I think I have them more or less correct in the Wiki article itself. I'm also not exactly sure what Cullen did in 2002 - I think he transferred to GVSU then, and skipped a year due to eligibility rules - or he might have skipped a season for personal reasons. Trying to get confirmation on that. It is very unusual for a player to get 3 freshman seasons, redshirting or otherwise. Anyway I put up a lot of reference links, to keep the verifiability and reliable source nazis at bay, along with the new-article speedy deletionists and non-notable deletion gangs. By the way - thanks for your additions so far. They helped me set off on new directions as well. For example - I hadn't thought of listing his high school accomplishments as well, until you did. Also by the way - I know some of the players on the GVSU team, and as soon as I can get in touch with them I'll mention the article we created for Cullen, so he can have a look himself and maybe fix any errors he sees. We might even get a nice picture directly from him... --T-dot 02:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding! I've got his hotmail email and phone number, but am nowhere near bold and intrusive enough to bother him any time soon over something like this. Instead, I emailed the Sprots Department head for a photo we can use here.;) Thanks for all the hard work. I'll have a go at it later this evening. Gonna go see a film and get some coffee filters this afternoon. --JT 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI - The guys arrived back at GVSU a couple of hours ago. Please let Cullen know at your earliest convenience about "his article" so he can look it over, and certainly to fix our mistakes (make sure he knows he can edit his article himself too). In particular I want to make sure the '01 and '02 information is "correct" for the Toledo / GVSU transfer, and of course without getting too deeply into his personal life (I myself had to skip a semester of college in my second year, to get my mind right and restart, and with great success the second time around). So anyway let's give him the courtesy of the right of first refusal on anything placed on "his page". Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy

Just to follow up on the speedy business: there's a small number of admins trying to deal with a huge amount of vandalism and semi-vandalism — articles that simply say "So-and-so is a footballer" or the like are fairly common, most of them created by hit-and-run editors who have no intention of expanding what they've written. We simply don't have time to investigate, give it time, etc. — the onus is on the person who creates an article to make it obviously serious and notable. You made a mistake through lack of knowledge; that's OK, we all do that. The best response, now, is for you to learn from the mistake rather than blaming the system. I hope that you enjoy your time editing here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mel, are you suggesting that I should have had more of the article fleshed out before hitting Save the first time? The reason I put it up as a one-liner was as a placeholder. I was amazed Cullen Finnerty didn't already have an article or at least a stub, but realized that after that 3rd Div II championship game (and, being less political here in relative privacy, he singlehandedly won that game for them,) someone would put one up. I didn't want to have editorial conflicts. As it happens, two of us WERE working on the same article at the same time. So what does the System have for such circumstances; How better to hold a place for the Articles? Things WILL come up precipitated by current events. --JT 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Armenian Genocide

I think that any info needs to be added will be added when it becomes unprotected. It involves somewhat a delicate addition, and its place and wording needs to be decided following the wikiprocess, which means many editors will need to have the possibility to edit continously until a compromise and concensus version will be born. Until then, any unilateral addition which would leave the other editors without the ability to edit will be unfair. Just wait until the page becomes unprotected - besides, there are some disputes about structure that (still) needs to be ironed out.. Baristarim 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was not about the content, but editorial encyclopedic spirit: when an article is protected, it is not fair when an addition can be made by an editor and not the others - this goes for any article, not just this one. It will be unprotected - it is again Wikipedia policy to protect articles for more than a couple of weeks. There was a particular structural dispute that led to its protection and it should come out of protection soon enough. Many articles get protected from time to time in Wiki, and the normal editing process resumes when they become unprotected. Cheers! Baristarim 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red-necked Falcon

I note with some concern your comments to Yamla on this article's talk page. He is simply reminding you of the agreed policies. Your responses do not observe the WP:CIVIL requirement. Please note that even if you disagree with that policy too, it is one that carries sanctions should they become necessary. Thanks, Jimfbleak. Talk to me.15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peregrines

Hi JT: I know you're a falconer with some considerable experience, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to add some appropriate falconry information to the Peregrine Falcon article. We're working to bring it up to GA standard, and—since the Peregrine is a much-prized falconry species—it would be incomplete without that information. Anything you can provide would be greatly appreciated! MeegsC | Talk 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JT! MeegsC | Talk 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Steidle

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brian Steidle, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.briansteidle.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.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 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Steidle

I'm actively working on the %&#@Y& article, and really wish you'd chill the F out, slow the F down, and at least leave me a few minutes to get stuff done before you go about costing me 2 pages of original content via an editorial conflict because you couldnt' F-ing wait to get your mitts into things. I REALLY don't appreciate this sort of interference, nor wasting my efforts.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Falc (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts are definitely appreciated, and they shouldn't go to waste. In the future, when an edit conflict occurs, please note that your original text will be saved in the second text box on the page (you may have to scroll down to see it). You can copy and paste the content from that text box into the article text box. Thank you - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks CosmicPenguin. Sorry I jumped but it's very frustrating. I didn't see the text further down. Any chance it still exists in cache or something?

[edit] "Mexican" Eagle

Yup! Knew that... The question is, which is the the national bird of Mexico—half of the websites I've checked say Golden Eagle, and half say Crested Caracara. And nobody at the Mexico talk page was sure! I'm guessing Golden Eagle, because that's what appears to be on the flag and the coat of arms. MeegsC | Talk 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd be guessing correctly. Mexico is too proudly machismo to use a Caracara.:) --JT 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! :) MeegsC | Talk 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)