User talk:Jbc01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
-- utcursch | talk 09:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Could you also upload the images you have generously released under GFDL to http://commons.wikimedia.org ? There are two reasons for this:
- If an image on en.wikipedia.org has no links to it, then it will eventually be deleted; &
- Images on commons can also be used by the non-English Wikipedias.
Thanks -- llywrch 17:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Images from JBC Productions
Hello. Its been brought to my attention that you have uploaded a substantial number of photos from JBC productions and you are saying they are released under the GFDL. A tag on the website says:
- Oh yeah, one more thing folks. These pictures are for your own personal use!!! What does that mean? It means that these pictures remain the property of me, and any UN-AUTHORISED use of them, such as putting them on your own web site, or downloading them all and popping them on a news site just isn't the done thing. Above all else, it just ain't plain nice!!! So come on, be a pal, do the right thing!
Which seems to suggest against these images being released under the GFDL. We must be able to verify that images that are posted on commercial websites are here by permission. This means we need some way, off of the wiki, to verify that these images are in fact released under the GFDL. Can you suggest any way that we might do this? --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The images have had the copyright notice that normally sits over the image removed, a comparison with images from the site will show that this hasn't simply been achieved by cropping the copyright info off of the image. I can also be contacted at justin@jbc-productions.com and justin@aussieropeworks.com to verify my identity and ownership of the material. --Jbc01 02:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response! I'm working my way through a list and will send you email in the next few days. Thanks for the images--best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 04:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Kevin sure is a rm personal attack! Jbc01 contributes extensively and this is how you show gratitude? Hey kevin, Why don't you start flipping through all GFDL images that exist on Wikipedia and play detective for every single image that is self made. Sound like fun? 70.251.199.90 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, it's quite reasonable to be cautious when someone posts a set of images from a website that makes its money from selling access to those images. — Matt Crypto 13:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Not when they're uploaded by the owner of that site.--Taxwoman 13:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but how can we tell that they're uploaded by the owner of that site? Answer: we contact them through off-wiki channels. — Matt Crypto 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - and that could easily have been done without starting on the user's talk page.--Taxwoman 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- So..? It could also easily be done by asking the user on their talk page. Kzollman asked Justin how he could contact him off-wiki to verify his identity as the owner of the images. That's an entirely reasonable course of action. — Matt Crypto 13:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
A quick check would reveal that this editor has not edited for months, so probably hasn't logged in!--Taxwoman 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)