User talk:Pd THOR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice

Hey, wait! Hang on a sec!

  • If we started talking on your page, then I'm watching there.
  • If we started talking here, then I'm watching here.

I appreciate your attention; I just want to try and keep the active discussions in one place, it makes it much easier to follow the flow of conversation.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Stella Hudgens

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Stella Hudgens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kasey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kasey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I only reverted an image upload there, the actual uploader is Lillygirl (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2179223763_64ac45e0e1.jpg

I saw your tag. If you look on the discussion page of Talk:Ashley Tisdale, you will see where he not only found the image on Flickr, he then found another copy on Ashley's official site, http://www.ashleytisdale.com/galleryn.asp, all before deciding that he should claim to be the copyright holder.Kww (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grumpy doughboy.gif

What do you mean by "possibly unfree image"? What is the problem with the picture? (I'm still new to Wikipedia so I don't know) -- 224jeff6 TALK2ME 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pillsbury Doughboy is a copyrighted and trademarked character. By claiming {{PD-self}} on that image, you're saying that you own the copyright to everything in that image, and are releasing your rights. Obviously you don't own the copyright to the Doughboy character, so you can't make that claim. Strictly speaking I should have nominated it for deletion (WP:IfD) as a copyright violation, as the "possible unfree images" is only for images where someone is uncertain if the image is copyrighted.

Ultimately, the image will be deleted as it's (a) obviously not your copyright and (b) it doesn't serve any encyclopedic purposes to be kept under fair-use (WP:NFCC). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. OK. But what do I do? 224jeff6 TALK2ME 19:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing you really need to do right now; an administrator will eventually get to checking the image, find it unsat, and delete it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What makes a good rationale?

Hi, I'm sure you might remember who I am.

Since you know alot about how fair use rationales are being created for the best suitable type pictures, (In this case, a television screenshot), I would like to know if this is more or less enough and really appropriate? I have many more images with this kind of fair use rationales. Over the years, I have taken notice how so many Simpsons TV screenshots have been deleted due to the disputed fair use rationales... But luckily so far, none of my contributions have been tagged for deletion. Today, I visited my favourite article, and noticed within one night, most of the images were gone. Seeing what has happened, I wouldn't want this to happen to all my other images; I do take my contributions seriously, and I should tell you that I do take pride in any of my contributions and I don't want them to be tagged for deletion. I would like to know if I there is a better quality way of writing a good rationale in the example I gave above to avoid deletion. I just never liked to see things happening this way.

Concerned, and learning. Thanks.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that, for what it is, it's a pretty good and strong rationale. I don't generally fiddle too much with well-tagged fair-use images anymore, just because you said: people are proud and have strong feelings about their contributions (especially images); I generally try to limit myself to obvious copyright violations and the ilk now. However, that's not to say that despite your good rationale somebody won't feel that it's superfluous and only decorative and either remove it or delete based on that (see WP:NFCC#8). I highly recommend trying to bulk up the content that your image is supporting. In this instance, mention exactly how many times this specific character has appeared, how critical to those episodes he's been, and especially anything you can include (that's reliably sourced!) about his depiction and appearance. I wish you good luck; and if you need anything else, let me know and I'll do my best to help. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, oh yes I'll have to agree that not all might keep up with its rationale and might come up with some other theory about deleting it. That was my concern. Anyway I'll continue to keep it up this way! :)
Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Torres

hi, i really dont know how to do this, so sorry that im editing your page. i see that you keep changing the joe torres article to state that he starred in the 2002 movie groove. well, thats actually inaccurate. a guy named aaron langridge played somebody named joe torres in the movie, but it wasnt actually the same guy who starred as danny lightfoot. sorry about the harassment some of my friends may have been giving you, but we're just pretty touchy when it comes to the subject of our friend joe torres.

looooove, Presently (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't not believe you. But Wikipedia can't accept information that we know, only information that we can prove; that's the rules that makes Wikipedia reliable. TV Guide says one thing, but I can't find another reliable source that says another. If you can find one online (and IMDb is not a reliable source), let me know and I'll edit the article appropriately.

And don't apologize for editing my talk page, that's what it's here for. However, since this is more a discussion about the article and may be applicable to other editors, I'm going to suggest we continue it here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is your problem?

Hey asshole I scanned these in myself. You better out all the shit I worked my as to scan in and put on here back up. NOW! License plates are not copyrighted and I created the image of them so get your head out of your ass and fix things shithead! MRPL8 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

License plates are copyrighted and the respective intellectual property of the governmental agency for whom their design was commissioned. Despite your virulence, those images will remain the "possibly unfree images" process for discussion until an administrative decision has been made as to their copyright status.

For your edification, several of the images you uploaded were forthwith transferred to the Wikimedia Commons; having tagged them for deletion at the same time today, they have already been deleted as copyright violations (see: Image:AL_GBA_plate.jpg, Image:Indiana_IGWT_plate.jpg, Image:Utah_Plate.jpg, Image:Wy_license_plate_sample.jpg, Image:Ontario_1997_Sample.jpg, Image:Nova_Scotia_Sample.jpg, Image:Ca04.jpg, Image:Tx2008.jpg, Image:Mt2007.jpg, Image:Nv2007.jpg, Image:Ne2005.jpg, Image:Id2008.jpg, Image:Dc2003.jpg, Image:Florida_2004.jpg, Image:New_Hampshire_Sample_2001.jpg, Image:Louisiana_Sample_2007.jpg, and Image:Pa2008.jpg). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WRONGO! You don't understand that they are public documents and not subject to copyright. If I create an image of it then I own copyright of said image. Why the hell should I contribute if there are clueless people like you who don't understand basic fundamental principles? If this is the kind of garbage treatment that is normal here I will leave and share my NEGATIVE experience with everyone I know and everyone I come into contact with. MRPL8 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Public documents [...] not subject to copyright"? Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. Most media produced by the federal government of the United States fall into the public domain per law. However, individual state governments which produce the designs and appearances of their license plates retain their copyright to those designs (unless otherwise demonstrated). Merely by taking a picture of their work, you may not then release the copyright to the same; if that were the case, what then would a copyright even mean?

As for your threats to sow public discontent regarding your displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with Wikipedia, please remember that this is a volunteer collaborative work wherein we all agree (by our very contributing) to abide by the common rules, policies, guidelines, and procedures set forth by the community. I don't want to discourage you from contributing by any means, but I would suggest you tone down your argumentative replies and read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks & Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Non-free content, and mayhaps Wikipedia:Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions about images, uploading, copyrights, or any other aspect of Wikipedia, feel free to ask me here, or at any of the afore mentioned internal pages. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AND WHO THE HELL MADE YOU JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER? MRPL8 (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody; I cannot delete any files from Wikipedia, that falls solely under the pervue of administrators. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurel and Hardy image

Just out of interest what makes you think my Laurel and Hardy image would be good for Wiki Commons? I don't really get what criteria a photo needs to meet to be moved there. After all this is hardly my best photo! Could you please tell me so I know for the future. Thanks. Cls14 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only criteria for uploading works to the Commons is that they be either copyright-free (like yours), or only require crediting to the original artist.

Wikimedia Commons is just a repository or database of libre media (mostly images). That's a nice image, and since you released it into the public domain it can be uploaded to the Commons for all to use; the nice thing about the Commons is that its images are usable and accessible across all Wikimedia projects: all Wikipedia languages, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc. I could go more into depth about promoting copyright-free works, and the Wikimedia Foundation's free mission, but that's the crux of it. And don't be down on your photo, I liked it. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please let me know how I could move some of my other photos there. Only my best ones though! Cls14 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the easiest is to register for an account on Commons (here), and upload the same images under the same file names and licenses. Once they're uploaded there, just add {{db-self}} to the versions still on Wikipedia here and they'll be deleted from here and the Commons-uploaded versions will show through.

Even easier is just to add {{Move to Commons}} to the images you want moved over there, and somebody'll take care of the process for you. However, this process can take much longer, but isn't any less effective. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, thanks for your edits to the article. All of the images have been right-aligned. During featured article review, I was told to vary the image alignment a bit so that it draws the eye in more. What do think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've always removed the sizing & alignment specifications from images in articles based on the Manual of Style. With respect to those, it says: "Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment," and "Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary." The former is for a consistence of style, whereas the latter is a usability issue: if you specify a small or large thumbnail size, users who have specified larger or smaller default thumbnails in their preferences (because they're running a higher or lower resolution, among other reasons) will be overridden.

Interestingly, I recently brought this subject up at the MoS talk page and it's being discussed currently. The current discussion is whether it's requisite for featured articles to comply with the MoS. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for info. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help a greenhorn understand the difference between public domain and wiki commons

I did not study law and therefore aint no crack in such things. You made the suggestion to move this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Powershot_A720is.JPG from PD to WC. Why and what would that change? Thank you. --Tubesship (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've released that image into the public domain (PD) saying in effect: "I no longer want or need to maintain my copyrights to this image; it is free for any purpose or usage now." That's the licensing of the image.

The Wikimedia Commons is just a database of libre images; that is, images which have either been released into the PD (like yours), or are copyrighted very loosly (i.e. under a Creative Commons, GFDL, or similar licensing). Commons is just another Wikimedia project like Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but instead of articles or definitions, it just stores libre media (images, videos, etc.).

I just recommend moving libre media to Commons as opposed to the Wikipedia itself because, if it's on WikiCommons, it can be used by all the other Wikimedia projects (not just Wikipedia). If you have any questions or need any further elabouration, feel free to let me know! I'll do my best to help you out. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your "dummy proof" answer! ;-) Now even I got it although english is not my native language and juridical textes (in any language) scares the hell out of me. Ok, so I am fine with your suggestion to move the picture. Have a nice weekend! :-) --Tubesship (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm glad I helped.  :^) Thanks, and you have a great weekend too! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
One question: Did I managed the move? Shall I now remove the template? Ok, 2 questions. ;-) --Tubesship (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You were very successful! I added a template to the old image to delete it from Wikipedia since it's on Commons now. Do you have any questions or concerns? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration

This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Glau picture caption

Hi. There's been a discussion on the Summer Glau Talk page about the term "Flanvention". Tracking through the history, it looks as if you were the editor who put this caption in. (The picture itself has changed more than once since then.) I thought it was an error for "Fanvention" when I first read it, but I am assured it is authentic. Since I started the discussion, someone has changed it to "convention", and I have reverted it. Would you be able to expand on the term? I think the best thing would be to have a section on the term in the Firefly and Serenity articles, and put a link in the Summer Glau caption.

I appreciate your comment at the top about keeping conversations on one page. I find it disorienting to have to switch back and forth to follow a thread. What looks like a response to any given comment is actually a response to a response.

Cheers. Koro Neil (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, there was a convention panel (or somesuch) where Nathan Fillion was talking, and he tried to say "Firefly fans" and instead said "Fireflans". It was a funny slip-up, but the word was claimed by the fandom and was reused to describe a Firefly-dedicated convention: a "flanvention". However, since it wasn't my photo, I just went with what the Commons' description page said: "Summer Glau (2005 Serenity Flanvention)".

As for linking to it; Flanvantion used to redirect to Browncoats' Backup Bash; when the former was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoats' Backup Bash), the redirect was as well.

Thanks for the heads-up, and I'm glad you appreciate where I'm coming from re: talk pages. If you need anything else, just lemme know. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 72.53.22.53

HI THOR LONG TIME NO SEE! HOW ARE YOU DOING THESE DAYS? LOOK SLIKE YOU'RE DOING WELL. TTYL ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.22.53 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 19 April 2008

Good evening 72.53.22.53; I am well, thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Ristevska

I got the image from: http://www.freewebs.com/elena_risteska/elenasbiography.htm

I am not sure how copyrights work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mactruth (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 May 2008

Well, you or I could update the image's page to reflect the source and licensing/copyright, but the image will still fail Wikipedia's criteria for using copyrighted material: for living people, only libre media and images can be used to depict them (WP:NFCC#1). I recommend reading the page Wikipedia:Image use policy to get a better idea of how to upload images, and what kinds we can and cannot accept and use. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opt-out

Your message asked me if I wanted to opt out. However, I have already included the opt-out templates on my talk page. What else do I need to do? Anthony (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but I have no idea about the actual functionality of the script I use. It can be found at User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js and I assume was developed by howcheng (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image I uploaded

Actually, I uploaded it from my computer, but saved the image from Kreia's article on Wookieepedia. This was my first time uploading an image. I had no idea what Iwas doing, just that it needed to be on the article, apparently since it was on Wookieepedia, it was a free image, or something, I don't know.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about Image:Kreiadarknessatcore.jpg? What the image needs is an explanation as to why that copyrighted image is necessary for the article(s) in which it is used; see WP:RAT. I generally expect that since there's already copyrighted media in use to portray this fictional character, further similarly-purposed imagery would fail the non-free content criteria. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)