User talk:Sacredhands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Lightship nantucket color.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lightship nantucket color.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Age Revisions

I believe you've misread the edit summary. It says Reverted 2 edits by 69.245.210.232 identified as vandalism to last revision by Sacredhands. using TW) (undo). The edits by 69.245.210.232 were identified as vandalism, not yours. Yours was the one reverted to. :) Moonriddengirl 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | page moves | block log | block list]

[edit] July 2007

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Old age do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This is in regards to links to www.seniorcitizen.com made to at least six different articles. Mdwyer 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byron

The images you are adding to the Byron Nuclear Generating Station appear to be copyright violations. I couldn't find anything that said the files were licensed under CC-2.5. I only found this copyright notice: "All images on this site are copyrighted and may not be used without written permission". (As well as this general notice.) If you are the author, please include a notice on the website source that states these files are released under the terms of the license used here. Otherwise, they will probably get deleted. They are truly awesome photos so I hope you can add that notice to the source images. IvoShandor 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I had tagged this image,Image:Byron nuclear generating station exelon.jpg for speedy deletion, but I put a hold on that because I think you might be willing to clear up the copyright confusion. I would recommend GFDL licensing because it is much less likely that a company would use an image licensed under the GFDL for their commercial purposes because the license requires that they release their use of it under the same free license, highly unlikely any company would want to do this. Note that licenses which restrict commercial use are not allowed on Wikimedia projects. IvoShandor 12:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I meant no offense by removing your photo, and tagging it. If you are the author, I am only trying to protect your rights under copyright. IvoShandor 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The Flickr license still says "All rights reserved" which precludes commercial use and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Please change the license to acceptable terms. If it isn't changed the images will have to be deleted. Thanks Sacredhands. : ) IvoShandor 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice job on filling out this page. Lots of interesting information. Not sure if the panorama is too big, but it looks better big. Sacredhands
(edit conflict)It might be a bit large, but panoramas can generally be larger than most images. Not sure if the section placement is appropriate, hope you won't be offended if I end up moving it around and maybe shrinking it just a bit. I have undertaken an expansion of the article that isn't completely finished so there may be a better spot for it when all is said and done. Thanks again for your contributions and attention to this copyright matter. It is greatly appreciated by me, and the rest of the community (as well as the countless throngs of readers around here). After edit conflict comment: Thanks for the compliment! : ) IvoShandor 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling this might happen, you have changed the flickr license to "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0," while a CC license it isn't acceptable here because of the non-commercial clause. Examples of acceptable licenses include the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and the GFDL. Sorry this is such a hassle, but its part of the mission, a free, as in libre, content encyclopedia. IvoShandor 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Changed Flickr setting to Attribution Creative Commons for both images. Sacredhands
Awesome man. The only thing I see, which probably isn't a huge deal, is that the license here still says 2.5 and your Flickr license (which is totally fine now) says 2.0. And for your efforts, don't know if you are in to these are not but you jumped through all the copyright hoops this morning and took what I think are some pretty nice photos, so:
The Photographer's Barnstar
I IvoShandor bestow upon Sacredhands this Photographer's Barnstar for most excellent photos of Byron Nuclear Generating Station, as well as jumping through all the appropriate hoops to ensure the images met up with Wikipedia's image use policies. Thanks again. IvoShandor 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


IvoShandor 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamploma

Nice photograph, well done! (And by-3.0 is an excellent choice for license, I use it myself.) Sdedeo (tips) 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Selita ebanks victorias secret top super model.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Selita banks victorias secret top super model.jpg. The copy called Image:Selita banks victorias secret top super model.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcarthy eugene rally.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcgovern rally.jpg. The copy called Image:Paul newman menomonee falls wisconsin mcgovern rally.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of image

the removed image is placed back. the cc license was set in flickr. a simple note to me would have resolved this issue. :) Sacredhands —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is copyrighted. If you are the owner of the picture contact permissions at wikimedia dot org in order to attain permission to upload the file. M.(er) 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just look at Talk:Julia Allison to see what I have done with the images. M.(er) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ana Beatriz Barros

I am going to alert the admin board to your actions, which seem geared toward self-promotion. You also violated the 3RR rule on this page. --David Shankbone 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is going to take you task, it should be me. You can check out my own user page. --David Shankbone 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the article to use the free image. This is not a difficult choice for a free encyclopedia. Of course if you wish to remove the stipulations from your photographs, we can re-consider the photos on their own merit. ELIMINATORJR 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
free over quality does not make for a quality wikipedia. this is really about david wanting to be the first image. If it means that much to him, I'm happy to put my second. quality will win out every time.Sacredhands 15:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's about freedom, although the "wanting to be the first image" argument rings of WP:KETTLE calling the pot black. I also think my image is, frankly, better than yours. I notice an IP address from Springfield, Massachusetts reverted EliminatorJR. --David Shankbone 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, quality will out over mediocrity any day. happy to be second to please your inner child.Sacredhands 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, although I find it amusing. --David Shankbone 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
When self-interested opinion gets in the way of aesthetic the world suffers.Sacredhands 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
How are you immune from any of the criticisms you lodge? I have hundreds of notable photographs, and I don't require my byline on any of them. Unlike you, I actually meet the people in their homes and offices, which is a far greater investment of time and editing. I'm well known on this site, and you sound silly saying such things. --David Shankbone 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Get over the byline issue. It's a non-issue. Creative Commons allows anyone to set the terms of their licensing. The fact that you embed your name in the image title and put your name in the summary is your choice. The fact that I choose to be credited beneath the photo is my choice. Looking at Ana's backside is not a flattering portrait of her. It's voyeuristic and clearly represents a male point of view that feminist's have made an effort to eliminate from society. Again, that's your choice if you think that represents her best interest. I disagree. Sacredhands 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


This is my opinion of how your conditions interact with Wikipedia image use policy. Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since you are uploading your own photos, you can check "what links here" any time you want. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that your images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. In summary, I believe your images can not be considered "freely licensed" unless you modify your license requirements, and as unfree, they are subject to the normal rules on use of unfree copyrighted images (deletion when orphaned, fair use justification required, etc.) Thatcher131 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of photos found on Wikipedia exist under two conditions: 1. there are used within the Wikipedia site or 2. they are used outside the Wikipedia site. For those instances where the images are used outside the site, then the caption "Photograph by ..." seems totally appropriate. This has been the standard way of crediting photographs for years. What is acceptable under Creative Commons Attribution versus its use under Wikipedia ALONE is at issue for me. Sacredhands 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that images on Wikipedia must be usable on mirrors and forks. Therefore condition 4 is not acceptable. It is our choice to not be willing to credit authors in image captions (which makes us unable to use your image, per CC-A). Keep also in mind that in the case of living people, we don't accept non-free images. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Does this work?

For images that appear in Wikipedia:

Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

1. Use of photo outside the Wikipedia website must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." Within the Wikipedia website: according to Wikipedia Image Use Policy conditions.

2. Use of photo outside the Wikipedia website must include a link to my website: christopherpeterson.com

3. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes. Sacredhands 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about something along these lines?
1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.
2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.
This has the benefit of working for wikipedia without a special "in wikipedia" clause, since this (a link from the image to a page giving the credit/licensing info) is how wikipedia does things, and this way would allow mirrors/forks. Is this arrangement (i.e. image may be hyperlinked to a page giving byline info and website link anywhere, not just wikipedia) acceptable to you? —Random832 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Perfect! Works for me. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the issue. I appreciate it. Sacredhands 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems good! Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:51, 24 September 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 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sartorialist

What was the copyright violation? I'll fix it since it was my photo. Thanks. Sacredhands 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scott schuman sartorialist bryant park fashion week photographer.jpg was deleted because it appeared to be a copyright violation. Specifically, it had been copied from flickr but the source page made no mention of the license. Therefore I assumed that you had copied it in violation of copyright. If you are the copyright owner, of course, then you don't need to put it there, but should instead use the license tag {{self|cc-by-3.0}}. I'll restore the image with that tag now. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Edgar bronfman jr.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Edgar bronfman jr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Superm401 - Talk 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually haven't listed this yet. It appears you are Christopher Peterson, the photographer. If that's correct, please change the image page. It should not say Flickr is the source, since you yourself actually are. Instead, write something like "Photograph taken by Christopher Peterson (User:Sacredhands)". The license tag can stay. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. Superm401 - Talk 06:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed the source to my actual domain name. does that work or should I add the sacredhands link as well? thanks.Sacredhands 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://flickr.com/photos/christopherpeterson/1407759934/. As a copyright violation, Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Lily donaldson supermodel model.jpg.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Papa November 12:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherpeterson/541069767/. As a copyright violation, Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Image:Megumi oshima tanaka runner.jpg.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Papa November 12:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)