User talk:84user

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, 84user!

Contents

[edit] TUSC token f58f5473572a394bb4bbd305168cb597

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 84user (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, Thanks for all your help, I am don't understand how you did it at all, but that is because I am new to vector graphics. Hey, one more thing, you see how you originally had the text, can you put it back to that size? Thanks agian!

P.S. - What is a TUSC acount? Bugboy52.40 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ I changed the text font size to 16, the closest I could find to the original 17.2
I'm pretty new to SVG too. All I did was right-click on each object and select "Fill and Stroke" and then click on Edit under the Fill - Radial Gradient tab, and then some trial and error changes.
I have forgotten what I got the TUSC account for! I think I needed it to help move my images from my English wikipedia account to Commons. I recall using some tool but it was more work than just moving images manually. 84user (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Live Larsdatter

Regarding this edit, I am a bit at a loss what to think of it. I am well aware that the claim of the age of the person is very dubious, but I would think that that fact is for any relevant article on the matter to state. In the description I am only stating what the painting itself states (the "birth certificate" of the woman is shown in the picture on the wall behind her, which was the only reason why this painting was commissioned in the first place), and what the museum has written concerning this paining. I have stated the source of the painting, and following the Museums Home Page, choosing "Online Catalogue" and writing "larsdatter, live" in the "Person på maleri: (efternavn, fornavn)" will provide the exact same information. But it is not exactly something that is transferable to a citation (and I do not think that I have seen any in-text citations (<ref> type citations) in Commons either).--Saddhiyama (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with license misuse

Hi, thank you for your concern, I appreciate it, but I don't think you should spontaneously take such actions on behalf of others. In my case, my lawyer has already contacted them and you might interfere with an existing legal action. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Millau bridge

Hi. Please, take a look at recently closed discussion - at the bottom. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One hand

Clock.gif

Hi, thanks your input on the time categories. I responded to it here and, in the meantime, tried some specific categories for the one hour ranges. An overview is now in the gallery. I'm not quite sure how to fit sundials in there yet. What do you think of it? -- User:Docu at 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks Ok, I replied there. -84user (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Israel FOP

Please see my answer. Over whole you are correct in part but you have made some errors with regards to "usefull art" which includes 2D paintings. Deror avi (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Theora video questions

Hey, I noticed you made some edits to Help:Converting video. I've been working on a more general video help page that focuses on everything video-related on Commons. It is temporarily located at user:Mahanga/sandbox. Do you have any suggestions? Feel free to make changes and to rearrange sections.

Second question: Do you know of an easy way to convert OGV to an animated gif? Thanksmahanga (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] please use Category:Ogg_video

Hi, please use Category:Ogg_video instead of Category:OGV_files there should only be one category for Ogg videos.

Both of those categories are now redirects to Category:Videos. 84user, for new video uploads, can you categorize them their or one of its subcategories. Thanks. mahanga (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


[edit] File Tagging File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png

Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lietuvių | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Polski | Português | Русский | Tiếng Việt | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:ELG_webcam_daylight_capture_at_09-09-13_08-00-00-32.png. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

High Contrast (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That automatic webcam image has this template:
Public domain This file is in the public domain, because a "surveillance video lacks sufficient originality, it is not subject to copyright", see pages 4 and 5 from http://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/flyingman-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf

In case this is not legally possible:
The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Nuvola apps important.svg Please verify that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing policy.


English | Español | Français | 日本語 | Македонски | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−

That was added on the basis of a Commons talk:Licensing discussion, now archived at:
Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds.
The phrase because the surveillance video lacks sufficient originality, it is not subject to copyright appears between lines 8 and 11 on page 3 under Motion for Summary Judgement of the PDF linked above. The judgement continues on page 4 between lines 6 with First, the surveillance videotape, which simply records objective events that are factual in nature, is not "copyrightable". The only possible act of creativity would be myself in choosing that particular webcam capture out of the several available: the site automatically captures what the webcam sees once an hour and makes them available to the public. I looked for one that was captured as early as possible with no people present. I do not think that merits any creativity on my part. If there is still a probem with these kinds of ineligible image, maybe we need to create a specific template instead of using the general purpose {{PD-because}}. -84user (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)