User talk:LtPowers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] Image:RIT art - The Sentinel.jpg

Also Image:RIT art - The Sentinel closeup.jpg William Avery 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martines, pilotari

(copied from the Village pump)

Hi, one of the most reputed Valencian pilota players, Martines, has sent me a pic to illustrate his article. The picture (obviously) was not taken by himself, but by a professional photographer who was hired by Martines' club to take some pics during the first match played at the courtfield named after Martines' name.

My question is: Would that pic acceptable to Wikimedia? Martines donates it freely. He is not the author but he has the property, since they hired the professional photographer. If so, which license should be applied? Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the club would own the license, since the photograph was taken under contract with them. (Of course, the contract could have stated any number of things, including that the photographer retained the rights.) If Martines owns the club, then it's okay; otherwise you need permission from the club. (In either case we can assume the club owns the image if they say they do.) As for a license, that's not up to us or to you; the owner of the photograph must release it under specific terms. See Commons:Licensing for what terms we require. Powers 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(reply in your own Talk page)

Yes, so I think. If the club hired a professional photographer to take pics of them playing, then those pics are property of the club, not the photographer, who keeps being the author.

Regarding the license, Martines gives the pic freely, as I said. I explained him the terms about derivative works, possible future commercial uses, and so on. And he agreed. The problem is that I can't find a proper license for this case.

The closest I've found is PD-Author, but this is not true since Martines is not the author. Or GFDL-self, since the owner of the pic gives it freely.

The problem remains in which is the proper license, as you see. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons:Valued image candidates/Coat of arms of Gagauzia.svg

Hi, from your latest comment on this one it seems you are inclined to support the image? If this is the case I would suggest you place a support vote on the candidate. It is due to being closed as "undecided", but I will give you a chance to vote on it, in case you just forgot to vote. (You do not have to vote on it of course). -- Slaunger 06:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token 4aaf29faddcfc82b6783c88fc5d28da1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
an illustration of the "six degrees of separation" concept.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Oppose This should be SVG to be reusable at least. -- Nichtich 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree it should be SVG but as long as it looks good at the review resolution, it should pass the criteria, shouldn't it? Powers 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with the user above... the criteria clearly states, "Its usability in printed format is not considered." All that matters is how it looks at the review size. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not where the real value of SVGs comes in. The scalability's just a nice little bonus. Rocket000 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Again, agreed, but modifiability also isn't one of the criteria. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Comment Seems like an svg would be a much more "valuable image". We can always change the criteria. --Calibas 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        •  Comment As I see it, the whole concept of the project is to reward images based primarily on their content, not technical or aesthetic quality. If the criteria were changed to increase the technical standards, the focus of the entire project would change. – flamurai 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          •  Comment Having a file in the most suitable file format is certainly something which adds value. If we have not stated that explicitly in the guidelines today, I think we should consider adding it. And I agree SVG is the most suited format for such an illustration. However, we are reviewing if it is the best we have, thus the file format in this review is not that important. Suppose this image was promoted and later challenged in an MVR of the "same" image in svg format, i would certainly favor the SVG as it is much better suited for making adjustments and derivative work. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Are there more relevant categories to place this in? It's only in Networks, and that seems pretty generic to me. It's definitely a graph, so it belongs somewhere in Graphs, but there's probably something down that hierarchy that's more appropriate. – flamurai 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Info: I've added it to Category:Sociological diagrams per your recommendation. Powers 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Just fascinating and inviting to know more about it. --Foroa 15:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The way the outlying nodes are scattered around with all the lines crossing makes the illustration very confusing. For example, there is a blue node directly between and above nodes 2 and 3 that appears to be connected to nodes 1 and 4. If this were the case, nodes 2 and 3 would be bypassed, so it would invalidate the graph (only 5 degrees of separation). Not a great illustration of the concept, so this fails criterion 3. – flamurai 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with the opposers that there is room for improvement, but a VI does not have to be perfect. For me it still illustrates the subject well. It could be done better, sure, but that is also what we have MVR for. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Agree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Image Promotion

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cinderella Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support meets criteria. best of the crop --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Raisins.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

review

•  Support seems to meet all relevant criteria, although the description can be improved.--Inkwina (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal on Category:Guide signs

Please support your opinion on the merge proposal for Category:Guide signs. Thanks, Sehome Bay (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your edit on COM:WP

1) "we have plenty of pictures of that": Seems that you know a bit more than I do. Or do you just mean Category:naked children?
2) "Child porn is as in-scope as real pornography is" I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that it's in scope or note.
Please tell me! --D-Kuru (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I meant your suggested edit. I just mixed two of your contibutions.

What you mean with "we have pictures of lynchings"? Are you talking about something like Category:Firing squad? If Yes: Do you think that CP is as immoral as pictures of lynchings?

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg

Hi. Thanks for your vigilence in trying to avoid copyright violations. As File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg was indentended to doccument something other than the appearance of the copyrighted character and has been on Commons for more than 2 years without a previous challenge, I've changed your speedy delete tag to a deletion request listing: Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsNOLAWhatsUpFloodline.jpg. I've also listed an image with similar situation Commons:Deletion requests/File:6FlagsDaffyFloodlines.jpg. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lacrosse categories

--Yarnalgo (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token 3e92154b437e34c5ea0a5fd1f7c094c8

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

[edit] Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cocktails Neon Sign.jpg

Thanks for bringing this copyvio to my attention. When I originally uploaded the photo several years ago, it never really occurred to me that the underlying sign might be copyrighted, too. The fact that is was labeled "vintage" also led me to believe that it was old enough not to have to worry about it, especially since there are soooo many similar signs out there. But, thanks to your RFD and an extensive Google Images search, I located the manufacturer, and it's still very much in production. They don't want to release it under a free license (which I understand), so it turns out it was a copyvio--just like you thought. Unfortunately, that also makes all the work I did on the other three images copyvios, too, because they are derivative works of the original. Oh well. I created a new image completely from scratch in SVG format, and that's actually better than a PNG file anyway. All's well that ends well. Thanks again for spotting the problem. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I've been around long enough to understand that this wasn't personal, and it was the right thing to do. I care very much about copyrights, and I would never knowingly violate a copyright. Sometimes people seem to go overboard with flagging things as possible copyvios. I initially assumed that this was such a case. But, I looked into it more, and you were absolutely correct. The extra work wasn't a big deal either, because now we have a freely-licensed image without any murky copyright issues. That's better for the project and everyone. Have a great weekend! --Willscrlt (Talk) 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)