User talk:Mindspillage

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't check this page much; to leave me a message, please use my English Wikipedia talk page. Mindspillage 15:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Childhood Obesity.JPG[edit]

OMG, thankyou. I feel the same way. This discussion is depressingly mean-spirited and devoid of empathy. :/ --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. The potential social stigma in this case I can imagine is on par with a hypothetical image of an identifiable child posing with an irritant in his/her hand. Scoo 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what some of your profs have to say about this matter. A private person not yet in majority, a public place, editorial/social commentary usage... The law on this matter is pretty clear, actually.

The ethics do make an interesting side topic. To wit: a child's health and life are at risk and folks worry about her feelings... That's a rather odd set of ethical priorities. Rather than hunt down her family to see whether or not they gave permission to publish her photograph, why isn't there a hue and cry to hunt them down and prosecute them for child endangerment? Rklawton 04:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you can take pictures of people in public. But I don't think intentionally exposing someone to the emotional damage that may occur by publicizing this picture is justified, and that is what I think the real concern is. You just don't knowingly subject someone to that, whether it's legal to photograph them in public or not. (As a possible solution, surely some adult on Wikipedia must have a picture of him- or herself as an obese child -- or have friends who do...)
And who says those of us objecting don't also hold her parents responsible, assuming it's the case that it is neglectful parenting and not some other problem? But that's not the issue here. I do not know who she is, and thus cannot find out what their current situation is. (What if she were promised a meal at McDonald's for sticking to her diet all week? I can't know.) In any case it's not the responsibility of the child, who is the one who will suffer the harm. You can still be wrong to publicize the photo even if her parents are also wrong not to prevent the condition, and you are the one the consequences of whose actions I can have some influence over. Mindspillage 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Your ethics, your opinion. My ethics, my opinion. Either are POV. So what constitutes neutral ground? Here's one neutral idea: we're hashing out here principles already well established in common law, why not just follow that wherever it may lead? If we vary from this, then we're practicing self-censorship (a violation of Wikipedia policy). And whose ethics should we follow if not those established by law? Placing your ethics over mine is equal to POV pushing – also a violation of Wikipedia policy. Other thoughts: where do we stop? I can think of a few other images in Commons that folks may find offensive – images that some claim would cause harm if viewed by a child. Will you crusade against these as well? Others have tried and failed, but you may want to read those discussions. I think you'll find them illuminating. Rklawton 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Because Wikimedia isn't obligated to follow common law and no more. It's the very least we can do, but that isn't saying much; there are a lot of really bogus things that are still allowed under common law. Many of our other policies do not stop at common law, because we deem our practice more suitable for our intended purpose; will you argue that those should be relaxed as well? You're off-point in your censorship argument. I do not want to remove any encyclopedic topic for the readers' protection; I am arguing the effect to the subject. Mindspillage 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The harm you fear is a matter of your own imagination and opinion, and matters of opinion - especially when it comes to censorship - constitutes POV pushing of the most destructive kind. Rklawton 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree on this. Mindspillage 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Some days are like that. Don't be surprised if a new policy comes out of this that reads something like "no potentially embarrassing images." Rklawton 06:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

On a more social note, I notice you are studying IP law. I've got a friend or two in that field and a few with patents. Cooley, Godward (etc) was a client of mine years ago. Will you go corporate, will you work for an IP firm, or have you something else in mind? Rklawton 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm not really inclined toward the large firm practice; I'm more likely to focus on advocacy groups and academia. Mindspillage 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Academia is fun. I was a university instructor for several years. Large firm stuff is good if you don't mind billing 2,200 hours a year (no kidding). It pays well, but it kind of takes away from your social life. Have you read any posts from Anonymous Lawyer? He exaggerates, but he's fun, and he'll reaffirm your lack of inclination. What sort of advocacy did you have in mind? Something like EFF? The EFF route would be ironic at the moment because they are strong advocates of Fair Use, and the image in question more than qualifies under that category. Of course, you might have a differnt type of advocacy in mind. Rklawton 06:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am a fan of the EFF and would actually like to work for them. I believe you're completely wrong about the irony. I am a fan of truly fair use. If this particular image were necessary for the subject and no substitution would adequately fill its purpose, I would be defending it. But it is not. I don't believe this use is "fair"; legal, perhaps, but not fair, not in the ordinary plain-English sense, and that's why I advocate Wikimedia rejecting it. Freedom must be balanced with ethics. One of my favorite quotations is by Virginia Woolf: "To enjoy freedom, [...] we have of course to control ourselves." Mindspillage 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to read up on Virginia Woolf. If you read the top of w:Talk:Childhood obesity you'll see I fully support using an adequate substitution. Regrettably, no such substitution has been provided. Rklawton 07:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I can give you a piece of advice regarding EFF. You may already know this, but it bears reinforcing. If you want to work for EFF, then avoid like the plague representing any entity likely to oppose them. The big'uns (MS in particular, but RIAA wouldn't surprise me either) like to engage top talent briefly in order to conflict them out of future cases. It may seem like a teeny-tiny little case, but stop to consider why they aren't using their own talent. And don't think they won't bring it up, its how they operate. It's hard for the EFF to go against the giants when it can't find any guns. Bullets are another matter. Rklawton 07:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikimania2007 Jan-Bart camouflage.jpg[edit]

Hello, Kat. I see you tagged Image:Wikimania2007 Jan-Bart camouflage.jpg a bit strange. Most of your images seem to be {{self|GFDL}} but this one also has a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} outside the Licensing section. What did you mean? {{self2|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-2.0}} ? Platonides 21:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. That tag would proabably work. I simply noticed that image licensing was a bit strange. Oh, if everybody tagged like that instead of giving incomplete licenses... Platonides 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related, yet quite dissimilar note, see my leet edit of that photo: Image:Wikimania2007-Jan-Bart-camo.jpg. Caption: "Jan-Bart forgot to put his pants on for the board panel." Jon Harald Søby 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Scruffyhackers.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Scruffyhackers.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. OsamaK 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:WM2006greenreaperonlaptop.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:WM2006greenreaperonlaptop.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. 78.49.174.218 07:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Mindspillage!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 06:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Scruffyhackers.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Scruffyhackers.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Scruffyhackers.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Good twins (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:WM2006kimhennagreg.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:WM2006kimhennagreg.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:WM2006kimhennagreg.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg[edit]

Please comment here or at cc-community discussions. JKadavoor Jee 03:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

At first I though you ignored my question. You can just wrote here or there that we are studying it. Sorry for my misunderstanding. ;) Jee 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)