|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is Hydrox's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Hydrox.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
Your edit of factorization of polynomials over finite fields
I have used the "thank" option in the history menu, guessing that it would results in a message in your talk page. As it is not the case, I confirm it here: your phrasing is much better than mine. D.Lazard (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I saw it. The "thank" button sends a notification, which is a rather recent feature of the MediaWiki software. It also shows if someone reverts your edit etc. --hydrox (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No, not the ones used by websites. Did you know your username is the same as a long-running U.S. brand of cookie? The Hydrox cookie actually preceded the Oreo brand, which is more widely known and very similar. When I was a kid eons ago my mom always got Hydrox, never Oreo.
- Thanks Sca. My username actually predates my knowledge of the Hydrox cookie, it's a pure coincidence. A happy coincidence, I might add, because I actually like the Oreos/Hydrox type cookie. We just call them Dominos here in Finland :) I should definitely write the Domino (cookie) article (already available on fi-wiki) --hydrox (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my previous edit on the Schumacher article I never realized it had already been mentioned. Thanks for correcting me.
- No problem, mate. --hydrox (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Your edit to this article was written in clumsy English and badly spelled. Please leave a more instructive edit summary than "expand" before accusing anyone of rudeness. Britmax (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you fix it rather than just throwing it away with a comment that makes no sense? "corrupts reference list"?? --hydrox (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Now there I do seem to have erred, for which I apologise: the reference list further down the article was not displaying properly but this does not seem to have been caused by your edit and is OK now. Britmax (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well good to know that I am not the only one who writes haphazard edit summaries then.. ;p Also, I used British spelling ("specialising") for reason – F1 aricles generally use British spelling. See WP:ENGVAR. --hydrox (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- And I do welcome corrections to my English. No one is perfect but the good thing about Wiki is that one can fix mistakes by others.. Information-wise my additions should be in order. --hydrox (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Name of picture
Thank you that you want to help me. The only link that I have is from other language Wikipedia with his picture and the link is that one: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86 Hope that link will be useful. Sprayitchyo (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Response to recent undid edits
Adding images owned by photo agencies
Can you point me to that bit about "expressly prohibited" you mentioned at User_talk:Coat_of_Many_Colours#Adding_images_owned_by_photo_agencies. Thanks.
I see the file has already been speedily deleted. My defence was as follows:
This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because...
First of all the image was first published by The Times of South Africa on 16 February 2013 just two days after Reeva's death in a story about her memorial service. It is clearly marked "File Photo" as a glance at the original page shows and as I made clear in the Fair Use rationale it was provided by her model agency (and subsequently widely reproduced the world over) as a mark of respect as existing photos of Reeva were for the most part glamour shots or otherwise unsuitable. As far as I know it was subsequently bought by Getty Images but that really isn't relevant regarding first publication rights that is the issue here.
However the speedy deletion criteria here seem to be out of date. WP:NFCI 10 states that "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" meets the criteria for fair use. The only issue thus is the question of replaceability which I deal with in the Fair Use criteria.
Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
- See WP:NFC section "Unacceptable use" point seven under images: "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."
- You are right that the previous section would seem to allow the usage of this image. But this later section expressly prohibits usage of photo agency images even if the earlier section would seem to allow. This is to respect the commercial opportunities of the photo agency: their whole business is selling images for use in media, so Wikipedia can not just use these images and claim it's fair. --hydrox (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers H (but don't you think the guidance should be clearer in the earlier sections?) It's not clear to me why Press Agencies should be in this special position. I see it was challenged at least as early as 2008 Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_37#Press_agency_photos. I'm currently editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius and following that I will retire from editing Wikipedia. If I have time in the meantime I'll try to research just how much consensus there really is on WP:NFC#UUI §7.Do you infact know when and where that consensus was reached?. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea when a consensus has been established, but to be honest, to me it's pretty obvious why we don't generally allow use of press agency photos under NFCC. Copyright exist to protect the commercial opportunities of the producer of an artistic work, such as a photograph. For example, generally only the copyright holder (the commercial benefactor) can allow someone to use the image on a website – usually in the form a license in exchange for money.
- Some use can still be allowed under the "fair use" doctrine. NFCC are Wikipedia's interpretation of the US copyright's "fair use" doctrine. While fair use is a complicated legal doctrine, its core tenet is still the protection of the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder.
- Here, the copyright holder is the photo agency. The photo agency is a business, that owns the copyright of (is the commercial benefactor to) a wide selection of photographs and other illustrations, and gets its revenue (commercial profits) by selling newspapers and other medias – like websites such as Wikipedia – licenses for use of those photographs as illustrations in their own articles.
- To show what I mean, let's take a look at this article by The New York Times (NYT). It's about a tsunami in the Philippines. NYT is a newspaper: its business is the production of informative news articles about recent events, publishing those on the web and on printed paper, and then circulating those articles to as many people as possible. NYT gets its revenue from advertisements and subscriptions. To secure advertising and subscriptions NYT needs readers. To gain the interest of readers, NYT must produce high-quality articles. In addition to truthful and fair reporting, readers generally expect to see illustrations such as first hand photographs of the reported events.
- To get an illustration of this event for the article, NYT could have sent – in addition to a journalist – a press photographer to the Philippines. Or, they could simply pay a commercial photo agency for an image to use with the article – which is exactly what they did (notice the text "Dennis M. Sabangan/European Pressphoto Agency" under the image).
- Now, think if it was "fair use" for NYT simply to use the press agency photo for the article under "fair use", without a license. I hope you can see how this would quickly lead to each and every photo agency going bankrupt: Of course, NYT tries to produce the paper with minimal necessary cost, so they would never pay for the license to use press agency images – they would just each time claim fair use.
- Consider that Wikipedia is no different under the law from NYT. Yes – we are mostly a non-profit, educational website – but under the law we are – and want to be – a commercial website just like NYT. This is so that anyone can use Wikipedia articles even as a part of a commercial product.
- Hope you can now understand why we don't allow use of press agency images (there is the exception of when the image itself is famous, like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima – then it's obviously necessary for the article to use the image to communicate about the image.) But use of images photo agency images to "spice up" articles that can stand on their own without using the image would be a violation of the commercial opportunities of a press agency, whose commercial enterprise is based entirely on the business of licensing images for this purpose. --hydrox (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rubin could take a man out with just one punch
- But he never did like to talk about it all that much...
You have been vandalizing Finnbay page on purpose. Instead of changing the original article all the time, please put your thoughts on the Talk page. Your references are almost always biased and not include Finnbay side. This place is not a blog to harass companies but to provide independent objective information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have already opened two discussions on the talk page, none of which you have replied to. --hydrox (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
1 - I am not related to them. 2 - I suspect you to be the attacker. 3 - Add your version on the talk page for further discussion as opposed to attack me or others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Who others? It's obvious that you are one and the same person who has been pushing for a viewpoint on this article from multiple IP addresses and now from behind this username.
- You claim that you are not related to Finnbay. Then please explain this edit's summary, where you seem to indicate that you have represented Finnbay to ANSA?
- I am an attacker? What do you find objectionable about my edits?
- I am okay with adding Finnbay's viewpoint about the controversy to the article, if you can provide a source. --hydrox (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, please stop wasting both of our time with assumptions and attacks to everyone who edits the page besides you. Create your suggestions on the talk page and we go from there 1 by 1.