User talk:Tablethree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

{{adminhelp}} I have the artist's permission to post images on his wikipage but I only have "user" status. I have the images and caption info. What should I do?Tablethree (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

First, you don't need his permission to post things on a page about him - it's not 'his' page. Anyone can edit it. Second, if, as I presume, these are images of his work, you having his permission is irrelevant. The holder of the copyright of the images has to release the copyright under Creative Commons (see in WP:COPYVIO for more detail). If the image is solely of a work or art (a painting or something), probably the owner of the copyright of the work would also have to do this too. This would apply to a scan of a printed work, too, or a stopframe from a video. A photo of a slide show on the side of a building probably wouldn't, so long as it was mainly of the building and not purely the display. User:Moonriddengirl would be able to give better info on this - I'm still getting my head round some of these issues with images. I'll leave the helpme on as someone else might be able to help. Peridon (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason you can't upload them is that you aren't autoconfirmed yet, since you haven't made 10 edits. By my count you're at 9, so replying to this message should count as your tenth edit and you should then be able to upload the image using Special:Upload. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Before you do upload anything, do read that stuff and ask for advice. As I said, you having permission from him means nothing to us. If it's something copyright, we have to have permission directly from the copyright holder - whoever that is. Peridon (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Thanks for this info; actually the images I have to upload are the artist's documentation so he is the copyright owner; yes, I've read the copyright pages and the upload images pages so I hope I'm good from this point forward; also I'm one of your few (13,000) women contributors - just thought I'd let you know we are out and about and contributing (I hope to have more than 10 edits soon!)Tablethree (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can see, you are now autoconfirmed. Any problem, let me know and I'll make it sure. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:GP 1598 - OUT OF HERE 2 SMALL.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GP 1598 - OUT OF HERE 2 SMALL.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tijuana Projection 2001 e SMALL.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Tijuana Projection 2001 e SMALL.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Homeless Vehicle New York 2 SMALL.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Personal Instrument 2 SMALL.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Personal Instrument 2 SMALL.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I had the tag but then needed for the gallery's specifications to add the words "Copyright Krzysztof Wodiczko" thereby losing the tag; I've put the tag back in and moved the text to "Source". Tablethree (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC) By the way, I did this for each of the images listed above. Tablethree (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I believe that all procedures have been followed and the necessary changes made; images have been cleared by the copyright owner and tagged with an appropriate licensing tag. The bibliography has also been cleaned up so can the "clean up" window be deleted and the entire page upgraded? Thanks for your help.Tablethree (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed all of your image uploads listed on this page. You were signing on the image pages, which should not be done except in back pages where discussions happen. You also missed the closing curly braces ("}}") on three of the images so the templates were broken, which is now fixed. However, while the image markup is now cleaned up, the images are not fixed from a licensing standpoint. You have not licensed the images under a free copyright license (and I don't know that you have the authority to do so) but have instead claimed fair use of these non-free copyrighted images. Yet, at least some of the images do not appear to meet our requirements for making a claim of fair use. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and especially point 1 of the criteria. If you do have the ear of the copyright holder or are the copyright holder then in order to actually release the images under a free license, please visit Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions. I'm sorry this stuff is so confusing and convoluted and I see you've been trying. Unfortunately, while it is a pain in the ass and frustrating, it is necessary. Copyright law can be complex and so we necessarily reflect that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Great - this is very clear! I've corresponded with the representative of the copyright holder to see if any of the images can be designated as free-use rather than fair-use (for example the 1969 image). I cannot obtain alternative images since they are of time-based events and alternate images do not therefore represent the artist's work. I now see why only one image was left in the article (per policy). I am hoping for a response before the 48 hour period is up...Tablethree (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad that helped but I should have provided another link. Understand that you have to get the copyright holder to provide a verification of the release to us in a manner so we know they are who they say they are (i.e., it would be completely insufficient for you to report to us that the copyright holder said to you that he or she is willing to release). See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All right; now the steps are clear (believe me I did do a lot of reading on Wikipedia before undertaking this project!) - I will get a clear letter of consent and forward that to Wikipedia. If the images must be removed in the meantime, then I will simply have to re-install them after the permissions are cleared. Thanks!Tablethree (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} I have uploaded low resolution images to comply with non-free fair-use stipulations as designated by administrator alert boxes on the file description pages for the page: Krzysztof Wodiczko. I am also in the process of obtaining a fair-use consent letter from the representatives of the artist. Except that I put the wrong information in the "comment" box of File:Hiroshima Projection 1999 D SMALL.JPG (which I am not able to change) I believe I have followed the necessary steps. Is there anything else I should know on this particular set of changes?Tablethree (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just sent a permissions letter (from the representative of the copyright holder) to permissions@wikimedia.org - if that is not the correct address, please advise.Tablethree (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Wait for response. If you've sent explicit permission, that's fine; it'll be added to the file pages in due course. If you have problems, just email that address.  Chzz  ►  05:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nayda Collazo-Llorens has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Nayda Collazo-Llorens, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LukeSurl t c 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nayda Collazo-Llorens[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Nayda Collazo-Llorens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

How does she satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals)? I am not seeing evidence of significant awards, achievements, or dedicated coverage in mainstream sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a copy of a message posted on Priotrus, the editor's talk page: Dear Piotrus, I would like to argue for the inclusion of the page for artist Nayda Collazo-Llorens. Women artists are significantly underrepresented on Wikipedia and this is no small issue. I am currently organizing in collaboration with the Elizabeth A. Sackler Foundation of the Brooklyn Museum of Art a complete list A-Z of significant women artists without Wikipedia pages, along with a plan to slowly build pages to make up for this absence. One problem is the set of criteria, as women artists are continually underrepresented in the mainstream press (VIDA is a compilation of percentages underscoring the underrepresentation of women in the literary field - a comparable set of statistics needs to be but has not yet been made for women in the visual arts).

This page can and will be edited! I will include a reference to reviews by Holland Cotter of the New York Times, for example - one of the most prominent art critics writing today! Also, I would point out that the Havana Biennial and the Pollock-Krazner Award are significant achievements in this field, plus a major permanent public art installation at a university. There are so many artist pages on Wikipedia of artists whose careers are minor compared to that of Nayda Collazo-Llorens. I appreciate your attention to this entry but request time to address your concerns. Regards, Tablethree (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will certainly wait to see your planned expansion; the best thing to do to ensure we keep this article is to find mainstream sources which discuss the subject in detail (rather then in passing mentions), and to provide information on significant awards and honors the subject won. See Wikipedia:Notability (artists) for more detail. You could also ask for help from editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history or such. Good luck, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Novísimos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to José Morales
Puerto Rican art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to José Morales

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tablethree. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning banner[edit]

{{adminhelp}} When I logged in this morning I was greeted by a warning banner announcing new user guidelines concerning "paid work" and conflict of interests. Interestingly, it appeared only on sites I had recently viewed and/or edited and not on random pages such as "Particle Physics" - for example. After I began this message but toggled back to a page to read the banner again, it was gone... I would like to assure you that I DO NOT ACCEPT PAYMENT for my Wikipedia contributions. I write on topics of my research - what I know best. I have also begun a discussion with the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art as to how to best fill in the gaps in an encyclopedic system that under represents women artists - there are many individuals represented in their "Feminist Art Base" who are not represented on Wikipedia. I cannot rectify this omission but I can begin by making a dent and will continue to do so...VOLUNTEER and UNPAID like almost all my other writing!Tablethree (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-free *photograph*[edit]

Hi,

I thought the situation was clear on the page Media copyright questions, but apparently there was some misunderstanding somewhere. In your question, you stated "the photograph itself is a free work". So, obviously, the answers that were given to this question were in relation with this information, i.e. about a free photograph of a non-free artwork. However, in File:'Revolú*tion', a site-specific text-based work on the façade of a chapel in San Juan.jpg, you state that the photograph is not free, i.e. you say that the photograph is under some unspecified non-commercial license. Of course, the answers that were given to the question about a free photograph do not apply to a non-free photograph. A non-free photograph of a non-free artwork probably does not meet the fair use criteria, unless the article is about both the photographic work of the photographer and the artistic work of the artist. Regards, -- Asclepias (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline was clear and made sense so I used that. It is ultimately the artwork that needs copyright protection. The image itself can be either "free use" or "fair use." Can you direct me to the proper template/language? Thanks, Tablethree (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
In the situation as it currently stands, there probably would be no template to cover it, because the non-free photographic work does not seem "fairly used". The important point is that the "fairness" or "unfairness" of a particular "use" must be evaluated in relation to the works being used and the context where they are used. In the present case, the image you uploaded includes two distinct works: 1. the text-based work of art materialized by the artist on the façade of the chapel, and 2. the photographic work materialized by the photographer in the making of the photograph. You are using those two different non-free works at the same time. To be "fair", such use should be "fair" in relation to both works. The context of the Wikipedia article where the image is used comments about the text-based work of the artist. Thus, the use of the text-based work is "fair" in that context. The article does not comment the photographic work of the photographer. Thus, the use of the photographic work is not "fair" in that context. Indeed, you met the "non-free use rationale guideline" of Wikipedia very well in relation to the text-based work, but not in relation to the photographic work.
It would not have been a problem if, as you initially said in your question on MCQ, the photograph had been a free work, for example a photo of the chapel façade taken by yourself and that you offered under a free license, or taken by another photographer who offered his photo explicitly under a free license. It would not have been a problem because free-licensed photographic works do not need to be used "fairly" in direct relation with a comment about the photographic works themselves.
In the description page of the file, you did not tell who the photographer is. In the field "source", you mentioned "received from the artist", which at least seems to imply that you did not take the photo yourself, but that does not tell if this photo was taken by the artist herself or by another person. In any case, if you are not the photographer, you can't decide that the photographic work of the photographer does not need copyright protection, or that it can be offered in free use, or that it can be offered under any license at all without an explicit declaration of the photographer. Only the photographer himself/herself can release the copyright or offer a license on his/her own photographic work. In conclusion, to keep this photo on Wikipedia, it is necessary to tell who is the photographer, and to convince the photographer to offer this photo under a free license, and to obtain that the photographer sends a declaration of a specific free licence by email to OTRS. (If the photographer is the same person as the artist who made the work on the chapel façade, then she will probably want to specify very clearly in that mail that it is only this particular photograph that is under the specified free licence, not the artistic work shown on it.)
If you get a free photo, then, as mentioned earlier, the file description page should state clearly and separately the informations and copyright status of the artwork, and the informations and licensing of the photograph.
-- Asclepias (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope you understand that I did not set out to make this a problem. It's actually quite difficult to locate a template that distinguishes between the artwork on the one hand and the representation of the artwork on the other. I can ask the artist to send an email to OTRS as you suggest - identifying the photographer and the release of the image as a free image - but it might take a week. In the meantime, I will try to distinguish on the description page between the copyright status for the artwork and the copyright status for the representation. Thank you.Tablethree (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)