User talk:Will Bradshaw
Thanks, I was doing some last minute revision and came across a question about whether all cells had ribosomes or not. I knew that RBCs did not have nuclei, but it hadn't clicked that without nuclei they would not have/need ribosomes. Will Bradshaw 12:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In case you blinked and didn't see it, I had a recent discusion with MarnetteD on this subject. She has very rapidly archived it here: , which is a shame since I was quite keen to continue and I also thought it might be of interest to other editors who, like yourself, don't agree with some of her edits. I'm not sure where might be a more general public place to air this discussion. I think we both respect views like those held by MarnetteD, but also agree they the edits they produce may sometimes be misguided. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks but I had noticed it, I even commented on it , but Marnette deleted it three hours later as leaving it there would have been 'selfish'. Marnette clearly has strong emotions relating to the subject and is apparently insulted no matter how softly you tread and also refuses to see/admit that not every source supports the use of "actor" and that not everyone who uses the word "actress" is sexist. Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I quite agree. And I'd don't think that one can always guauge the extent of popular usage by looking at dictionary definitions. The key note for me is whether or not a genger specific term suggests that performance or proficiency in a give occupation might be lower. The trouble with espousing such an extreme feminist agenda is that those who transgess are first accused of being sexist, and then when they deny it are accused of "not even realaing" they are doing it, i.e. it is society that is fundamantaly wrong. I remember that Private Eye column "Wimmin" which used to relish examples of new-Starinist feminism-gone-mad. This demand for use of "actor" seesm to border on that taerrirty. Perhaps we'll all have to use "male actor" and "female actor"! I wish we could get a clear wp policy areed on the use of "actor" and "actress". But I rhink Zoe Wanamaker was a clear exmaple of inappropriate use. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In order to make my article on Louis Davis more meaningful I wanted to include some photographs of his work.
Several people who I approached were kind enough to send me photographs and I used these and, as a courtesy, identified the source of the photograph. I am getting on in years now and it would be a mammoth task for me to visit churches and take the photographs myself.
One such person I approached was Richard Bradshaw who could not have been more helpful. He sent me some photographs which I used and said that they were included "courtesy of Richard Bradshaw".
I am not sure what you are trying to say but upset if you feel that I have done anything underhand. If you and Richard Bradshaw wish I shall remove the photographs immediately.
I have now written a whole series of articles for wikipedia and these have always included photographs as when dealing with an artist's work it is good to show that work to the wider world and, as I have already said, I cannot easily get to the various churches involved.
Please pass my apologies to Richard Bradshaw and, if he wishes, I shall withdraw the photographs.
On a wider front are you saying wearing your "wikipedia" hat that I can only use photographs if I took them myself? If so I shall have to think carefully about my future work and perhaps not include photographs at all. Very often I use photographs from Flickr and here I approach the taker of the photograph, get them to change the licensing, and then load to wikipedia via wikicommons, using the appropriate forms. Wikicommons carefully check that I am not infringing copyright and approve use of the image. When the photograph is not through Flickr then I load it straight on to wikicommons.
For the last three years I have enjoyed writing my articles for wikipedia and my purpose has been simply to bring the work of a particular artist to the attention of a wider audience. Now I am beginning to think that I should change my approach and just stop using photographs as it seems to involve too much hassle.
- Reread what I said, I'm not asking for the photos to be taken down and I'm not saying that you can only upload photos that you have personally taken. I'm also not attempting to dissuade you from uploading photos and I assumed good faith, mainly because I believe that your errors were genuine mistakes, however these mistakes could lead to the images being taken down, so I'm trying to advise you to correct them so that they aren't taken down. I'll try to explain what I was saying a bit more thoroughly. Lets take this photo as an example. It's dated 30/11/1899, presumably that's the date that the window was made, I think it is supposed to be the date the photo was taken. In the source field you've put that it's your own work - this is where my dad's name should be, not at the end of the article as a reference for information that my dad isn't a reliable source of. I think the licence used requires that the person who uploads the photo is the person who took it. As I've already stated I'm far from certain how all the licensing stuff works so can't advise you on how to license it, but I'm sure someone else can. Similar mistakes have been made with other images.
- As a side note, for readability purposes, your post probably should have been put on your talk page as a reply to mine, rather than here, but you might as well continue to post here now. Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The date of 30th November 1899 relates to the date of the window and not the photograph. I suspect that if I say that the photograph is not mine but Richard Bradshaw's then wikicommons will not give approval for the image to be used unless it is uploaded by Richard Bradshaw himself and there is no way that I can ask people kind enough to send me photographs to then get involved with writing to wikicommons etc. I guess this is why I have stated that the image was mine. Perhaps I should not have done this but I guess I was trying to circumvent all the red-tape and as the photograph had been sent to me for use I thought this the best way round and would do no harm. I propose to delete your father's images from my article and will try to remove them from wikicommons even if if this opens the door for a wholesale removal of many of my other images. That will be a pity if that is the outcome but I guess I should risk this happening. Certainly in future I shall only use Flickr images where the licence has been changed to allow use of the image or take the images myself. You will no doubt explain all of this to your father and thank him for his earlier help.
- For the third time, I am not asking you to delete the images, in fact if you do remove them from the article purely because of this discussion, I'll revert it. I find it hard to believe that there is no precedent for this situation that can be followed. If there is no other way of crediting/licensing them, then fine, leave them as they are, just be aware that they may ultimately be removed because of these discrepancies. I know the date refers to the window and not the photo but if you look at any other photo the date is the date that the photo was taken, not the date that the subject was created. Will Bradshaw (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The information that you need is here and here. Copy and paste the email template, removing or inserting any details as required, then send it to everyone that you've got to take a photo for you and get them to forward it to the address given. You could probably do one permission email for each person, listing each photo, rather than separate ones for each image. They've all been willing to take the photos for you so I doubt anyone would have a problem with forwarding a single email. Will Bradshaw (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I must say that you have a most unfortunate manner. I do not wish to approach all the people who in the past have sent me photographs as feel this to be an imposition on them and would not feel comfortable in doing so. Many of these photographs involved were taken and used ages ago. I intend to leave such images as they are and hope that they are not challenged. Certainly the Blendworth image is the first to have been queried but if others suffer the same fate then so be it! Life really is too short! As far as I am concerned the "work of art" is the stained glass window or sculpture (see my long article on Nathaniel Hitch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hitch or Alan Durst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Durst- I have written many such articles and used images not taken by me). I have now asked wikicommons to delete the five Blendworth images and asked how such matters should be dealt with in future. You have in fact now answered my query and as I suspected it IS necessary to ask the taker of the image to give permission to wikicommons directly. I now wish to consider this matter as closed so would appreciate it if you would respect this wish and take no further action. For me the answer is quite simple. In future I will only use my own photographs or those on Flickr where a formal approval to use an image can be easily arranged and if any previous images that I have uploaded do not come within these two categories then I accept that there is a risk they will be deleted. Just for the record when I look back over the last two to three years where I have been putting bits and pieces on wikipedia, I have been warmed by the number of times that people have been kind enough to send me photographs of windows or statues/carvings and they have been pleased to see works in their churches given a wider audience but in many cases getting the right sort of images has been difficult as many of those I have dealt with are in my own age bracket (over 70 years) where dealing with "jpg's" and even sending e-mails is not something they do all the time.
- I'm sorry if I've offended or upset you in any way as that was never my intention, I was trying to help you and I still don't see why you felt you had to take the photos down, detracting from the article. If you're willing, I would be more than happy to give you further assistance on how to license images correctly. With reference to your comment about people not sending emails, surely most, if not all, of the people that have sent you photos have done so via email so would be more than capable of forwarding another one, in fact I would think many of them would be pleased to continue to do their bit in getting the works in their churches to a wider audience. Will Bradshaw (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)