User talk:Tyrenius

Put new messages at the bottom of this page. I may reply here, so watchlist this page, if you leave a post.

Talk Page Archives
2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
1: Jan - May	4: Jan - Feb	9: Jan - Jun	11: Jan - Jun	13: Jan - Jun
2: Jun - Aug	5: Mar	10: Jul - Dec	12: Jul - Dec	14: Jul - Dec
3: Sep - Dec	6: Apr - Jun
	7: Jul - Sep
	8: Oct - Dec			How to archive

Claude Monet. Charing Cross Bridge

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales

Tullie House

I'm wondering why you seem to be on a campaign to strip any ELs related to Tullie House museum ? Whilst we do generally have a proble with spammed ELs, these (of those I've seen so far) are valid ELs. Ford Madox Brown links to a couple of works that we couldn't have ourselves, for copyright reasons (classic WP:EL justification). For the cranemaker Clarke Chapman they have a significant collection from their local company Cowans Sheldon (constituent of the now-merged engineering group). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on "a campaign to strip any ELs related to Tullie House museum". I simply reverted the ELs spammed by User:Benjamw whose contributions consist mostly of adding links to a particular organisation, namely Tullie House.[1] You don't seem familiar with the fact that it is standard procedure to revert such spammed links, because they have been placed with the rationale of the institution's interest in mind, rather than wikipedia's. You might like to read WP:BFAQ#LINK. I left some that related to local topics, which seemed to be more appropriate.

I see you have restored the quite inappropriate EL on Ford Madox Brown with the justification above "links to a couple of works that we couldn't have ourselves, for copyright reasons". This is not correct. Brown died in 1893 and his works are out of copyright. There is no problem uploading the two images to Commons, if you wish to do so. This highlights the problem with the ELs. Any mention on the museum's site about the article subject has given rise to an EL to it. No normal editor would place a link from the Ford Madox Ford article to Tullie House, where a mere two images are to be found, when other institutions have major holdings of the artist's work, e.g. Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, which has 227 images online.[2] If we link to every museum that has one or two items, we would have hundreds of ELs in the article. Els need to be selected judiciously. This one is not appropriate.

The same applies to William De Morgan (died 1917), where you also restored a link that gives the reader precisely one example of work.[3] If you think the article needs another example, it is much better to add it rather than use an EL. I have done this with an image from Commons and removed the EL.[4] If an EL to a museum is to be included, it should be to a museum with a major holding and substantial additional information such as the V&A.[5]

The link on Clarke Chapman to Tullie House goes to a page with some text.[6] As I put in my edit summary, "if valid use as ref".[7] You restored the link with the summary, "restore EL and reword description. Its value is less as the link, more as the note that it's a real-world museum with a significant collection of artefacts for this local company". Your reworded description is: ""Local museum, with brief web history of Cowans Sheldon Cranemakers and many related artefacts in the museum collection".[8] We don't write articles by sending readers off to find "brief descriptions": as I said, that material, if relevant, should be incorporated in the article with the site used as a ref. Additionally, once the reader gets to the site, there is no evidence of "many related artefacts" or exactly how to find them. This is not helpful for the reader.

I strongly object to your personal comments, such as "Editor who seems to be stripping a museum's EL from all articles"[9] and particularly, "I'm concerned that one editor, Tyrenius (talk · contribs), has already set off on a crusade to strip these ELs, simply because of the host organisation, not from any objective value of the link itself."[10] Your observations are not even accurate. It is not because of the host organisation. This is spamming, regardless of who placed it.

Ty 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, don't reproductions of objects at British museums still have copyright to them unlike the US. I remember a user getting sued at one point because of this. Sadads (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "sweat of the brow" applies under UK copyright law rather than creative input. The work can be out of copyright, but a museum's reproduction of it will have given rise to a separate copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's obviously no virtue in an argument between the two of us. If I have offended you, I apologise wholeheartedly. I might not have liked your actions here, but my response to that was unhelpful to the broader goals of the project. I suggest that we adjourn this to User_talk:Benjamw and follow whatever project consensus has so far been arrived at under WP:GLAM. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous response. The situation seems to be proceeding positively. Ty 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)UK law gives some copyright to the photographer of an out-of-copyright artwork. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., US law doesn't, and this is the stance adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the US, whose laws apply to it. The National Portrait Gallery in London objected and threatened legal action, when a user uploaded very high res images taken from its web site (and circumventing software protection measures) to Commons, but as both the site and the user were in the US, it had no leverage.[11][12] It should be noted also that the NPG expressed a willingness for low res images to be used. This applies to 2D images, where a reproduction is not considered to be creative. It does not apply to 3D images (e.g. sculptures), because the choice of lighting and angle etc are considered to have enough creativity to give the photographer a copyright claim. User:VAwebteam, accredited via OTRS as official representatives of the V&A on wiki, has uploaded low res images of 3D objects from their collection under a free licence. This is the ideal to be encouraged. Ty 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation of "Where in the World is Wikipedia?" is a whole pinful of dancing angels. WP/WC/WM seem to embrace US notions of "fair use" on one hand, yet on the other also claim to permit interpretations of "placing in the public domain" (by act, rather than by time elapsed) that are unsupportable under US law. All we can really say about this is that it's a mess.

However advice such as, "There is no problem uploading the two images to Commons, if you wish to do so." is dangerous. That's a UK source site, and UK people are involved. Also the NPG situation is pretty much irrelevant, other than as a warning. All the NPG complained of was very clear UK copyright law that was obvious beforehand (to someone who's not wearing "citizen of the world" wikiblinkers), a law that still applies today. The NPG issue was a couple of communications and went nowhere near establishing any legal precedent, clarification or certainly not a change in the law. Importantly their "willingness" can only indicate their own willingness for low-res images to be used and must not be extrapolated to other museums. We can encourage this (and I make a point of emphasising this whenever I'm talking to museums and galleries) and hope that other galleries take a co-operative stance in the future, but so far WM has a dreadful reputation amongst curators: both piratical to others' resources and unwelcoming to the staff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Benjamw

You recently reverted some linking by User:Benjamw. It came to my attention that he may be working for a WP:GLAM relevant institution. If you encounter similar situations in the future, including improper linking, etc. please refer the user to WP:GLAM as you will have read in the Signpost, recent collaboration with large cultural institutions is creating a new route for access to subject area experts and article improvement, see WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/SI. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just tracked this down. I suggest that User talk:Benjamw#Possible connection to a cultural institution seems to be the relevant venue for further discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be very happy to refer the user to WP:GLAM. I recognise the value of working with institutions and was one of the editors supporting User:VAwebteam from the V&A before GLAM came into being. There, again, one of the initial problems was EL spamming. See User talk:VAwebteam. Ty 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Vincent van Gogh

I would appreciate your input here [13]...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive deletions

This editor AuburnPilot is threatening massive across the board deletions at History of painting, opinions would be appreciated here:[14]

Thanks

for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_9#Category:Artworks_in_metal

On this, there are actually hardly any Stella/Judd/Bourgeois-type metal scultures in there - well none at all I think. Really we should have Category:Modern sculptures in metal /steel - or something. But if you you know of any, please add to the current category. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Orangemike

I saw this on my watchlist . . . did you mean to revert OM on his own page? TNXMan 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder about that.... --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistake.[15] Ty 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pass with flying colors

Hi Ty,
I recently created a page with what I believe is more content then simply a dictionary definition, and nominated it for DYK, and I would like to redirect to it. Let me know what you think - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Barobax

Hello , you partcipated in Afd disscution for Barobax, the page is created again and nominated again, take a look, tanx Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Drawing Upon Art

Hi, thank you for your assistance. I would continue to appreciate any assistance maybe by sticking to your important comments with editors that have no experience or knowledge whatsoever in the field they tread harshly upon. OMG, this pack of amateur's has turned an art stub into an excel sheet overnight while disputing the leading publisher in the field. Its folly. Appreciatively --Art4em (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Chicks-from-avignon.jpg

I've raised a new concern at the bottom of the talk page. Please don't interpret this as me out for blood, I just don't want to see a non-free image promoted as a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Julia and David White Artists' Colony

Hi Ty: requesting you thoughts on this, an article deleted multiple times for lack of sourcing, and most recently proposed for all the wrong reasons [16]. I've chased it down several times today and helped it get speedied per its AFD history. However, I've since done some Googling, and I'd like your take on whether you think there's enough there to write this, at least as a stub, given these refs [17], [18], [19]. I think it's thin, but perhaps merits consideration by someone who's not affiliated with it. Thanks and best regards, JNW (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For your research on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Because you definitely worked hard and dug deep researching the legendary painting's copyright, arguments for why it is free and discussing it on the talk page of that painting, and I can see from your userpage you've definitely got a passion for art. I'ḏ♥One 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved!..Modernist (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ty. Ty 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional Surrender

Thanks for merging the multiple articles about the same work. It sounds straightforward, but it needed someone uninvolved in the AfD debate to do it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sturdy, Dependable Barnbuses Awarded to Tyrenius for creating a splendid article on Nicholas Treadwell in five hours that he could easily have spent staring at the telly, shooting at clay pigeons, extreme ironing, feeding piranhas, websurfing, chessboxing, taking recreational drugs, watching paint dry, etc. That's one bus for Treadwell, one for Daniel Meadows, one to tow the Caravan Gallery, and one for personal use. All aboard! -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

stuff

1. Glad to see there's an article on Nick Treadwell now 2. Check out my latest film: www.definitionfilms.com/yowie fifteen minutes of fun in the blue mountains near Sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgh (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried. It crashed my computer. Ty 05:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

woo, sorry. Never heard of that happening before. You need Quiktime. It's less than 1M so I don't know what happened. I run it on my kids PC's and on my old MacBook no problem.Lgh (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Input

Concerning the lede at Jacob Epstein - American or British?...Modernist (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Artist Wendy McMurdo

Dear Tyrenuis Happy to discuss. McMurdo does indeed satisfy each one of the criteria bulleted at the top of the List of Contemporary Artists page. As you correctly point out, my sole interest, so far, is to ensure that the correct status of said artist is suitably reflected throughout the wiki project, and thereby remedy what has hitherto been an omission. But every wiki editor starts somewhere! A sole interest in a subject does not necessarily confer inaccuracy. Do please check the veracity of the information on McMurdo as I intend to revert your last edit on the page in question. Kind regards Luxexterior (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

old Timesonline links dead

In Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 27#The Times paywall (update), you said an assistant editor for The Times told you legacy articles would still be free and at the same URLs. They of course can change their minds, but it's been only a couple months and a Google Search link to a Dec 2009 article 404ing prompted me to email them. Their customer service rep told me all their articles are behind the paywall. I only found your VP note by chance. I clicked a couple Timesonline references at Gordon Brown, and they also are "Not found."

I figured since you contacted a Times editor, you might be able to do so again to get a clarification if they'd changed their minds already. - MeekSaffron (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any change of policy. All the new articles since the paywall started are behind the paywall. A google search of their old site brings up 43,400 results, showing articles still available. I've gone through the links at Gordon Brown trying to replicate your results, but they all worked just now for me:[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] You may have hit a temporary fault. I occasionally find an article on their site comes up 404, but this could happen way before the paywall. Just an error somewhere or other. Sometimes URLs can change, and this may result in a 404, because the article has moved. It can be worth trying a different search, but sometimes the article just isn't (apparently) there any more. The problem I have found with some old articles which are still available is finding them. The current Times search engine doesn't seem designed to help in this respect. Ty 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That puzzled me, but I sussed the issue. I had javascript disabled, which I sometimes do to avoid loading unnecessaries. In The Times' archives though, it directs me to a 404. When I enable javascript, voila! Article! I wouldn't have grasped that if you hadn't told me they still work for you though. I apologise having you click and copy all those links, but I thank you *very* much for doing so! MeekSaffron (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm glad you got it sorted. Ty 04:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nicholas Treadwell

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Importing articles

Hi Ty - I am not sure that I'm giving the best advice here [32] and here [33] about importing and translating articles from the German, I helped him work on this article Douglas Cooper (art historian) however the articles edit history was not imported with the article text from the German wikipedia when Nobrook began translating it; any input would be appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

IP

Hi Ty an IP pretty much edited this article Carole Feuerman today and I've been trying to aid (the artist or her dealer) the IP however they keep turning it into what looks like her resume. Please check it out, as of this message it seems ok to me, but I suspect it'll change any minute...Modernist (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has gotten stranger...Modernist (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Resurrection(Spencer).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Resurrection(Spencer).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange obsessive tags

Does this extra copyright tag make sense? [34] it's being added obsessively to hundreds of images...Modernist (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Manson-Photo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Manson-Photo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done...Modernist (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Refstart

Template:Refstart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

File:Tate03ShowGallacio2small.jpg and File:Tate03ShowGallacio1small.jpg

The licensing of these files is a bit all over the place- it's claimed PD, non-free and freely licensed, all at once! Could you please clean it up so that only one of the three is used (I appreciate that there may be various copyright claims on the files, but, on Wikipedia, it's black and white- free or non-free) and make sure there are decent fair use rationales if non-free? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed PD. I don't think we're on safe ground there. The licence on the originating site said "Photo taken at the official press launch. No restriction specified on use of images." I'm not sure what that implies exactly, but I presume the sculpture photographed is still in copyright. You say, "I appreciate that there may be various copyright claims on the files, but, on Wikipedia, it's black and white - free or non-free." There are two copyright claims on a photograph of any artwork - that of the photographer and that of the copyright holder of the subject. With 2D work it's a simpler issue, as there is no photographic copyright on a faithful reproduction of a 2D work (only the copyright of the work itself). This is not the case with a 3D subject. The photographer has a copyright claim for the creative choice of angle, lighting etc. Therefore, to use such a photo, it is necessary to justify fair use for both copyrights. The fact that (as in this case) the photographer has released the photographic copyright under a free licence removes one problematic element. It is therefore relevant for wikipedia to state this. I have made a suitable template for such cases: {{Do not move to commons - copyright subject}}. If the current system does not accommodate such cases, then it would be advantageous for wikipedia to amend the system so it does. Ty 06:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely appreciate that both photograph and sculpture licensing are needed, but, as the sculpture is non-free, the whole file has to be treated as such on Wikipedia. I support the mention of the photograph's licensing, but I don't think a tag is needed- see, for instance, how I have written the rationale for this image. Also note that, policy-wise, the use of those tags on non-free files cannot be legit- the files currently appear in four categories where they are shown, and the NFCC are clear that NFC may not be shown outside the article space. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be on the same lines here. Good point about the categories: you are right of course. That hadn't occurred to me. I would like to make it clear on the file page that there are two copyrights with different statuses. I have created templates for the photographer's copyright, where the categories are not added, though there could be a specific cat for files of this nature (free licence photo, fair use subject), where the file is linked, but the image does not appear, a variant of Category:Fair use images of three-dimensional art. I think my revision of the two file pages you indicate, now makes the situation apparent to anyone visiting those pages, but would be interested in your feedback. If you agree that this is viable, it could be used more widely. It does, as you stipulate on your example page above, clear one of the barriers to the usage of such files, and therefore has an importance. Ty 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)