User talk:Quadell

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Free images discussion

Sure, sounds like a good idea. I should have some time tomorrow morning to read through and share my thoughts. Have a good weekend! TheQuandry 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

First off, thanks for being reasonable. Many editors here seem not to be. It is much appreciated!

Secondly, I really want you to consider this: You wrote: There is no legal reason why someone couldn't photograph the people listed, and release those images under a free license (like the GFDL). THIS is where we hit an irrevocable fork -- because I believe there IS a reason!  :)

Having worked in TV for many years, and having worked with lawyers to legally "clear" promotional photos, I know that in the U.S., the subject of a photo, especially if the subject is a "public" personality or celebrity, will almost ALWAYS retain some rights. They MUST be a part of the rights-clearance process. (That's the personality rights issue I keep talking about.) Which is why you HAVE to use a "fair use" claim for this kind of material. You're NEVER going to get a celebrity to sign away the rights to an image of them, in perpetuity, for all Wikipedia reusers, forever. Not only is fair use a solution to this, it's a responsible solution -- I've been told Wikipedia has stricter-than-U.S.-law-requires fair use guidelines already.

And for an image like File:Mikko eloranta, no, I don't think it's REASONABLE to think that someone in Finland could get him to put on his hockey uniform and pose for a studio portrait. He's already done that once before... for a photo that was distributed to the media to be used, and re-used, in just the manner as was being done on his page.

Thanks for taking a second look at those images. I hope further discussion can lead to their re-inclusion. Who knows? The "log rolled" once, maybe it'll roll again...  ;)

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Block log

Hello!

I have been warned by another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) for posting this comment. User:Irpen has also posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input in this matter.

I appreciate the fact that you are a serious and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I will take any positive suggestions from you on how I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia to heart.

Sincerely, --Oden 12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thedrunkendiale

I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.

I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.

I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…

• Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)

• http://www.removedspamlink

Thanks, 69.167.102.181

P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner

MER-C 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SombatMetanee.jpg

I am seeking advice on how to proceed with the issues raised on Image talk:SombatMetanee.jpg. I believe that a very solid fair-use rationale has been crafted and there are very good reasons for using the image on the page, especially now that a free image has been provided that serves the purpose of what Sombat Metanee looks like. The image that has been deleted serves to show the actor's appearance at the beginning of his career, something that is commented on in the article. I do not believe that a free-use image could be found to replace it. I have left a similar query on this on User talk:Angr, but have not yet received a reply. I would like to have a definitive resolution to this, if possible. If you can share some of your experience with me as to how these cases go, I would appreciate it. Thanks. — WiseKwai 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Your suggestion was helpful. I plan to follow up in a few days, hopefully giving Angr some more time to look at my claims and respond. One question, though: When is a discussion formally "closed"? In looking at the tag I would use to notify the admin editor of the dispute, it makes reference to this. But what if the discussion is not closed? — WiseKwai 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Coreylat.jpg

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for all of your help!

Thank you for all of your help getting me to fully understand the correct image licensing that I should be using. Not everyone is as patient as you. Ta-ni-ni 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thank so much! I'm blushing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Creative commons?

I'm talking to someone who has a pretty big internet archive of photographs of store signs. I wanted to use a couple of them on articles I work on. I asked her if I could use some of her images and pointed her to the GFDL page on Wikipedia and she said I could use them and also mentioned that she was looking into licensing all of her images under Creative Commons (not necessarily for us, but in general). Do you know where I can find out how to get all this processed for her so we can use her images here under Creative Commons? TheQuandry 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's good news! We can use {{cc-by-2.5}} ("attribution license", which requires only that the author be attributed), or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} ("share-alike license", which also requires that any derivative work be also licensed under a creative commons license). The ones we can't use, unfortunately, are {{cc-by-nc}} ("non-commercial", which only allows non-commercial use), and {{cc-by-nd}} ("no derivatives", which doesn't allow modifications). There's a lot of info here, of course, and this has a list of all the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg

I've marked Image:Naugthy or nice.jpg with the no-rationale tag again. The rationale needs to identify which specific article the rationale is for, which that rationale does not do. This is because otherwise, people may think it appropriate to add the image to any article they feel like, even though this would be in violation of WP:FUC. It's not clear to me that this is fair-use for 3LW, though this may well be the case. It is obviously fair-use for Naughty or Nice. --Yamla 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(I know you did not upload this image but I think the rationale is yours...) --Yamla 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed the rationale...but I am not sure that I did it in exactly the right way... --Ta-ni-ni 23:00, 5 December 2006