User talk:Dannyg3332

Photos

Hi,

I noticed you've been adding your photos to numerous articles. It would be great if you are willing to release those photos under a free license; they would be a big improvement to those articles. However, if you don't want to relinquish control, I'm afraid we can't use them. Our image policy is a bit complicated but I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please let me know. —Chowbok ☠ 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danny,

You can add a copyright tag to an image page once they are uploaded. I would recommend you use {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, This is one of several CC licenses. This version permits free use, including commercial use; requires that you be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of your work use the same license. All you need to do is add the bracketed text to the image page. Thanks. --Peta 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond to your note but it looks like Peta already did. I would just add that you be sure to understand the implications of licensing your images in this fashion; it means that other people will be able to modify and sell these images, without requiring further permission from you. I don't want to discourage you; it'd be great if we could have your high-quality photos, but I don't want you to make a change like this blindly. Do feel free to contact me if you have further questions. (By the way, it's helpful for everyone if you sign your comments on talk pages; an easy shortcut is just to add "~~~~ at the end of your text.) —Chowbok ☠ 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do is to actually edit the image as you would an article, and add this: {{cc-by-2.5}}

Other versions phrasing at Commons

That's no trouble at all. I'll make the change to your preferred wording. I haven't edited the Eddie Van Halen article since your last edit. Looking at the history, it seems an anonymous user swapped the images around, and is something that can be discussed between interested editors at Talk:Eddie Van Halen. Jkelly 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, please do feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns, and thank you once again for your contributions. Jkelly 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best course of action is to make a case at Talk:Eddie Van Halen that the classic rock star image that you provided is a better candidate for the infobox due to,for example, the generic nature of the other one. I really don't have any personal opinion on the matter, so I won't be editing the article. I will note, nevertheless, that it probably isn't reasonable to expect the anonymous person who swapped the photos to ever respond; most edits made anonymously are spur-of-the-moment ones by people who do not follow the article closely. Jkelly 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't speak to the law, and suspect that it would vary considerably by jurisdiction. More to the point, it is generally true that we will stop publishing images upon request by the creator. This isn't exactly uncontroversial, but we want, of course, to maintain good relationships with content creators. Incidentally, we cannot reasonably do this with text, however, so I'd encourage you to make sure that any text you publish here you are absolutely certain you are comfortable licensing under the GFDL! I hope that the facts that some of our contributors are argumentative or opinionated and that our methods of dealing with disputes about editing are slow and involve potentially time-consuming discussion, do not make you give up on the idea of contributing to the project. English Wikipedia is definitely something of a free-for-all, and our articles are not always representative of our best work in the short term, but it is also true that quality is generally recognised and wins out in the end. I'm afraid that I cannot really offer much more reassurance than that; I have no more editorial control than our anonymous friend who prefers the other picture, and my lack of such editorial control is deliberate! Jkelly 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVH photo

As Chowbok points out in his edit, Image:Eddie Van Halen concert dgpics.jpg is present in the Wikicommons and that you deliberately put the photo out with the Creative Commons license. That means it's out in the public domain and you can't "remove authorization for photo usage." Tabercil 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roddick, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Agassi Photos, et al

Shouldn't the image be deleted first instead of mass-editing articles that have the images? That way, editors can understand what has happen. on camera^(t) 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly welcome that as it would make matters more clear and easier for everyone. Your assistance in achieving this, and avoiding the possibility of litigation against Wiki would be most appreciated. Dannyg3332 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

I find myself unsure how to respond to your note; I am finding it hard to reconcile your statement there with others you have made in the past, and suspect that my intelligence is being insulted. If you don't want Wikipedia using the photography from your website, I'll delete your uploads, at your request, as a courtesy to you. I will not, however, play along with individual requests to delete individual images that are suddenly discovered to be infringing some third party's copyright as soon as they are moved out of the infobox. Let me know how you would like me to proceed. Jkelly 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do fell free to delete all images.Dannyg3332 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

Why did you remove the image of Elton John from his article? You left no edit summary and there was no reason I could see. —dgies^t_c 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but all images provided are in the process of being removed from Commons due to the abundance of pansy ass wanna-be wiki admins without the backbone to take a stand against a user making up fictitious policies to justify his edits.Dannyg3332 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting copyvios

Can you please advise me on how to insert the copyright violation tag ? I will apply it to all the appropriate images.Dannyg3332 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons just place the {{copyvio|reason for deletion}} tag on the image. Replace "reason for deletion" with your reason such as "copyright violation of http://yourwebpage.com/yourimage.jpg". An administrator will then review the case and take care of it. Noticed the Federer image has already been deleted. ArthurWeasley 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal, again

Whilst I'm sure everybody appreciates more free use images being introduced to Wikipedia, please take more care when placing them into articles. I have recently fixed three such changes where you have completely removed original free use images and replaced them for inferior ones; Andy Roddick and Anthony Kiedis for example, were lower resolution and unclear, whereas Eddie Van Halen removed a clear facial picture completely. Thanks, BertieBasset 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you ignored everything I and other people have said and then blanked your page to remove the comments, I've reverted your changes again, and because you replied to me with all the maturity of an impetuous child, I'm issuing these warnings;

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. BertieBasset 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie van Halen

I do slightly prefer the headshot, because it shows his face clearer, which to me fits better for the infobox. However that was not the reason for the revert, I did that because with this edit you made the same image appearing twice on the page. Once in the infobox and once in the section Roth years. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User_talk:BertieBasset, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. BertieBasset 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. —dgies^t_c 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]