User talk:Bantaxaver


 * }

Uploaded file Digic Pictures Logo protected and permitted by licence agreement formely submitted, according to CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Thanks. --Bantaxaver (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:DIGIC PICTURES negative Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DIGIC PICTURES negative Logo.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DIGIC PICTURES Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DIGIC PICTURES Logo.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.digicpictures.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc  powwow  00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Secret World.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:The Secret World.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Digic logo 520.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Digic logo 520.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DIGIC PICTURES negativ Logo500x320Px.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:DIGIC PICTURES negativ Logo500x320Px.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Digic Pictures Stillframe ACB 02.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Digic Pictures Stillframe ACB 02.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

autoblock
Hi, thanks for email. I'm now watching this page so you can reply here. The autoblock is because you are using the same ISP as a blocked user, Digic, and the software has assumed that you are using a computer on the same network. Since all your article contributions have been associated with that company, I don't think that there has been a mistake. Although your username in itself is acceptable, acting as a sockpuppet for the company is not. Edit from home under a new account, and keep away from this topic. I'm happy to look for other ways forward, if you can suggest anything that doesn't breach the principle's outlined in the block box on Digic's talk page  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

re-consider autoblock
Hi, I've sent you another e-mail, in which I am trying to explain and verify my intentions. I feel inconvenient about having to sollicit your attention to my cause, but it is done with the best intentions and in appreciation of your kind understanding. Thanks for caring. --Bantaxaver (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You should be able to edit now under this account name, but not as an anon, let me know here if there is any problem, I'm watching this page. When you mark a page as "watch this page" it just means that you will be notified of any changes, not that anyone else will be. User subpages are unlikely to be seen by a human (unless a bot picks up obvious vandalism or copyright infringement) until they are moved to article space. As you now realise, that's when they attract attention.


 * It's hard to make sense of the markup in the email, although it's obviously still unacceptable. Post the proposed text here and let me know when you have done so, I'll comment in more detail then. As an academic, you should realise the importance of independent verifiable sources. As an example, referencing "unmatchable picture quality" to an interview with the company is disingenuous to say the least. Interviews, self-edited websites, or webpages where it is unclear what their status is should be avoided if possible, especially when supporting an opinion, rather than an easily verifiable fact.


 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I've tweaked the lead, which shouldn't have a heading. It should summarise rest of the article, which it doesn't yet do, doesn't even say where it's based.


 * Using bare urls for refs is unhelpful, use [url description], so http://www.cgchannel.com/tag/digic-pictures/ becomes Channel.com and reads as Channel.com.


 * Refs should immediately follow punctuation marks


 * If you can't do better than this, you might as well give up. The language continues to be unremittingly spammy, full of claims about how wonderful the company is, no hint of criticism, and effectively unsourced. Nothing about turnover, profits, employees, just spam, spam, spam. Some examples.


 * world leader is sourced to a site of dubious notability that doesn't say that anyway.
 * Despite what I said above, the next two refs are sourced to interviews, ie, the company promoting itself. How is high-end rendering quality with lifelike acting in details of scenery minutely attended to neutral and encyclopaedic when it's the company saying it? I didn't even bother checking any other refs after the first three turned out to be nonsense
 * own fully equipped motion capture... uses one of the modernest [sic] cameras  unreferenced spam
 * Artistic statement = spam, spam, spam

I can't believe that you are taking this seriously. You just keep slopping on the same unsourced promotional rubbish, with no attempt to make it acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. I think the company deserves an article, but if you can't get something sensible sorted pretty soon, I'll reblock and post a request at "Requested articles" for someone uninvolved to give it a shot  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still a long way off. The introduction is not for your personal reflections, or to effectively say there are few proper sources ( = not notable enough for a Wikipedia article), it is to summarise the article.
 * You still don't seem to have taken on board that the point is to present facts, not to give your own or other people's value judgements on the quality of the product. If there aren't enough facts, give up on this, or write about a better known company.
 * The whole tone is still spammy, and there are unsourced claims like can track the finest details, the subtlest movement with four times the average resolution, and in large volumes too. As long as you insist on using value-loaded adjectives, eg significant critical acclaim... prestigious prizes, there is no chance of this surviving
 * The artistic statement is spam too
 * When did I give permission for the logo? A logo can be used, but needs a fair use rationale.
 * You should not have links to social networking sites like Facebook and Youtube, they are not RS sources, and the latter contains much illegally uploaded material. Links to Youtube are usually deleted on sight
 * Again, either there are enough facts about this company to write a proper article, or there are not. A string of uncritical claims, with no negative comments at all, is not an encyclopaedia article.


 * I make these changes, mixture of MoS, despam etc. Facebook, YouTube and the like are pointless. They are not reliable sources, and look like spam. Your "See also" is best omitted &mdash; it looks spammy. If you format your hyperlinks like I've done in this paragraph (and also the "Official website" link), it's much easy to read. I still think we need more about the company, rather than just its products. I get no idea from this whether it employs 100 people, or one man and his dog. That sort of factual info also looks a lot less spammy than lists of what they have  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd leave as is, unless you want to tidy the refs as I suggested, but that's not a requirement. I wouldn't speedy delete as it stands, but that's obviously not binding on any other admin. Post it in article space and see what happens  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but I suspect that you need a fair use rationale for the logo; it's certain to be registered as a trade mark, and no company is going to give its TM a free licence.
 * If it's been cleared should be OK  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Digic Pictures' Logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Digic Pictures' Logo.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bantaxaver
Hello. It's just to say that I added a copyright tag to the logo on the Digic Pictures wikipage. i have submitted the studio's permission to permissions@wikipedia.org and received their approval in reply. i hope i have chosen the right copyright tag. if there is any further action to be taken, please inform me about it. Thanks. Bantaxaver (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag you've added is clearly incorrect: it should only be used for images like the puzzle globe that are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, or screenshots that contain such images. I've replaced it with a placeholder tag; someone with access to the permission email system will need to replace that with the correct tag. --Carnildo (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Digic Pictures' Logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Digic Pictures' Logo.JPG, which you've sourced to digicpictures.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)