User talk:Bkell/January 2007 through May 2007

Thanks
Thankyou for pointing out the mistakes in the images i had uploaded for the CTHS article i have corrected both the article and the images so thanks --Abb401 07:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair Use Images
No problem. Trosk 04:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bake N Shark Image
Finally, thank you for your explanation. Since I started using this site last week, I have been bugged by certain users, constantly, with no idea what Im doing wrong, or atleast how to fix it. Finally, for this one mistake, you have given me an explanation how to fix it. I appreciate it, big time. Thatopshotta 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Image removed from UserPage
Hey, you recently removed an image I uploaded from one of my User Sub Pages claiming that fair use images cannot be put on User Pages. I admit I'm not totally familiar with the rules on images on User Pages, however, the page that you removed the image from was the page that lists all the images I have uploaded. Although I still understand that that doesn't give me permission to put up any image that I upload, the PD-self template is on the image, stating it can be used for any purpose. Again, I'm not 100% familiar with Userpage-image rules (I will check out the article you left me), but surely the PD-self template means it can be used? Any input back would be greatly appreciated =D ≈  The Haunted Angel  (The Forest Whispers My Name) 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't totally remove the images, I just made them links. So you still have a list of images you've uploaded, but the images themselves don't appear on the page. This is a common compromise that satisfies Wikipedia policies. Secondly, all of the images listed at User:The Haunted Angel/Uploaded files are tagged as being copyrighted images that are unlicensed for use on Wikipedia, except one. Image:Dark raiden mkd.JPG is the only image tagged with . But this image is a screenshot from a copyrighted video game, so I believe the  tag is incorrect. You are not the creator of the image; you only took the screenshot, so you have no right to release it into the public domain. That's also why the image is listed at Possibly unfree images. Let me know if you have other questions. —Bkell (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, that clears things up a fantastic amount, thanks for the quick and helpful response ≈  The Haunted Angel  (The Forest Whispers My Name) 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:DDuchene.jpg
I used screen shot software to take the low resolution image from a Forever Knight DVD. If that is sufficient I will add it to the image.--Dakota 05:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that helps; it identifies the copyright holder at least. As the image stands now, there is no indication at all of where it came from. —Bkell (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bkell the images you tagged are my own work and I did place the following:'''This file is licensed under the Creative Commons '''Attribution ShareAlike license versions 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0. ,I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.Subject to disclaimers.''' Can you help me out and let me know what the problem is? I am the the owner of my work and did place the proper taggs and did place my initials MDCV to identify my work. Can you enlighten me a little bit. The individuals in question posed for me, the others were at events where they knew in public view. Please help me out here as you tagged a bunch and would like a simple answer to correct or clarify the problem if there is one. PEACETalkAbout 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you specified that these images cannot be used for commercial purposes. All images on Wikipedia must be free for anyone to use for any purpose, even commercial purposes. Unless you remove this restriction, these images are considered non-free and must be deleted from Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I will make the changes on Tuesday and will likely be a bit picky in the future as to which I submit. I don't mind releasing for schools, information purposes, for the greater good etc, but do mind folks just using it to make money. But alas live and learn. I guess I will trust that folks will use it for information purposes and not simply to make a buck. Some I actually go to a lot of trouble to get and often take many shots just to get one good one. Some (subjects) have posed for wikipedia in the last three months...knowning I would upload them. Any hoo...enough of my complaining.Thanks again.PEACETalkAbout 07:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bkell, I fixed all the items in question. Say can you help me in fixing a problem in the Black Panther Party article. Some one removed the photos (vandalized) and since then I can't get them lined up.  Can you help with this problem? Thanks PEACETalkAbout 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone else has already changed it to a gallery. It looks fine now. —Bkell (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am having trouble uploading this file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alex_Tourk.jpg The attribution part didn't take and on doing it again it didn't take? What am I doing wrong?PEACETalkAbout 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can edit the image description page by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top, just like a normal article. There's no need to upload the photo again; just edit the description. —Bkell (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million, just did it.PEACETalkAbout 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use @ IFD
Hi. I saw the images you listed at WP:IFD and thought you should know that they would be better listed using. That was specifically designed for this type of images. It's not bad or wrong to IFD them, it's just not needed. This will put it into the WP:CSD system at Category:Replaceable fair use images which has more information. Thank you. -- MECU ≈ talk 23:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. I just discovered a few days ago, and I've used it a few times, but for some reason it didn't occur to me that images of people might also be tagged as replaceable. Thanks for the tip. —Bkell (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Sahad image
What category of license would you recommend I put it under? I have no idea how to go about doing this, by god. Part of me, however, doesn't want to see it go... so what should I do? =( Ralf Loire 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The licensing tag on the image description page currently makes the claim that you are the creator of the content. But you're not, are you? It was created by some video game developer, right? So the licensing tag is incorrect. Moreover, you probably don't have the right to release the content into the public domain. It is almost certainly copyrighted by the company who produced the video game. Therefore, we must either ask the copyright holder to release the content under a free license, or we can use the image under a claim of [|fair use] as long as it satisfies all points of the Wikipedia fair-use policy (in particular, it must contribute significantly to the article, and not simply be decoration). —Bkell (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I didn't make the sprite, but I DID make the animated gif. But whatever pontoons float your boat! I'll just switch `em to a game screenshot and see how that goes~. :3Ralf Loire 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jeremy Brett image
Well, I must admit to some disappointment. Ah well, good catch all the same. Thanks. --Scimitar 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image
Hi, thanks for the message, and thanks even more for adapting it to fit my personal situation. Unfortunately, the author(s) of those three images wish(es) to remain anonymous. anthony 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

MMM images
Hello!

The logo was manually recreated, so copyright is mine, I release it as PD/GFDL for wikipedia. The logo itself is probably a registered trademark, but there was no quality image, so I redid it.

Photos are scanned from newspapers. They are historically important, since there are few photographs of these people now available.

The certificate is scanned. Who owns copyright for design is unknown today.

I find what is going on wikipedia in regards to copyright status of images moronic and I no longer contribute to wikipedia. I don't give a shit what happens to the images/articles. Still, thought I'd clarify it.

Paranoid 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion regarding at the policy village pump
As you were directly invovled with the confusion surrounding Image:Punjabi gurmukhi shahmukhi.png, I feel obligated to notify you of a discussion I initiated at the policy village pump regarding and the image use policy. Please come offer your opinions on the matter. --Iamunknown 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. —Bkell (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kmplayerscreen.jpg)
The image was a screen capture from my own computer and was tagged as such. But since it was replaced with images from the current release version I have no problem with its deletion. --Basique 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What is non-free?
I noticed you deleted images from the gallery in the La Fille Mal Gardee article......why? What does it mean, this "non-free"?

--Mrlopez2681 05:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. By "free" we mean "legally free", not just "monetarily free"—libre, not gratis. Thus, anyone should be able to use any Wikipedia content for anything they like without fear that they are violating someone's copyright.
 * The images I removed from the gallery in La Fille Mal Gardée (for example, Image:Ph2.jpg) are not free. They are under copyright restrictions, and the copyright holder has not released them under a free license. Therefore, these images are not free for anyone to use for any purpose.
 * Some copyrighted, non-free images are currently allowed on Wikipedia under the concept of "fair use", as long as their use satisfies all of the criteria of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. One of these criteria is that the use of the image in the article must "contribute significantly to the article…and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." It has been generally agreed on Wikipedia that non-free images which are used in an image gallery in an article, without specifically illustrating relevant points or sections within the text, are serving a purely decorative purpose, and thus fail this point of the fair-use policy. Thus their use is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is the reason I removed these images. —Bkell (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
Just wanted to let you know that the glue stick image, Image:Gluestick.JPG, did have copyright status, but someone had removed it and inserted a comment in the summary. Also, with the plum keyboard, Image:Plumkey.jpg, I could not find a similar image that is not a duplicate of the original from the plum website. Oliverdl 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Plumkey.jpg should be replaceable; someone who owns such a keyboard could easily take a photograph of it and upload the photograph. If a keyboard with this layout isn't available anywhere, then why do we have an article about it? Is it really notable enough for an encyclopedia if it's impossible to actually buy one? —Bkell (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, a Wikipedia editor could create a diagram from scratch illustrating the positions of the keys, similar to Image:KB United States.svg. That seems to be all the photo is illustrating, anyway. —Bkell (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The image
I've been busy, sorry for the lack of time.

Check my talk page if you forgot, but that Pokémon Highway logo was supplied by the legal owner of Pokémon Highway and was glad I used it on an article about her website. I happen to be a personal friend of the owner. XD375 02:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's okay, I've been really busy too. The problem with the image was that it was not licensed under a free license. Wikipedia requires everything to be freely licensed, so that anyone can use it for any purpose. Images which are not freely licensed are allowed on Wikipedia only under the criteria of the fair-use policy, which among other things states that the image must be used in an article. The Pokémon Highway logo, at the time I tagged it, was not in use in any articles. That was the reason you got the note, and that's the reason the image has been deleted. If the image satisfies all points of the fair-use policy (it must significantly contribute to an article, and it must be actually used in an article), then it can be reuploaded. Let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel square
Hi, back in July you had some comments on the Steel Square. Now I would like to add on a section on side cut angular calculations. This may be a simple problem for you or if may only appear to be. The problem is that common sense tells one that the side cuts on the hip jack rafters are all 45 degrees. A hip rafter by definition runs at 45 deg. to the main roof. In other words if there was a house that measured 20' X 20', all the outside corners would have hip rafters and they all would meet at one theoretical point in the perfect center of the roof. If this roof was flat with zero pitch then all the jack rafters would have a side cut angle of 45 deg. Next the roof rises slowly. This is where what appears to be is not always true. As the roof rises then the side cut becomes more acute. It is no longer 45 deg.? If you look at the Steel square on the rafter table image the 8"/12" pitch the side cut angle is rounded off to 40 deg.( Tan 10'/12") then when you go to a 18"/12" pitch ( Tan 6.69/12) you arrive at a side cut angle of 29 deg.  I can positively field verify that the side cut angle is inversely proportional to the pitch of the roof. Most circular saws can only cut 45 deg with a few exceptions ( Bosch) and when the angle becomes more acute than 45 deg the side cut can not be cut with the circular saw. Also even if the saw could cut 29 deg, it would not cut though 1.5" of framing lumber with a 7.25 " blade. The steel square has images for all the terminology that I am using. Ie  angle AB= side cut. I could explain this but the images do more justice to the words. So my dilemma is How would one mathematically arrive at the calculations to determine the side cut for the different roof pitches ? I have tried to solve this geometrically and through trig but it seems to defy logic. Somebody figured this out because all the framing squares have the side cut numbers but I have not seen the calculations. If you are interested that would be great if not could you refer me to someone who is? --Johnalden 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, John. I think I've managed to visualize this problem; Image:Hip jack and common rafter.jpg is great and helped a lot. Let me just make sure I understand what you're asking. What we want to know is how to figure out the angle that the hip jack rafter makes with the hip rafter, given only the pitch of the roof, right? And we're assuming that the pitch of the roof is the same on both "sides" of the hip rafter (in other words, the two planes of the roof that meet at the hip rafter both have the same pitch)? —Bkell (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bykell I looked at your question again. Yes we are looking for the angle that the hip jack rafter makes with the hip rafter. But more precisely to show the calculations step by step and supplement this with some type of geometric sketches. There are many tables with these angles but no paper trail on how they arrived at the answers. Does this sound like it is workable and resonable? --Johnalden 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll see what I can do. I've been really busy lately, but I'll try to come up with an answer (and an explanation of how I got there) within a couple days. Thank you for your pictures; they are helpful. —Bkell (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am glad the pictures were helpful. I understand how busy you are! I am interested to see what you are able to work out and the process. Thanks, --Johnalden 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bkell, Your assumptions are all correct. If the pitch changed one of the outside walls would have to be at a different elevation. It was a good question. I have been rereading the Steel Square by H. H. Siegele. He first published the book in 1957. He was a genius in integration of theory and practical application on rafters. I sketched one image on the flat roof and another is an example of another way to mark the side cut. Basically I interpreted what he said in my own words. He makes some jumps in his explanations. The following is what I did. It needs to be critiqued and picked apart for mathematical logic and phrased more in math jargon to read properly. Ie. I do not know the symbols for doing a proportional formula. Should the formula be more detailed with the calculations? The criteria I want to use is would this pass for a term paper in a math class. Also It seems to need more convincing formulas and theorems to pass the test. I am not sure my conclusions are justified from my premises. But here it is. If you can add anything, I would appreciate it. This is a real brain teaser!!

Rafter side cut calculations on the Steel square
side cut of hip and valley rafters

The purpose of this section is to explain how the side cut numbers of hip, valley and jack rafters on the Steel square have been derived not a how to do on rafter cutting. The steel square is an aplication of the Pythagorean theorem The image on the flat hip roof shows that the hip rafter and jack rafters are all running at 45°. The common base on the square is expressed in units of 12. Since the sum of the interior angles of any triangle = (N-2) 180° and since the known angles = 45° and 90°  then the remaining angle = 45° . Since the unit in this case is 12 the other side = 12 since the Tan = 1. The hypotenuse then is = to 16.97 or rounded off to 17 units. On the rafter table of the framing square under the number 8 is Hip or valley length per foot run = 18.76. Since this is a 45° right triangle one leg= 8 and the other 17 we arrive at the hypotenuse of 18.76. Since it is impractical to hold 17 and 18.76 on the Steel square a proportion has been devised to simplify the actual marking of the side cut. 17/ 18.76 = 10.88/ 12. Hence the 10.88 is marked on the side cut of hip and valley rafter column on the Steel square.

side cut of the hip jack rafter. The hip jack rafter is basically a shortened version of the common rafter except that it is intersects the hip or valley rafter @ 45° on a flat roof. The plumb cut is still 8/12 or 56.5° 1. Since the run is 12 and the rise is 8 then the hypotenuse =14.42. This is simplified to be a proportion of 12/14.42 = 10/12. Since 12 is the base or reference then 10 units can be seen where the side cut of jack rafters column intersects the 8 units on the Steel square.


 * 1)  33.5° is used  for tools using a 0° reference for 90° .  33.5°. is not the correct angle. This system has been standardized on many tools for some convenient illogical reason.           --Johnalden 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Strayhorn and "Take the A Train"
I'm the one who contributed that detail about Strayhorn's bold introduction of himself to Duke; I got it from "Lush Life: A Biography of Billy Strayhorn," David Hadju, Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1996. ISBN 0-374-19438-6. I can't cite the page because it's in storage and the libraries are closed today (and I swore off going to the library on this sort of mission). But I think the deleted passage should be restored. And thanks for being so careful in moving the old text to discussion.Italo Svevo 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why the anti-jpeg rampage?
I was just looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atlanticomap.jpg and there's this huge paragraph on how much better it would be as a PNG or SVG.

Honestly, who cares? Changing it to a PNG would be no visible advantage. Changing it to an SVG would mean many users wouldn't even be able to see it! The ugliness of massive blocks of irrelevant text to a page about a map reduces wikipedia's utility by more than changing the image would ever increase it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kremmen (talk • contribs).


 * The file size of a PNG would be much smaller than the current JPEG file size, which means that the image would load faster for Wikipedia readers. Furthermore, a PNG map could be edited and resaved many times with no loss in quality; however, editing and resaving a JPEG always results in a decrease in image quality. If the map were rendered as an SVG, then it could be scaled cleanly to any size, which would make the map more useful for other, non-Wikipedia uses. There are no problems with using SVG images on Wikipedia, because the server software renders them as PNGs before a reader downloads the image; see, for example, the image in the exsecant article, which is an SVG that is rendered to PNG by the MediaWiki software. Thousands of diagrams in Wikipedia are SVGs. —Bkell (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tulane web shield

 * Thanks for going to the trouble of explaining. Tulane obviously has the right to grant permission for Wikipedia to use the trade-marked image. Note that no copyright is claimed at all, and would be difficult to defend (see Copyright on emblems), so the relevant issue is trade-mark. You'll note that Wikipedia's own trade-marked (and copyrighted) logo appears on every page without transferring the right of re-use to downstream users. However.... I'm really sick of my entire experience on Wikipedia evolving into policy debates with people whose main qualifications are free time and pedantry (Not you, of course). So I'm giving up. --Dystopos 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, yeah, there's a real possibility that logos and things can't be copyrighted; the general consensus on Wikipedia right now seems to be to err on the side of caution and assume all logos and everything are under copyright protection as well as any relevant trademark issues. But if the logo really is uncopyrightable for some reason, then (as I understand it) we don't have to worry about trademark issues, as long as we don't use the image in such a way as to confuse people into thinking that Wikipedia is affiliated with Tulane, because trademark protection only protects against confusing use of the trademark or similar symbols. So if Tulane is claiming that their logo can be used only for educational purposes, or something like that, then they would need copyright protection to enforce that claim. The Wikipedia logos are for some reason specifically exempt from the requirement that everything here is freely licensed; I don't understand why this is, but it is. The best source of information about this little loophole seems to be m:Logo and trademark policy. —Bkell (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bakenshark.jpg
This is not a fair use replaceable image. This is a copyrighted image with permission to use in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how the fair use project is working, but these are the last ones to go. So you should leave it the way it is. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Great Slave Lake and Lake Athabasca T.jpg listed for deletion
I should have tagged that before. It's not required. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I delted it and the talk page. No sense in waiting. But now I see there is another copy on the commons. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:GallAdelgid lifecycle.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:GallAdelgid lifecycle.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bkell, This is an image i created in photo-paint based on information from Colorado State University, except that the original quality is so poor i had to create a new one. Their disclaimer states: http://welcome.colostate.edu/index.asp?url=info_csu-disclaimer ''The information contained herein is provided as a public service with the understanding that Colorado State University makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information.Nor does Colorado State University warrant that the use of this information is free of any claims of copyright infringement. Colorado State University web pages do not endorse any commercial providers or their products.''

I do not see that a copyright violation has occurred here. The original information source has been reference, and the image is not being used for profit. I can create a new version of the image if you like. Is the original already deleted? Dan 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Other images from Colorado State University also have a copyright that allows educational use: http://www.insectimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1326081 ''This image may be copied and used, in whole or in part, for any non-profit, educational purpose provided that all reproductions bear an appropriate credit. Any commercial or other use of the image requires the written permission of the photographer or contact organization, and Insect Images.'' Dan 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The image you created was indisputably a derivative work of the Colorado State University image, with no real creativity on your part, so CSU held the copyright to the image you uploaded to Wikipedia. The disclaimer you give does not say that CSU has released the copyright in any way; to the contrary, it states that there's even a possibility that CSU may not be the copyright holder. You uploaded the image to Wikipedia with a statement that you were the creator of the content and that you released the image under some free license, but since you don't hold the copyright to the content of the image, you didn't have any right to release the image under a free license. There's no evidence that the copyright holder had released the image under a free license, and that's why there was a possible copyright violation.


 * Just because other images from CSU have a copyright that allows educational use doesn't mean that this particular image was under the same licensing scheme. Even if this image was available for non-profit, educational use, it would not be considered a free license on Wikipedia, because it prohibits commercial use and might not allow modification. —Bkell (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots
If I took a screenshot from a video of, say, a concert, how would I confirm the copyright status? (My main curiosity is classical music concerts; I have my eye in particular on a video of Yo-Yo Ma. However, the video is on the Internet and I have found it quite literally impossible to trace the copyright.) &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the copyright status is impossible to determine, as you say, then we should not use it here on Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. So basically a still shot from a video uses the same copyright tags as any other images? &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A still shot from a video is a derivative work of the video itself. Whoever holds the copyright to the video also holds the right to control the creation of derivative works, so we can't just take stills from videos and freely license them (that's a violation of copyright). There are some fair-use tags like that might be appropriate, but keep in mind point 10 of the Wikipedia fair-use policy, which requires that the image description page contain proper attribution of the source of the material and attribution of the copyright holder. If you can't find out who the copyright holder is, then you can't satisfy this point of the policy. —Bkell (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg
Replacing all the uses of Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg with Image:Su-map.png and renominating Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg for deletion would not violate any guideline that I am aware of. Once Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg is an orphan there would be no need to keep it. You may want to note the articles you removed Image:Sudan map narrow.jpg from in the nomination for deletion but that is not a requirement. -Regards Nv8200p talk 11:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mechanical Beasts Gallery
Hi, I noticed that you recently wiped out the whole Gallery section from the article. Could you please tell me what should be done so that the images are fully compliant with Wikipedia standards? Thank you! --Mikaine 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You will need to contact the copyright holder and ask for the images to be licensed under a free license. The copyright holder, according to the image description pages, is probably "Go Nagai, Toei Animation Co. Ltd." See Requesting copyright permission for guidelines.
 * It is probably unlikely that the copyright holder will release the images under a free license, which means that the images are allowed on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use only if they satisfy all the points of the fair-use policy. In particular, see point 3 ("The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible") and point 8 ["The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose"]. The gallery in the Mechanical Beasts article violated both of these points, since it was a huge collection of copyrighted, unfree images that did not contribute significantly to the article. This is why I deleted the gallery. Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and certainly not unfree images like these. —Bkell (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ShouldBePNG vs. BadJPEG
Hello, Remember the dot. I've noticed that on some of the images I'm watching you've changed a tag to a  tag; for example, Image:Citadel Calendar view showing menu view en.jpg. I am curious about your reasons for doing so. I tagged that particular image with because the ideal file format for that image is PNG; it doesn't make sense for a screenshot to be an SVG. So I used because it seems to provide a clearer, more specific suggestion than. I have also recently begun using on fair-use images instead of  (for example, Image:CXXVI.jpg), because it appears that the general consensus is that fair-use images should not be SVGs.

You appear to have a different interpretation of what these tags mean and how they should be used. Perhaps the wording of the tags needs some improvement to make their purposes clearer. Maybe we should have a specific tag that indicates that a JPEG image should ideally be a PNG (not an SVG), and that emphasizes the "derived from a non-JPEG source" part of the message of the  tag to avoid JPEG artifacts. What do you think? —Bkell (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I interpret ShouldBePNG to mean "mindlessly convert to PNG" and BadJPEG to mean "has too many JPEG artifacts to mindlessly convert". How about if we use ShouldBeSVG for "re-create as SVG" and use BadJPEG exclusively for "re-create as PNG"? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The badJPEG tag currently recommends finding a replacement that's either a PNG or an SVG. I've used the badJPEG tag on many images for which I've thought, "It would really be nice if someone would make an SVG of this, but if someone found a PNG replacement that would be fine too." So to me the badJPEG tag just means that JPEG is inappropriate and the file format needs to be improved, without making the demand for an SVG or just settling for a PNG. —Bkell (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this conversation has forked, let's continue it at Template talk:ShouldBePNG. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

unfree images alert wats ur deal man
yo man those images were mine cause my sister goes to dt and i scanned her yearbooks

can we please further dicuss this

thanks --Avenue 51 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Were you the original creator of that yearbook cover? Were you the one who designed it? If not, then you don't hold the copyright to it, and so you don't have the right to release it to the public domain. Simply being the one who scanned the cover does not make you the creator of the content, in the same way that I can't claim to be the author of a poem simply because I scanned it out of a book. —Bkell (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unfree" Images of David Thompson Yearbook
First and foremost, Bkell, I would like to thank you for your tireless efforts to root out "bad" images from Wikipedia -- your contributions make a very real difference to this community.

As a student of the school for the past five years, I would like to just add my two cents by stating that all students that worked on the yearbook designs have signed release forms concerning their work. Additionally, I have reviewed the past four yearbooks and there is no copyright indication in any of them. Would this allow the images to be suitable to Wikipedia's standards? If not, I will look into the matter further and see if I can get some documentation. =)

24.85.152.241 08:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do the release forms say? I would imagine that by signing the release forms, the students have only given permission for the school and the yearbook publisher to publish the yearbooks; they probably have not given up all their copyrights. It is not necessary for a copyright notice to appear on a work for it to be copyrighted; copyright is "automatic", at least in all works created since 1 January 1978 (see Copyright Act of 1976).
 * In order for the yearbook covers to be considered "free" here on Wikipedia, you will first need to find out who actually designed and created the yearbook covers; this person or persons are the original copyright holders. You will also need to find out what the release forms say—do they only give permission for the school to publish the yearbooks, or do they transfer the copyright in the yearbooks from the students who created it to the school, or do they say something else? All of this is necessary in order to figure out who the current copyright holder is. After you've determined that, you'll need to ask the copyright holder to release the covers under a free license; please see Requesting copyright permission for more information about this and some guidelines. It is very important to note that it is not enough to just ask for permission to use these covers on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose, so all free content here must be usable outside of Wikipedia too.
 * Let me know if you need help or if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Problems
I will look into it although I do believe the release forms indicate that the yearbooks are released to the general student populace. I will check that out. Additionally, the Copyright Act you have linked to is American and, fortunately or unfortunately, David Thompson resides in the jurisdiction of Canadian copyright law which is far more lenient in any case. I will see what I can do to talk with the original cover designers.

As an aside, however, according to your messages concerning copyright, does that mean all photographs of buildings and other architecture would not be kosher according to Wikipedia policies? After all, these photographs of architectural works would be derivative works from the original building, whose design would be under copyright by the original architect, no? By extension, does this mean also that the photograph of the exterior of David Thompson Secondary and, by extension, all photographs of buildings, whose architects are still alive, are also not kosher?

24.85.152.241 01:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realize the school was Canadian. United States copyright law is still relevant here, though, since the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the United States and thus must comply with U.S. laws. I don't know how U.S. copyright law views works produced in other countries without notices of copyright.
 * Some countries' copyright laws do place restrictions on photographs of buildings, using exactly the reasoning you describe (for example, I think many European countries' laws work like this). In other countries there is a concept called freedom of panorama which allows people to take pictures of buildings without violating the copyright of the architect. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I believe that in the United States it's OK to take photos of buildings in public places without violating copyright. Statues, on the other hand, are considered works of art, and from what I've read in discussions around Wikipedia, U.S. law considers photographs of statues (even statues in public places) to be derivative works, and so there's a possibility for copyright infringement if you photograph a statue. There are a whole lot of very gray areas in copyright law. —Bkell (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Schwa IPA symbol.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Schwa IPA symbol.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedian's notice board
You are invited to join Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by compactness
Hi there. There's info in the article that's missing. For example, the radius used for every country. If the radius is measured over a curved surface (such as an ellipsoid), then it's not so easy to calculate the circle's area. Can you please tell us where you got this information from? And if it's original research, please tell us too. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As it says in the introduction, the list uses the circularity ratio, which is defined to be $$4\pi A/P^2$$, where $$A$$ is the country's area and $$P$$ is the country's perimeter. There is no "radius" involved in the calculation. —Bkell (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo deletion
I noticed you had deleted many images from May 3, but my request was skipped and not commented on. Could you delete it? Cnota 06:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I saw something incorrectly! Cnota 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nwt-coat.png
Hello, Bkell. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Nwt-coat.png) was found at the following location: User:Bkell/List of images in the wrong format. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Eastprussia flag.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Eastprussia flag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. It's apparently been obsoleted by Image:Flagge Preußen - Provinz Ostpreußen.svg anyway. —Bkell (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:New map WEB.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:New map WEB.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Alex Spade 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cesar-chavez-USPS.jpg)
But it's not orphaned. --evrik (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time I added the tag, the image was not used in any articles. You have since added it back to César Chávez and added it to List of people on stamps of the United States. —Bkell (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)