User talk:Dbenbenn/archive5

Bison picture
Hi Brian. I'm curious about Image:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png. Specifically, why did you convert Bisonpile_lg.jpg to PNG format? I guess the answer has something to do with the way you brightened and sharpened it?

I'm tempted to upload the original JPG image to the Commons, and then upload your sharpened version (in JPG format) over top. Would you object to that?

dbenbenn | talk 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I started editing the JPG and cleaning a lot of stuff up, so I just saved it as a PNG so there wouldn't be any additional artifacting, although you could just convert it to JPG with the lowest compression. You can do that on Commons if you want.  -- BRIAN 0918   21:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italian flag
Hi there. Saw you edit/create the new Italian flag with improved colours (the old one was at 20px|Italian flag (Image:Italy_flag_large.png, resized to 20px)). I would be happy (tomorrow, [22nd] if possible) to change all the latters into the formers if you don't feel like doing so - I'm quite probably guilty of using that flag more than most - I'd be happy to take it into my own hands.

RSVP if this is okay.

Bobo192 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds great, thanks! I've done about half of them, but there's a lot more to go.  I didn't make the new flag; I just found it on the Commons.


 * By the way, consider using ITA in places where it applies.


 * Commons:User:SKopp has been making a lot of great flags, all with titles of the form "Flag of Country.png". Perhaps we should start a project to replace "Country flag large.png" with the new name.  There's a lot of them to do!


 * dbenbenn | talk 22:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

M1911 Pistol image
Hi... you made a comment on the M1911 Pistol image, that the current tag is in-appropriate. I disagree. No image is 'free' if it starts with copyright, and thus the CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat tag is not for free images as you state on the page, it is... well for copyrighted images. Copyright means that exclusive rights are by the author. The author can grant rights to whomever he want on any term that he wants – and that is exactly what this tag is made for. The image is copyrighted, but free for use provided that you blab blab blab bla... that is what this tag is for and exactly how it is used on that image. Btw I am the creator of the image. Twthmoses 04:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat puts the image in Category:Conditional use images, which is a subcategory of Category:Free images. I agree that it isn't clear what kinds of restrictions are allowed after the "provided that"; there ought to be a page somewhere discussing it.  As you're the creator, perhaps you'd be willing to license it as GFDL?  The only difference would be that the image could be modified (and modifications would have to remain free).  One hypothetical reason why allowing modifications is a good thing: someone might want to, for example, crop the bullets to use in a different article.  dbenbenn | talk 04:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the tag, this IS a copyright tag and there should of course not be any restrictions to the tag – that defeats the very purpose of the tag. There is only one that can make restrictions and that is the copyright holder. I believe is the very purpose of the tag. This is more of a misplaced category issue.


 * If an image is free (in the true sense of the word), it should not be using this tag, because copyrighted images are not free images, even when the author says you can use it for any purpose. They are copyrighted and the author can grant you use of it, depending on bla bla bla.. Twthmoses 15:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you have a misconception about copyright. Almost all images used here, including GFDL licensed images, are copyrighted.  An image is "free" if it has been released under a certain type of copyright license.  Among other conditions, a free license has to allow modification and commercial use.  The tag CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat is intended to be a free copyright license.  If you aren't willing to release your images under a free license, then you shouldn't upload them, and we'll have to delete them.  That would be a shame, since Image:P38 AC44.jpg, for example, is quite good, and would be very difficult to replace.  dbenbenn | talk 16:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, is basically equivalent to cc-by-nd-2.0.  WP:ICT says "Do not upload images for which [this tag] applies".  dbenbenn | talk 18:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I’m in disagreement with that. No matter how you turn it, something copyrighted is not free, unless the copyright holder specified turns over the rights, - which is the case with most images on wiki I guess, by applying some form of the PD tag.


 * There is CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat and CopyrightedFreeUse. What is the purpose of the first (and even the 2nd, is that not borderline close to PD?) if you can't provide any text that means anything? It is ok to write you have to credit the author, but it is not ok to write you can't modify the image? I persume 'remains unmodified' is the problem. Is having to credit the author over and over again every time you use it, not a image restriction too? Is it not an equal hard restriction? And how much modifications can be done before you don’t have to credit the author anymore, because its not the same image anymore?
 * Btw how does one even go around deleting images again? I see no option for this? Does one apply the delete tag?Twthmoses 18:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You realise that the entire Wikipedia is copyrighted, and is free, right? Most images here do not use the PD tag.
 * It is ok to write you have to credit the author, but it is not ok to write you can't modify the image?
 * That's right, requiring credit is okay; disallowing modifications isn't.
 * And how much modifications can be done before you don’t have to credit the author anymore, because its not the same image anymore?
 * If you license your image under the GFDL, the answer is that you always have to be credited, no matter how much the image gets modified. In particular, the "image history" has to be copied along with the image wherever it's used.


 * If you decide you want an image of yours deleted, you can write
 * at the image description page. But I hope you don't decide to do that.  dbenbenn | talk 21:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * at the image description page. But I hope you don't decide to do that.  dbenbenn | talk 21:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Wikipedia is copyrighted?? Is it not the direct opposite? If one reads the sites 'copyright' it says it’s the concept of ‘copyleft’, Anyway there definitely need to be some clear definition of what is and what is not allowed in this tag. I do consider my images free, cause you can use them commercial as well as none commercial anywhere you see fit, just can’t modify them (except resize).
 * Where can one billboard such a subject so many more voices join the discussion? It would be nice with a 100% clear use of this tag. Twthmoses 04:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyleft is a form of copyright, in which most rights are specifically given away. Notice the first paragraph of that article specifically mentions modifications.

I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. That page gets a fair amount of attention. I've asked some related questions at Commons:Commons talk:Copyright tags. dbenbenn | talk 05:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
I guess I'll try to handle being an admin if it's voted for. (Just what I need; another unpaid position :0) ) Will try to use it well, and summarize more edits! Rlquall 04:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your feature request on WP:AN
Here's a feature idea: first, put a "Block" tab near the "Delete" tab (in the default layout) for admins viewing User pages. Second, when you click the tab, you automatically see that user's complete block history. Good idea? dbenbenn | talk 00:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This might be possible with javascript. (The second part certainly is.)  If you can email me the html source that's displayed for a user page, and that for Special:Blockip, to administrators, I'll see what I can manage.  (I could dig these out of Mediawiki's source code, but that'd be fairly painful.  I really should install php and mysql at some point so I can play around with it more directly.) &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * See and .  I didn't copy monobook.css, so the pages don't look like normal.  The tab bar is at the bottom under "Views".


 * What I have in mind is that it would behave something like the "protect" feature . I was thinking of coding something in MediaWiki (possibly a new "special page"?) but if you can do it with Javascript that's cool too.  dbenbenn | talk 02:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A preliminary version is at User:Korath/blockip.js, and should be installed in User:Dbenbenn/monobook.js. It adds a "block" tab to User: and User talk: pages pointing at Special:Blockip, which will fill in the username when accessed this way.  It currently only adds a "blocklog" tab to User:, User talk:, and the Special:Blockip pages (the latter only when accessed through a block tab) pointing at the user or ip's block log instead of pasting it directly into the page; it also doesn't yet deal with weird characters in user names (which, of course, is the main reason you'd want the tabs in the first place).  Neither of these drawbacks are insurmountable, but they'll take a bit of fiddling to get right. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:23, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Thanks!  I modified it slightly to fix two minor bugs.  dbenbenn | talk 18:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IFD assistance
At Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion, in regard to deleting images you nominated, you said


 * But if someone else wants to do the actual deletion, I'll gladly step aside.

I'd like to help. I suggest that for images you nominate, you give them an extra 24 hours. I'll try to get to them in that time, and if I don't (or someone else), they're fair game for you.

By the way, I tried to help out with March 25 today. It took me about 20 minutes to do just the first entry! I deleted Image:Hamlet play scene cropped.png, then had to clean up Commons:Image:Hamlet play scene cropped.png. dbenbenn | talk 02:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You said "I'd like to help. I suggest that for images you nominate, you give them an extra 24 hours." Thanks, that sounds great! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

India image
The image, image:LocationIndia.png does not show areas disputed by India. There is no current talk, but I can give you an archived talk on pertaining to image:Indiamap.png. The discussion pertains to the Jammu and Kashmir state which is disputed between India, China and Pakistan. The Indiamap.png is almost an NPOV map, image:IndiaTest.png (more info on its talk page) is an NPOV map wrt. India's boundaries. I would like to see the region that India disputes, coloured in a lighter shade in the locationindia map. Subsequently the maps of Pakistan and China, (so too Bhutan and Nepal, as they have closeups of the disputed region) would have to be updated. Thanx, (I'll catch up tomorrow) == 20:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Zither
Hey thanks for taking care of that zither image. Between wikipedia being terribly slow for me and the sxc being down, I just hadn't gotten to it. Also zithers -- I think -- are a general class of stringed instrument without a neck. So there are all kinds of zithers. I think the image you posted is actually a more common shape than the previous zither image shape. Anyway, thanks! --MaxPower 12:43, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Deleting images
Hi Nichalp. I notice you deleted Image:The Decapolis.gif with the reason "I've made a *free* map so there is no need for having this non free map". Please don't do this again! Since an image can't be undeleted, it is very important to not delete an image without being absolutely sure it's okay. In this case, you should have listed the image on WP:IFD. Fortunately, there's another copy of the same map at Image:Decapolis.gif. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 12:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I checked your delete log. You also deleted Image:Indian.license.plate.jpg, uploaded by User:Brhaspati, with the reason "poor quality image, replaced it with a high quality one".  Until you understand the policies about deleting images, do not delete any more images.  (Fortunately, all the other images you've deleted, you originally uploaded.  But even in these cases, the images should be listed on WP:IFD.) dbenbenn | talk 13:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't follow the procedures on the decapolis map. I'll list it next time. The licence plate image which Brhaspati uploaded was a zoomed up image of image:howrahbridge.jpg, taken out by me. Since I had a very high resolution of the image, I zoomed into the licence plate and replaced the badly pixilated image. I think [I hope :)] in this case I am justified in deleting the image as I uploaded the new one in commons. == 18:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm sorry. I overreacted.  A suggestion: you can put wiki-links in the "Reason for deletion" field (like, a link to the higher-resolution replacement image).  Try to put more explanation in, so that someone paranoid like me won't get frightened!


 * By the way, it would be great if you could upload your "very high resolution" version at image:howrahbridge.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 21:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The image resolution is 1840x1232. Its about 1 MB (JEPG). Since I have a dialup connection, its too much for me to add such high resolutions at this juncture. (Is there a policy on image resolution? -- There used to be 100kb warning last year). Anyways, most of what I delete are the temporary pages and images that I have created. After learning about the virtues of Commons, I upload all my images there. PS. Any news on the map? == 18:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, check out Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg, which is 8460x8900! Besides the current upload limit of 8MB, the policy is to get the highest resolution possible.  I hope you're eventually able to upload it.


 * About the map: I'm a perfectionist, and I work slow! User:Vardion, who originally made Image:BlankMap-World.png, might be able to do it faster.  dbenbenn | talk 13:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and media for deletion
I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 01:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Achilles. In reply to your note: I voted to keep the previous image, and I've already voted to keep this one.  You wrote that you "consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity".  I feel the same way about the attempt to delete such images.  Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 01:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In reply to your comment: You of course have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to mine. Though I do not object to the existence or the commerce in such images, this project is NOT the proper vehicle to present them in. I strongly feel that the inclusion of such images is ultimately a diservice to the overall aims of the entire project. ~ Achilles † 01:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nominating on commons
Hi Quadell. I've decided I want to be an administrator at the Commons. I would be honored if you would nominate me at Commons:Commons:Administrators. dbenbenn | talk 01:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. dbenbenn | talk 13:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews logo
Hi, the Wikinews logo has been updated. Could you update the thumbnail used in the Sister projects box? Dan100 13:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan. I made a new thumbnail.  It came to 1874 bytes.  The auto-generated MediaWiki thumbnail of Image:Wikinews-logo-textless.png is only 10 bytes bigger.  So I'm going to change Template:WikipediaSister to just use the big textless logo.  But it still needs to be updated ...  I'll do that in a couple hours if you don't get to it first.


 * By the way, did you intend to upload the new logo locally to Image:Wikinews-logo2.png, instead of at the Commons? I'd like to delete that image, if you'd tag it delete.  The fewer copies of the logo to keep in sync the better!  dbenbenn | talk 18:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another ancient unclosed vfd that doesn't really need to be relisted
Bother you to close Votes for deletion/Meh? Note that it's already in Wiktionary. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 03:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. You still sure you don't want to be an admin?  dbenbenn | talk 03:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure. I don't even meet my own admin criteria, and my recent dispute with Xiong has made my talk page nightmarish.  I can't see how I'd pass an RFA at the moment.  But thanks again for the offer. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

IFD nomination - Hosho
Hi Pibwl. You nominated Image:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg for deletion at WP:IFD. When you do that, please put ifd at the image description page. Also, note that the version you put at the Commons, Commons:Image:716px-Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg, has a different file name. Since the version you nominated isn't an orphan, it can't be deleted. Finally, I'm curious why you thumbnailed the image at the Commons to a width of only 716 pixels. I've uploaded the higher resolution version over top of it. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 02:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing my attention at it. I was really wondering, from where I took 716px image of Japanese.aircraft.carrier.hosho.jpg - and finally found, that I've downloaded it from English Wikipedia in a thumbnailed version, instead of full size one. I must be aware of it in the future. Well, I guess, the best would be to upload it to commons with correct filename (without 716px) and quickly delete it from commons? (seems, that as for now, only Polish wiki uses it, which I'd change). Pibwl 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and replaced it with Commons:Image:Japanese aircraft carrier Hosho.jpg here and on the Polish Wikipedia. dbenbenn | talk 19:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pibwl 15:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spanish constitution 1931
Thanks for noticing the erroneous link. It has now been corrected. I apreciate the keen eye, but I think that correction is often more constructive than deletion. Askewmind''' | (Talk) 22:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I agree that "correction is more constructive than deletion". I was unable to find the Spanish Constitution of 1931 at Wikisource.  I didn't know to look at wikisource:Constitución de la República Española de 1931.  dbenbenn | talk 02:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Folds of the earth from close up.jpg et al.
I asked the up-loader to supply copyright info, and he didn't (and his notes in the article for which he up-loaded them suggest that they're copyrighted). I also informed him that they were up for deletion, and he still didn't supply the information. Is taking them off IfD and giving them an 'unverified' tag really the best option? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read the first two sentences at WP:IFD ;). I'm not comfortable deleting images that are used, since most IFD nominations don't get inspected by anyone else, and deletion can't be undone.


 * I hadn't noticed Manipulation of geological data. I can't check those links here at work, but if they're the sources of the images, you can just list the images at WP:CP.  If not, I think leaving them in Category:Images with unknown source is fine for now.


 * By the way, it doesn't appear from User talk:Dweeberkitty that you informed him the images had been listed for deletion. You did mention the lack of copyright tags, but he might not have seen it buried in point 3.5 of your note.  dbenbenn | talk 20:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're quite right; I could have sworn that I'd told him. My apologies. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)