User talk:Jilvento1

Commercial use of Image:A103 Hamilton 1867 305.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:A103 Hamilton 1867 305.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:A103 Hamilton 1867 305.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:A103 Hamilton 1867 305.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Kidslearning.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Kidslearning.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Kidslearning.JPG has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Kidslearning.JPG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Collections of the New-York Historical Society.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Collections of the New-York Historical Society.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:N84 130 WisteriaLamp.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:N84 130 WisteriaLamp.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:N84 130 WisteriaLamp.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:N84 130 WisteriaLamp.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:1863 17 26 Parakeet.tif.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:1863 17 26 Parakeet.tif.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:1863 17 26 Parakeet.tif.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:1863 17 26 Parakeet.tif.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Children Learning
A tag has been placed on Image:Children learning.JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

copyright violation - no fair use rationale

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. David Shankbone 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
You are making quite a few edits to the New York Historical Society page, and uploading a lot of copyrighted material that does not have a fair use rationale. Do you need some advice or help on how to edit, contribute, add images and what is appropriate and why or why not? --David Shankbone 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing NYHS
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I live in the East Village and I do a lot of photography for the site. I tend to watch the articles where I put my photographs, although I also watch the articles I wrote, like Public Art Fund and Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, to name a few. A few things to get you started:
 * 1) Wikipedia is about freedom. Information free of corporate interests and free of propaganda.  It is also about free copyright.  If you look at my User page, you will see links to gallery upon gallery of media I have made and contributed to Wikipedia.  Anyone can use those images in any way they want; they can even sell them and not pay me a dime (although they do have to give me a photo credit).  The images you are uploading are not free, and violate these basic principles.  If you were to have the NYHS release the copyright to an image in the manner I describe above, then you could post it.  I could see in situations where there are works of art it is not in their interest to do so.  But photographs of an NYHS teacher at a chalkboard - why not try and get the copyright released--doesn't seem like it's anything all that proprietary, and it would spruce up the page.
 * 2) Since Wikipedia is about open copyright, it is a copyright violation to take wording from a copyrighted source, such as the NYHS website, and replicate it on the page. That's a legal problem, and it's also a freedom problem.
 * 3) Sourcing: You should find sources and citations for things you write. You can source to the NYHS website, but to have one source, that is from the subject of the article itself, is problematic and may be taken off if that's all your using.
 * 4) Propaganda: You are writing the article as a piece of propaganda for the NYHS, and that violates guidelines and policies here at Wikipedia.  We are a forum for information, not a forum to advertise.  Some examples of propaganda (or, Point of View - or POV for short, and some people say NPOV for Neutral Point of View) that you included are:
 * "one of the world’s greatest collections"
 * "an exceptional collection"
 * "strength and depth of these collections provides a vital foundation"
 * "one of the country's preeminent educational"

After each of these statements, a reader can ask "Says who?" Says the NYHS? That's fine for their website, but not for an encyclopedia people turn to for a neutral point of view. It's possible all those things are true - just makes sure you cite to an authority in a relevant field who has said so. That should get you started. Let me know if you have any questions. --David Shankbone 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Response: --David Shankbone 15:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC) --David Shankbone 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise a valid point about the The Met's article, but it's somewhat different. Some things are just "obvious" and thus, they are not controversial to say.  For instance, "The United States is one of the world's largest and most important countries" is true by almost any measure, that to have someone else say it is rather unnecessary.  It's ostensible.  For The Met, their reputation as a world-class museum (along with The Prado, The Louvre or The Hermitage, to name a few) is rather unquestionable.  It's like questioning the phrase "Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world."  Like I said, I think your question is valid, but it comes down to how controversial a statement is--and these statements above are not really all that controversial.
 * As regards the NYHS, you can make a statement obvious by backing it up with facts. The entirety of the Met's article backs up it's opening sentence by itself, reputation aside.  If the NYHS has exceptionally important Tiffany glasswork, or the most number of pieces of a certain type, or if certain pieces have been featured in articles, then it backs up words like "preeminent."  Just saying something is preeminent doesn't make it so.  After reviewing The Met's article, most readers would say to themselves, "Ah, yes, this is one of the most important museums..." etc.?  Examples of the scope and size, as well as notable pieces it houses, back up The Met article's claim.  It also wouldn't be difficult, I'm sure, to find surveys of art historians that list it as one of the top five or ten important museums.  Can the NYHS say the same about some of its collections?  If so, then great!  If something isn't obvious, then it should be cited.  At the very least, explain why--don't just make a statement as if it's a fact without providing reasons for the statement.
 * Regarding press kit images: no, they are not okay. Unless the NYHS has released the copyright on them.  You will notice that under every edit window it says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*."  That means someone would need to be able to take your press kit photograph and actually be able to sell it - on postcards, on mugs, in a book they write, etc.  It's the commercial use that trips people up with GFDL.  Most institutions don't mind giving Wikipedia images, or magazine covers, etc.  But Wikipedia itself is about freedom and giving back to the public sphere, and that includes commercial use--which is open for everyone.  Wikipedia is a public good to be used in any way the public or a member thereof sees fit.  Including selling it.  Here's a Sports Review Magazine article about my contributions that makes the same point:  http://sportsreviewmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1194
 * Lastly, it's helpful if you sign your messages (NOT your edits on articles, but on Talk pages) by using four tildes (~). You can also do this with a button at the top of the edit window where you type. It's the button next to the Red Circle crossing out "W" (like, "No George Bush" ha!) that looks like a signature.
 * First, I would sign in with your User name before you edit (IP addresses have very bad reputations on here, deservedly) and I would sign your edits using four tildes.
 * Obvious: There is no way to really articulate the concept.  Perhaps another way to look at it is:  it is a controversial statement?    Would reasonable people dispute that The Met is one of the most important museums in the world?  If so, why?  That is why there are discussions behind each article for such issues.  If a statement is controversial, then a citation will be furnished to burnish the claim.  Try editing and see what sticks.
 * Kudos to your credentials - your writing should make interesting reading, assuming you don't violate copyright. I look forwarding to reading what you write.  Don't forget to log in under this User name to edit.

Images
Sorry, overlooked your message at the top of my page. Note that you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. Images must be available under the GFDL licence, which includes commercial use. If they are in copyright, which your restriction on reuse implies, they cannot be accepted. If you wish images to which you hold copyright to be used on Wikipedia, make it clear that you are releasing them under GFDL, and say on the NYHS website that they are available under that licence. If they are out of copyright, just upload them with a public domain tag. Jimfbleak 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wisteria Lamp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wisteria Lamp.jpg. 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 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)