User talk:Nativeborncal

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Platypus Man | Talk 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Illegal immigration
Hi Nativeborncal. I have reverted the edits you made to the above article - the information you added was unsourced, and the way you presented it was misleading and pejorative. One of the central tenets of wikipedia is a neutral point of view, so if you think the information is necessary to the article, please cite your sources and rewrite your additions in line with these guidelines. You should also discuss major additions on the article's talk page first, particularly when the article has a 'disputed' tag. Cheers Natgoo 12:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Image replacement
Please do not replace an image unless you are the original contributor uploading an improved version (e.g., sharpened, better color balance or contrast, etc.) Instead, upload a new image and reference that within the article I have repaired the NYC image, which was taking an entire screen in Anaglyph_image, since the image did not specify a size but rather used that of the image (now specified)

Lincoln Image
Hi, I just saw the new image you added to the Lincoln article. It's a great image! While I'm able to recognize the vehicle shown as Lincoln due its greyhound hoodornament I was wondering what Lincoln model it is. Thank you, Gerdbrendel 10:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-Commercial images
You uploaded images with statement "Non-commercial 3D image. All right waived by owner." but that's not compatible. Either it's non-commercial or all rights are waived by author. Please remove the non-commercial or these images will be deleted within several days. --Denniss 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And please provide a statement from the site owner of http://www.anachrome.com that he really released all rights of his images (or just for non-commercial purposes), just because there's no copyright statement does not mean there's no copyright on these images! --Denniss 15:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

These are non-commerical images. They are not for sale. They were not made for sale to publishers. The term "compatible" is about PERCEPTION..NOT THE LEGAL STAUS! It refers to the fact that the thumbnails are posted with specially prepared "combination" 2D or 3D images. People without 3D glasses see a "fairly" normal small image. The tens of millions of people, especially kids, have 3D glasses.They can experience the images in good color 3D stereo. It is an considered an inhancement by millions of people. Animation 3D movies like "Polar Express" have done very well recently. 3D DVDs will be coming out soon. 6 colleges offer "on-line 3D classes in the "humanities". The State of Califonia, State Parks, Museum, is making a 3D movie about the 1906 San Francisco Quake. IMAX made SPACE STATION 3D and may other documentaries. 3D in not a cheap trick. I am a rather famous 3D stereo photographer. If I want to release my images from copyright it is my business. I believe in Wikipedia and want to improve the impact of it's images. The text on Wiki is far better than the so-so images, unfortunatly. I have complete rights to any images on the website www.anachrome.com. and thousands of images that are not on line.Nativeborncal 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are the copyright holder of these images? If yes then use a free license (includes fully commercial reuse by anybody, use GFDL for a free license with several restrictions) or use a non-free license like fair use. You can't give up all rights on these images and restrict it to non-commercial. See here: Image copyright tags --Denniss 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Denniss: Yes I am coryright holder on all images I post. I do not offer my images to the publishing market. They may be copied for non-commercial use. As they are 3D images they cannot be converted back to standard format for book use, or in magazines in 2D. I will use GFDL if I can define the restrictions. I have waived the rights to Wiki Foundation so that the images can enter the WiKi Commons. There is no known way of removing the 3D effect from the image, so they are "useless" for conventional book production or advertising.Nativeborncal 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is released under the GFDL, and that permits commercial redistribution (with only attribution provided, but no compensation). There are a number of mirrors of Wikipedia such as answers.com that profit from Wikipedia articles via ad revenue, and therefore can't be said to be "non-commercial".  Thus, all images used on Wikipedia must be either fair use (which means anyone could use them in the same context without the permission of the copyright holder) or under a free license such as the GFDL, which allows the image to be reproduced commercially. If you don't want your images to be reproduced commercially, I suggest you take them down, because they will be reproduced commercially within days at places such as this. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the donated 3D images?
Just so you know, there is an informal group of 3D stereo photographers, mostly members of the National Stereoscopic Association,who believe in the value of offering "compatible" images that look good in 2D, without glasses but look amazing if you have glasses! Millions of glasses are in the hands of school kids, who use them to see NASA images,Disney films, and video games. As long as the pictures have good general content..why not? Wikipedia is PROGRESSIVE, in my opinion. Why not help improve the internet experience for those who appreciate the advantages of 3D? My images were mostly shot for a educational, free access website under development.www.worldhertitagemuseum.org.Museum objects are featured. It is rather a Wiki kind of project, in most respects.


 * You're heart's totally in the right place, but the 3D images might be best suited for a Wikibook or some other part of the WikiMedia commons. If you just put one per article, people who have the glasses won't be able to easily find them, and people reading the article most likely won't have the glasses.  I'd say, put them all in one location.  Just a thought.  I haven't removed any of your images myself, but others might.  If you find that people are taking down your images from the articles, it's probably because just that they feel that the glasses are a little too rare for the images to be useful in the article itself.  Alecmconroy 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing license info
I noticed that unlike the other images you uploaded, Image:AC_marbles.jpg is lacking explicit license info. It's possible to make a guess based on the comments there, but I'd rather not do that. Can I ask you to add a license tag? Algae 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AC_marbles.jpg
Thi is same GNU images as Ac_marbles.jpg. It has been reprocessed for better contrast, and a "masked stereo effect" have been added almost invisibly. I don't own that GNU image, the inhancement is a gift to Wiki Commons.Nativeborncal 23:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-commercial images
Hi! I notice that a number of the images that you have loaded are marked as being for non-commercial use only. As per this statement by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, images marked in such a way are not acceptable for use at Wikipedia and are to be deleted. Please either re-tag these images with a more appropriate copyright tag or let me know that you are not prepared to release the images for commercial use so that I can delete them. Thanks, JeremyA 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:T-38 jet trainer.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:T-38 jet trainer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JeremyA 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:P-51polished.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:P-51polished.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:1939 Zephyr.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:1939 Zephyr.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:48 Mercury convert.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:48 Mercury convert.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:Latoli couple.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Latoli couple.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:Australopithecus couple.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Australopithecus couple.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:Xray for shoes.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Xray for shoes.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:Compat3D Portlandv.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Compat3D Portlandv.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I've listed these images as they have been marked as non-commercial use only. It is therefore important to verify their copyright status. JeremyA 21:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Early Christianity image
Then you added this image "Early use of the Ankh mdified slightly to Christian symbol 280.C.E. in 3D" you gave it this description. That has just been changed. Did you have particular supportable reason for such a description. Perhaps you could support your case on the article talk page. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Creeping Terror
I saw that you posted some information about the production of The Creeping Terror (1964). I was wondering what your source was and what other information you might have. gaira69@hotmail.com Gaira 08:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush
Your addition in Movement to impeach George W. Bush has been moved to the discussion page of the entry. Terjen 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

35mm film: "Recent proposed innovations in pull-down specifications"
I was interested to read your piece under the above heading because I can find no information on the system you describe. Can you say who is proposing this system? Or whether it has yet been used commercially?

I have to say that the use of 6-perf pull-down does seem to me to be an unnatractive option for exhibitors as it means a substantial alteration to existing projection equipment, particularly if they need to show both standard 4-perf films and 6-perf on the same projectors. By comparison the (4-perf) Technicolor 35mm 3D system only requires swapping the normal anamorphic lens for the special technicolor 3D one.

Nor do I accept your claims about the supposed advantages of 6-perf for 2D use. The increase in frame area is only 50% over a normal 4-perf frame, whilst 70mm offers almost 3 times the frame area of 35mm anamorphic. In addition the aspect ratio of 6-perf 2D would require a non-standard 3:1 anamorphic lens to produce a normal 2.40:1 picture. Thus horizontal resolution would actually be no better than with a 4-perf pull-down and a 2:1 anamorphic.

Davidlooser (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Davidlooser
Hi, the basic advantage of six perf was demonstrated with great success many years ago in the form of Cinerama and Cine-miracle modified projectors for curved giant 3 screen projection. The modern 3D use was developed by Chris Condon, who last year received a life commendation award by the new Stereoscopic Foundation. he was the President of Stereovision 3D, in S. California for decades. Sadly, he passed away around the first of the year. While he was alive, he and other well know stereo cinema professionals built a 6 perf stereo taking lens, of very high quality, and shot Mitchell NC camera tests of which I have a obtained a good print. In addition I have run the first reel (center panel) of "How the West was Won" on his prototype projector. Subsequently, that Cinerama Century Projector, was "cloned" to re-engineer a much more modern Century unit, by a very well know cinema re-furbishing company in S. California. The system uses DTS sound, so there is no optical sound track, and the 6 perf is full frame. Most films are in fact, run in spherical optic 1.85 to 1 (FLAT). The Full six perf is 2.65 times as big as that in area.If you use a 2x FLAT anamorphic on that frame you get almost 2 to 1 aspect ratio, and since anamorphic lenses degrade on only the horizontal axis, the visible image remains very clear. With HD TV being 16x9 (!.72 to 1) few digital or film features will be in the old style wide 2.4 to 1 you have referred to. The physical area that can be displayed on screen is actually 5.3 times as big as the cropped 4 perf ( effective 3 perf) image, with a sound track, likewise, narrowing the width. Since the new design projectors are completely rebuilt, and updated and can use larger optics, in drive-ins and historical movie palaces, they will allow digitally restored prints of classic 2D films such as "Lawrence of Arabia" to show very impressively in revival for festivals. The projectors (hopefully) are going to cost under $14,000 with a whole compliment of lenses, and could even be used for a kind of "Baby Imax" for 300 viewers if that company wanted to display their big square 2D format in a smallish venue.These low cost machines will only run 6 perf, either 3D, square large format, or wide anamorphic 2 to 1 flat. They weigh in at about 160 lbs, for the Projector head & DTS sound, so are easily moved with the special print from venue to venue. They are likely be used more in less affluent countries than the USA or Canada. I greatly admire 70mm 5 perf, Which was usually 2 to 1, but prints are costly and effectively extinct as a world wide format.Nativeborncal (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. It might be worth adding some of the information above to the 35 mm film article.

Its one thing to offer a new format to the industry, quite another for the industry to actually take-up the offer. Many new formats have been offered over the years, only a few of which have had any significant use. Whilst I can see that there may be a market in third-world countries for a sort of "baby IMAX", I cannot see any interest from the commercial cinema industry in a new, incompatible, film format, especially at this time with the industry in the middle of conversion to digital projection. In 2011 the cinema industry needs a new, incompatible, film format like it needs a hole in the head!

I also disagree with you that "few digital or film features will be in the old style wide 2.4 to 1 you have referred to". On the contrary in recent years there seems to have been an increase in the popularity of this "scope" ratio, we are now getting about twice as many current release features in "scope" as in the 1.85:1 "flat" ratio.

Davidlooser (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mexico – United States barrier
After six years I'd expect you'd be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and norms. Poorly written, unsourced claims are not what Wikipedia is about. I have no objection to including the viewpoint you're expressing, but it has to have verifiable sources. You should also pay more attention to the basics of grammar and punctuation.  Will Beback   talk    10:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morion (helmet), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coronado and De Soto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)