Hello, BQZ. I noted some suggestions that you made on the NYS talk page (I am honoring his/her request that I not post there). Please note, as described here, that Harold Pinter is currently undergoing a major revision, as described there, and so it would be great if everyone could hold off on commenting on the article until the new draft is up (scheduled for Wednesday night) and until we have a couple of additional days to fine tune it. The new draft will solve many of the problems that the peer review commenters had, and we have asked, on the HP talk page, for NYS (and everyone else) to kindly give us a few days to get the new draft up and running, and then comments to the new draft will be welcome, certainly by this weekend. Believe me, we are very hard at work on it, and we believe that we are on schedule to unveil it on Wednesday, and then we'll need to tweak it online for a couple days. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Ssilvers knows (as archived in my talk page archive 26), Ssilvers asked me not to comment on the article on his talk page in my reply to him there about a related matter, and I replied to him that I routinely ask the same courtesy of all users on my own talk page. See User:NYScholar (talk page header--"N.B.") But I have been asked not to comment at all on the talk page of the article, and I have not done that since the beginning of the ongoing disputes filed by Ssilvers and Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) at AN/I and all over the place. (cont.)
User:Wingspeed made the changes in the article despite Ssilvers' request above. I've posted the June 27th version in my Sandbox (pursuant to Tim riley posting an earlier version in his sandbox) so that people working so hard on this article offline can refer to its earlier version online easily if such changes as Wingspeed's introduce errors. (Please see my sandbox note at top about that.)
I've already clearly enough stated that I am not editing the article. But when other editors are not respecting Ssilvers' request and are changing the June 27th version anyway, they are the ones creating problems.
The comment that I made simply points that out. I have no desire to edit the article while it is in progress (and I have stated that many times now), and I have fully respected Ssilvers' request that I not do so. I would suggest that Ssilvers' post the same request on the talk pages of all the other editors disregarding it.
To repeat my request already stated many times: I reiterate my request that no one take comments that I post on my talk page or on talk pages of my mentor or elsewhere and copy them into the talk pages of Harold Pinter and other articles and Wikipedia space. If needed, one can link to them. The continual quoting out of context of my words from other contexts completely disrespects and disregards the notice in my talkpage header. Thank you.
Please see the comments about this clearly stated in User talk:NYScholar#Speaking for myself (link will remain active prior to bot archiving; otherwise one will need to check the archive). (Despite the fact that there is ongoing discussion about parts of Talk:Harold Pinter, User:Jezhotwells archived those parts, so that one must now go to the archive of that article to read the results of the RfC and related matters. I updated the link in the "ban" discussion due to that.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the current editors want other editors to restrain from commenting on and making changes to Harold Pinter, they need to restore the version that they are working on and to add the relevant templates to the article (e.g., {{in use}} or (as applicable) {{underconstruction}} and/or request full or semi-protection status for the article; there are procedures in Wikipedia editing policies to follow that may aid them in their endeavors. --NYScholar (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NYS, don't worry: As you know, there is an "update" notice at Talk:Harold Pinter#Referencing and style transition asking everyone to be patient. The small number of edits in the past few days will not be a problem. I originally addressed the comment to you specifically because you have been the most active editor of the article. Templates are not necessary yet. Once the new version is up, we will add a template while we stabilize it. The only purpose for my notice here was to alert BQZ to this request so that he knows about it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All, thanks for the updates. It sounds as if we can reach a simple consensus here. Good luck. I'll stay out of the way, unless asked to contribute. — BQZip01 —talk00:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PD#Fonts. Just because they're letters, doesn't mean that they are in the public domain. If they were in a standard font- yes. If they have been stylised, like these two- no. Claiming a load of images that clearly are not PD to be so is not a solution to this issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to reread that. Are you saying to me that, for instance, this is uncopyrightable? That page talks about typefaces, not letters. These images are not part of typefaces, they are pictures based on letters. J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably your question has to do with the user with a singular obsession over the meaning of "BQ" on that one page. He made the mistake (?) of editing under an IP, so that might help expose him. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:KonKukUniv Logo2.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Are'n you watching the pages of various universities???
I have orphaned the images because they were adding little to the page. Just because the logos exist, there's no reason to use them. Non-free content is used only as a last restort, so we only use it when it is truly adding a lot of the article, as per the non-free content criteria. I am really finding it difficult reading your messages. Again, I reccomend you contribute to the Wikipedia in your first language, rather than here. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I know all of what you are talking about.
On the other hand, I want to ask you for just one.
Please answer me.
* Can you make clear the difference between "PrincetonShield.png" and "Princeton U logotype.png" at Princeton University ????
* Can you make clear the difference between "Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg" and "Harvard University Logo.PNG" at Harvard University ????
We are not talking about those other pages, we are talking about this one. A single logo is fine, but if you want to start adding more, you're going to have to justify why these additional logos are so important. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No it's really in same theme.
I think that the difference between "KonKukUniv Logo1.jpg" and "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg" at Konkuk University, is equal to the difference between "PrincetonShield.png" and "Princeton U logotype.png" at Princeton University, is equal to the difference between "Harvard Wreath Logo 1.svg" and "Harvard University Logo.PNG" at Harvard University.
How do you think about this ???
It is the necessity of "KonKukUniv Logo2.jpg" existence.
I fail to see what the logos are adding to the article. Please read the non-free content criteria. Non-free images may only be used if they significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic- these random additional logos do not increase understanding or add much to the article at all. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)"
I had somehow missed the fact they already did a sweep. Anyway, all of them are blocked now, including the one who demanded to see the evidence (a typical sockpuppet ploy that's always ignored), and hopefully he's gone for good, or at least for awhile. As to the age of the various accounts, sometimes they label the "wrong one" as the puppetmaster, but it doesn't really matter, as they're all just incarnations of each other. I think that happened with User:ItsLassieTime, one of the more prolific puppetmasters I've seen, and I'm not sure yet which of its accounts was the "original" account. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots07:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well perhaps you could write them yourself then. I tried, even though I think it is totally pointless, and to me those all seemed to fit the descriptions on the WP:ALT page. Gran216:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Buffs. You have new messages at Talk:BQ. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Started replying over there, realized it was more appropriate here. (and thanks for going, whether it's over there or somewhere closer).
(pasted) I know you'll be gone, BQZ. Know that I'll try to keep an eye on it, and Bugs will use his sock-sniffing abilities to find any issues. Don't worry about that- and I'll look forward to seeing the new BQ page on your return. tedder (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly... you should be back editing anytime now. Just wanted to be one of the first to welcome you back to these pages. Hope the training was not too rough. Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there is some more indepth looks at whether or not the collegiate logos are actually able to have a {{PD-textlogo}} copyright which is being discussed, in full, at WP:ANI#BillTunell and userboxes. Some of the logos that you (and other users) retagged as PD-textlogo probably have an amount of originality in them that would allow for a level of copyright identity. I know that File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg, which you personally tagged as PD-textlogo is not comprised of a simple font or simple geometric shapes. If you would like to discuss the retagging, Zscout370 has been heading the reinvestigation of the copyright tags on your subpage (as he originally retagged the TA&M logo as not PD-textlogo).
For now, it is best to err on the side of caution with the use of the images in the userboxes. They may or may not actually be free to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one was my bad. I mistook the labeled image for a different one (without looking exactly at which one it was); I noted that on a simple change thereafter.
Ryulong, these images have been discussed over and over. "Playing it safe" by removing the work of others causes more work. There is no legal danger here as they are indeed PD images. A stylized "V" is still a "V" with ornamentation (explicitly mentioned by the US copyright office as not eligible for copyright protection). This doesn't make the image unprotected as the General Disclaimers of Wikipedia explicitly mention how to treat such images. I invite you to read User:Elcobbola/Copyright.
Excerpts:
"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:
"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."[1]
It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".
Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:
"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."[2]
The United States Copyright Office sets forth:
"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"[3]
There appears to be a misconception on Wikipedia and the Commons that only standard/publicly-available/etc typefaces (e.g. Times New Roman font, Verdana font, etc.) are ineligible for copyright protection. There is no support for this belief. If text falls within the definition of typeface above, it is generally not considered eligible for copyright; no consideration is given to prevalence or dispensation. — BQZip01 —talk07:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessarily an issue with what font is being used but the fact that these images may not be simple letters or shapes. Users more savvy in the use of image copyrights on Wikipedia than I am are looking into the various collegiate sports logos that have been labeled as PD-textlogo by you and others. They decided that these were unfree, but a more centralized discussion should take place than the thread on ANI (which was not the one you initially replied to). The level of ornamentation of the V for Villanova and the T, A, and M for the Texas A&M logos may mean they are copyrighted, and until that is decided, the userboxes (which aren't that important) could live without the images. I'm sure that if you discussed it with the others a better conclusion will be found.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were a handful of reverts performed. However, they are still in a gray area. You are to tell me that File:CrimsonTideAlogo.png, File:Texas AMU logo.png, and File:VillanovaWildcats.png are not unique enough from the mere text used, despite the stylization, multiple colors, multiple geometric shapes, and combinations of type faces used to represent the entities? I can understand that File:Target logo.svg is considered only trademarked and not copyrighted (the symbol and text are not unique enough on their own in my opinion), but there is certainly more complexity in the three images I have listed above.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. However, why I am saying that is far more important:
From the United States Copyright Office United States Copyright Office: "...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]."; neither are geometric shapes (explicitly mentioned in law).
Crimson Tide Logo: is composed of letters from two different fonts (despite any typographic ornamentation) and circles
Texas A&M Logo: is strictly 3 letters
Villanova's: is either a "V" with an outline and two lines drawn on it or a "stylized" V.
In any case, all of these meet the criteria for inclusion as images ineligible for copyright. To be clear, this is not to say that there aren't restrictions on usage of these images; they are trademarks after all. Wikipedia recognizes this and explicitly states it: Wikipedia:General_Disclaimer#Trademarks. — BQZip01 —talk15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both need to read up on "threshold of originality". Clearly, somewhere, someone has come up with the completely inaccurate idea that any combination of basic geometric shapes and text cannot be copyrighted. I'm not sure where that came from, but it's wrong. Otherwise, such logos as McDonalds would be uncopyrightable, and I think McDonald's might disagree with that one. If logos are in a grey area (and I admit there are some that are) then they need to default to non-free. Black Kite22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No, your idea is wrong." isn't an argument, it is merely contradiction. You say it is inaccurate, but don't state why. Then you make the assertion that an entity's legal department wouldn't agree with something that I'm not arguing.
We need to eliminate that "grey area" instead of fighting over it and provide concrete guidance for our users. This "grey area" doesn't need to exist. Refusing to engage in discussion to provide guidance to Wikipedians to eliminate this issue or minimize it for the purposes saying "well, we don't have concrete guidance, so we have to default to the way I want to do it."
I found an interesting article in Time that you might find interesting on Wikipedia. I know it is kind awkward, but I am not exactly sure who to discuss it with other than other Wikipedians. Hoping you are doing well. Enjoy. Oldag07 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I suggest we do a quick revision of the whole article before it appears on the main page--what do you say? I can check the references (i.e. fixing dead links and making sure everything is cited properly). It will appear on the front page on the 29th for us since Wikipedia's time zone is UTC, so we will have to finish everything by then. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do what i can. I honestly don't have much access to the internet on tuesday, but monday evening, i will give it a shot. Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buffs/Archive_8#c-Kookyunii-2009-07-14T08:19:00.000Z-Thanks_for_fixing_the_license_of_"File:KonKukUniv_Logo2.jpg"){kind=link}
