User talk:Cbmeeks

Hi Cbmeeks, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Peddle.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Peddle.gif. 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:

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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Peddle.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Peddle.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Commodore 128 001.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Commodore 128 001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMIGA 500 and open architecture

Hi, feel free to reformulate to clarify, but removal of good sources is not the best option. cheers Shaddim (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?? You think Toms Hardware is a good source? They are flat-out WRONG. How in the world is the open architecture of the Amiga 500 (released in the mid 80's) the FIRST open architecture when you had the open architecture of the Apple II released in the mid 70's?? Apple beat Amiga by 10 years when it comes to "open architecture".

The source is wrong.

cbmeeks 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, the source is not wrong: "one of the first" does not mean "the first". it is your unbacked feeling that 10 years distance is not "close enough". I reformulate, while keeping the reference for open architecture. Shaddim (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! 10 years in the computer industry is a VERY LONG TIME. By your logic, the Amiga was one of the first computers to have COLOR! The Amiga was one of the first computers to have SOUND!

The Apple 1, Apple II, IBM 5150, etc. all had open architectures long before the Amiga. The Amiga is an awesome computer. But you're letting your emotions override the FACTS. It was not the first to have an open architecture. It was not "one of the first". Not even close. cbmeeks 19:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced content. You can challenge the claim and the source, you can provide alternative sources but you must not enter an edit war and keep removing sourced content. This it not how WP works. --Zac67 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back file from Commons - File:Commodore 16 001 (fair use).jpg

Hi there,

Thanks for your photo uploads.

One of your images- File:Commodore_16_001.jpg- which was later moved to Wikimedia Commons by another user- has been transferred back here, to English Wikipedia, albeit at lower resolution.

This is because it's a derivative of (presumed-copyrighted) box art, which isn't permitted at Commons. (Of course, this isn't your fault, as you didn't move it in the first place!)

While we *can* retain such images locally under fair use terms at English Wikipedia, this is generally only at lower resolution. If you want to recover the original version of your file, it should still be here at this Internet Archive copy.

I appreciate this is annoying since you put the effort into taking those photographs (and it was quite a while ago now!), but unfortunately those are the only terms under which we can keep images that are derivatives of copyrighted works.

Ubcule (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; I've had to reduce the resolution of File:TRS-80 Model MC-10 OriginalBox.jpg for similar reasons. The file will remain in use, and this is (hopefully) preferable to it being deleted as some of your other packaging images have been. (Archive copy here).

Ubcule (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbmeeks This makes no sense to me. I would have though having a nice image of historic boxes would have been acceptable. Why would a high resolution image not fall under fair use? I have over 100 vintage computers that I would like to (one day) upload their box art, peripherals and the computers themselves. But if I'm going to have them taken down or replaced with low quality images, then what's the point? cbmeeks 12:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the computers and peripherals themselves are probably fine (and can even be transferred to Commons). The problem is with any box and manual art that features anything more than simple (and non-copyrightable) text. (This one is probably okay since it's just simple text).

These are English Wikipedia's resolution guidelines for "fair use" images and this is a discussion of some of the reasoning behind them. (Note that I wasn't personally involved in creating either of these documents or the guidelines in general).

I don't think anyone is doing this to be unhelpful, it's just that en.wikipedia is supposed to be a freely-licensed encyclopedia and "fair use" of non-free images is meant to be restricted to just that.

I hate to say this, but for these reasons English Wikipedia probably *isn't* a good host for high resolution images of (artistic) box art and manuals. But as I mentioned above, the computers and peripherals themselves would definitely be welcome. Ubcule (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]