User talk:Kleinhern

Kleinhern, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kleinhern! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Knowing Neurons has been accepted

Knowing Neurons, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TeaDrinker (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

License

This is under an NC license

File:1-s2.0-S0006322319300344-gr2 lrg.jpg

Children with Angelman syndrome (A, red) have greater EEG power than typically developing children (A, black), especially at 2.8 Hz (delta band). This finding appears over all scalp areas (B,C) and all ages (D).

per here [1]

We require an open license. Apologies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Artistic image copyvio

Hi,

I see that you've added some artistic impressions of astronomical objects to their Wikipedia pages. While I appreciate your intent, I do not believe these images are useful/encyclopedic enough to depict these astronomical objects with scientific accuracy, according to the image policy. I have reverted all your recent image additions for insufficient licensing information/copyright violation as well. The image generators you used, Midjourney and SpaceEngine, do not specify a public commercial license that grant permission to be used on Wikimedia Commons spaces, including Wikipedia. Additionally, SpaceEngine's Solar System planet and moon textures were made by other artists, and they must be credited (with permission) as well. As such, I've nominated all of these images for deletion on Commons. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 20:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nrco0e,

Thanks for your editing and for flagging this, it's certainly an important issue regarding licensing and scientific accuracy.

Re:Midjourney, there actually is a commercial license: "Standard License Terms If you are a Paid Member, Midjourney grants to You the rights to deal in the Assets you create without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Assets, subject to the following restrictions:" I created these images with a paid Midjourney subscription, so I do actually have the rights to use them as specified above in the user agreement. I can understand why you have been confused though, AI Art is very new area for copyright law. I'd be happy to send you a full copy of the terms and conditions.

Re: SpaceEngine, I am a bit surprised that posting screenshots doesn't constitute fair use. For example, if I go to the Wikipedia article for Space Engine, there is a screenshot of the game there that is labeled as fair use. So shouldn't it also be permissible to use such screenshots in astronomy articles under fair use? And regarding crediting the specific artists, wouldn't this be like crediting every costume designer and makeup artist if an image from a film is posted? In other words, shouldn't crediting Space Engine also credit the Space Engine artists by proxy?

Re: Scientific accuracy, for Space Engine, the objects that have been imaged by space craft (e.g., Triton by Voyager 2) are based directly on said images and should thus be highly accurate, as this is a realistic astronomy simulation engine. For Kuiper belt objects and exoplanets, of course the images are speculative, but just as much rooted in what we know about the objects as the artistic depictions that are already posted to Wikipedia (or perhaps even more so). For Midjourney AI Art, this is a fair point about accuracy, but I found the image it generated of Sedna to be very similar to the artistic depiction that is already posted to its Wikipedia article, as well as other artistic depictions that are used by NASA ...

Thanks again for starting this valuable exchange and bringing up these important points. I hope to hear from you soon :-)

Best regards,

Kleinhern Kleinhern (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I emailed the creator of Space Engine (Vladimir Romanyuk) asking if screenshots count as fair use and just received this reply:

"Hello! You can use SE freely for educational purposes, such as Wikipedia articles. No copyright claims here, according to SE EULA: https://store.steampowered.com//eula/314650_eula_0

About crediting authors of planet textures, they all originated from NASA obviously. Various authors made a simple work like filling seams, adjusting colors etc. You can find a list of authors on this page (click "Credits"): https://spaceengine.org/manual/license"

I'm happy to forward the email to you if you like. Since this response came from the author, I would consider this to be definitive permission to use the screenshots. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise, if you have no objections, I will revert the changes made to the articles with Space Engine screenshots to reincorporate the images. Thanks! Kleinhern (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kleinhern: Thanks for the response. If the creator of SpaceEngine and Midjourney lincense permits you to publish screenshots on Wikipedia, I suppose you are free to use them there. But I'm more concerned about the practicality and scientific accuracy of these images per se; these images are supposed to help illustrate these astronomical objects after all. I consider SpaceEngine acceptable when it comes to this, but Midjourney not so quite. There's no Wikipedia regulation on AI-generated images, but I personally object to using these kinds of images to illustrate articles since they're vague and generic images that can be easily produced by others.

For SpaceEngine, I believe that screenshots should be warranted for astronomical objects not imaged by spacecraft—using them for a well-known object like Uranus or Neptune wouldn't add much to their articles when we have actual photos. For more complicated cases like Miranda where the entirety of its northern hemisphere has not been imaged, I'd say that's where SpaceEngine screenshots shouldn't be used, as it could give a potentially misleading impression that Miranda's entire surface has been imaged (The empty parts of Miranda's texture were artistically filled out in SE as you know). Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair, I see your point. So just to make sure I understand, you are fine with me using Space Engine screenshots for objects that haven't been imaged by spacecraft: so, mainly, exoplanets, but also some Kuiper belt objects like Makemake?

I understand, you're probably right about AI-generated images, so I'll refrain from using them.

Thanks again for flagging this, it's an important issue, and perhaps in the near future Wikipedia editors can converge on a policy for AI-generated images.

Best,

Kleinhern Kleinhern (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, since I believe we agree now that the Space Engine screenshots can be used for objects that haven't been imaged up close, it would be very helpful to me if you could undo your corresponding edits that removed these images from exoplanets and KBOs. Thank you. Kleinhern (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)