User talk:YellowDot

Welcome!

Hello, YellowDot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MUN.png

I upload the image from Uncyclopedia which was uploaded to their system on 21:31, 24 August 2005 by one User:Insertwackynamehere. The image has no Licensing agreement. See for yourself here.Premier Tom Mayfair^Talk_F@HFile:MUN.png 12:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No source image

Image:Broomfield nick.jpg has no source and will be deleted in 7 days. YellowDot 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, although despite the available history, I was not the orignal uploader. There are no undelete logs from that far back but I guess it was user:personaljesus, see contrib. ed g2s • talk 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering

Hello, YellowDot. I'm not aware that Wikipedia policies are retroactive and may be applied to images uploaded back in 2004. Many websites that were active back in 2004 (even if I remembered their urls) simply do not exist today. By the way, I'm quite surprised at the pattern of your behaviour. You logged in yesterday, make no mainspace edits and start wikilayering established wikipedians in a rather confrontational way. You should be aware that such behaviour may be qualified as tag trolling. Although it's clear that you have some experience around (probably under a different account), I find it useful to inform you that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. You are supposed to write articles here, not wikilawyer. If you believe that the photograph of a person who died 150 years ago (for instance, Image:Mikhail_gorchakov.jpg) is not private domain and was taken within last 50 years, you should present some evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim. Otherwise, your wikilayering wastes the time of content contributors and detracts them from writing new articles. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Also pls read the m:Copyright paranoia and find a better use for your time than assaulting the harmless images that certainly endanger the Wikipedia less than their senseless removal. --Irpen 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that undeclared sockpuppets, are generally frown upon. Please reread the WP:SOCK. It is highly unusual for the new user to dive directly into the policy issues rather than start from correcting the articles. This makes a strong impression that this account is either an undeclared sock or a reincarnation. Even if this impression is false, you may easily change the perception of this account being a sock by making edits to the article space. Many articles could use your help. That said, while suspicions about yours' being not a new account are strong, I am not yet prepared to clearly declare it as such. --Irpen 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome. YellowDot 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome for whatever you thank me for, but warmth of welcome is a side issue that we can discuss in our spare time. I simply state the facts. Your first actions on retagging the old harmless images is disruptive in three respects. They endanger the images which by their age or other reasons pose no legal threat to the WP foundation. Some of them were uploaded so long ago, that to dig out the source is now impossible, especially if the site shut down since that time. Second, such actions disrupt the articles illustrated by those images. Illustrations increase the value of the articles by great deal. Third, this disrupts the ability of editors like Ghirla, myself and others to write articles, which (unlike policy debates) is the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia to begin with. That said, no one discounts the importance of keeping the foundation in clear of possible copyright infrignement lawsuites. However, images you choose to tag are clearly harmless. That's what the m:Copyright paranoia addresses. I hope you will switch your efforts to the content creation and you will watch how eager people are to help you with that. --Irpen 18:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is the part about legal threats. You are right that those images pose ca. 0 threat to Wikimedia Foundation. But then there is another part. The one about Wikipedia being clean, organized, reliable, verifiable, and - above all - truly free.

Whatever the case, arguing here is the most pointless thing to do. I suggest spending 5 minutes digging up website URLs or as much info on image authors & images themselves as possible. Then I will go back to cleaning up image mess, you to writing articles, and Ghirlandajo to uploading more pictures (hopefully this time with links already there). Deal? YellowDot 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YellowDot, as it has been explained, many images that you suddenly saw "problematic" were uploaded a while ago. At that time, the treatment of images was rather lax and some users did not bother to paste the source's URL. I agree that sooner or later this needs to be addressed to some extent. However, some earlier existing sites are down by now. Some users left forever. Some images are impossible to "dig" out. Personally, I always add an URL but I can't restore them for old images, especially sourced to the sites that went down in those years. If the image is clearly problematic, sourcing it may help resolve a problem. If the image is clearly harmless, like from the previous century or smth, threatening it with an "unsourced" tag is a disruption. Within days those images get deleted and this is a needless pain. I thoroughly support sourcing images as a general principle. Now, please add writing content to your todo list and feel free to ask for help. --Irpen 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you can. As you said, "sooner or later this needs to be addressed to some extent." So why not now? Later more sites will be down, more users will leave, more memory will be lost. YellowDot 00:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is non-urgent matters of non-threatening images with lost sources will be gradually addressed by sources being added back to them with time. If you tag them with the tags that would lead to immediate deletion, the images may go from Wikipedia forever and the articles will not be illustrated until in some years someone encounters a similar images (perhaps in a better or worse resolution) and uploads it. If you want to police images, concentrate on more urgent problems with copyrighted images threatening Wikipedia. Once you sort them all out and you still have time to deal with the non-threatening ones and if writing content would still not be something you want to do, please proceed with looking for those sources yourself. The value of such labor would be much less than writing content, but at least not negative, like removing useful and harmless images. I repeat that I do understand the copyright concerns and stuff. The difference is between being reasonable and not. Also, it would help the Wiki-climate a whole lot, if one physical person does all her edits from one account. --Irpen 04:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Podocarpus macrophyllus inumaki part.jpg

Hello YellowDot, You queried the copyright status of the image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conifer_cone I explained in detail where the image came from on the image information page. However, let me repeat - the image which I uploaded is an enlargement of part of a Wikimedia commons image which occurs on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podocarpus . I'm a bit puzzled - surely a detail of a Wikimedia image which already has the necessary licence, labels etc, would automatically fall under the same set of licences and labels, or am I just not seeing the bigger picture? Have an excellent day Paul venter 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TaxiCab.jpg

These are both taken from foreign language Wikipedias, as indicated on the image and as such there is no copyright problem (unless you can find a problem on their original version). Since they were taken from WP I have restored the licencse which are correct. TerriersFan 01:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag from USACab since it is not an exact duplicate of Image:DSCN1386.JPG, it is an enhanced version that I spent some time doing. I shall leave it to you to put the appropriate licence on it. TerriersFan 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Book Database Screenshot Copyright

Looks like somebody else already fixed the copyright problem Heavenhelllord 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Pizzitola-Front1.JPG listed for deletion

Ok, I... don't get it, YellowDot. What are you nominating my picutres for deletion for? It says on your listing, "Rhetoric question of the week: why is it that hard to copy and paste an URL an image was taken from?" I take this to mean you think I stole the picture from somewhere.

I DID NOT.

In fact, I live 23.8 miles away from Brown University. (Look at my profile if you don't believe me; I live outside Fall River, Massachusetts and am an alumnus of Providence College.) I took that picture around 2PM on Sunday, the 2nd of July, 2006 for the intent purpose of posting it on Wikipedia. I doubt you will never find a picture of the outside of the Pizzitola Center from anywhere near that angle online. Most every single one I have ever seen online, in fact, come from almost directly in front of the door, some twenty yards closer than where i was.

Yes, that's right. I can even tell you where I was standing. Go to Google Maps, type in "235 Hope St, Providence, RI 02906," and look at the satellite picture. The Pizzitola Center is the rectangular white-roofed building directly next to the round white-roofed Meehan Auditorium. Now, look at the cars in the parking lot below it. I took the picture from roughly the same spot as the two white cars next to the gap in the 2nd double row below the aforementioned buildings.

You leave me no other reason why you believe this is worthy of deletion. If there's another reason, tell me now and we can argue that for whatever the reason is. I take great pride in taking pictures myself of places I visit, and sharing the ones that come out the best on Wikipedia as examples for the places I have been. I find what you are doing extraordinarily rude and believe that it is people like you that bring ridicule to Wikipedia.

ToddC4176 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images with {{no source}} - WARNING

Please do not falsely tag images with a "date" much earlier than the actual date, as you did with Image:ArauzFlowers2.jpg, Image:ArauzFlowers3.jpg, and others. We leave these images untouched for seven days for a reason - so that the uploader has time to include the source information.

Tagging the images today and declaring in the template that they've been tagged since September 30, means that you're no more honest than those who upload celebrity photos and tag them as logos. Deception for any reason, even an ostensibly good one, is still deception. Regards, Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 19:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the history they where originaly tagged on the 30th then some anon reoved the no source tag without adding a source, so Dot here just reinstated the previous tag. I do that myself ocationaly. Please check more closely becore acusing people of acting in bad faith. --Sherool (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sherool, that's exactly what happened. I have seen people reverting {{nsd}} removals to whatever date the tag was originally applied. I figured it would be ok if I did the same. YellowDot 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IFD nominations

Hi, I noticed a number of IFD nominations you added on October 5 were for images that were low-resolution copies of others. Just so you know, those can be speedily deleted by tagging them with {{isd|Example.png}} (replacing "Example.png" with the image filename). Thanks for your help in cleaning up orphaned images. howch e ng {chat} 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Headingley Carnegie.jpg

Perhaps you would take a look at this image and the discussion at Talk:Headingley Stadium. I cannot get a definitive handle on the basis that this image can be added to WP so I should welcome your view. BlueValour 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting this. BlueValour 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Not my intention to vandalize! It was my understanding that low rez images of art were allowed to be uploaded and simply tagged with the art tag. I simply kept reverting them because I noticed it was a BOT that was deleting them.

RE:

Thanks for your help!

Licensing

Hi, YellowDot, I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by your entry in my talk page concerning licensing; if I do not use the license tag, I get an automatic message from WP to include one. What will I have to do? Pommes104 08:28 (CET), 28 November 2006 Sorry, got it, checked the history of the photos, saw what you meant. Cheers