User talk:Dbenbenn/archive1

User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu and Category:Stock.xchng photographs

Hi Aurevilly,

I like your analysis at User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu; thanks for writing that. There's only one point I disagree with. At the end, you conclude that Category:Stock.xchng photographs should be deleted.

I'm the one who created that category. The reason I did it was not to keep stock.xchng images from being used. Indeed, I'm the uploader of three of the images in that category. Instead, I simply thought it would be useful to have image source categories. We have topic, type, author, and licence categories; why not source categories too?

Cheers, Dbenbenn 07:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I've launched a vote on the topic : Commons:Stock.xchng images/vote. I rearranged the end of the analysis to explain better why categorization of Stock.xchng material should be avoided. Cheers :) villy 09:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

Hi Jan,

I reverted your changes to Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpg, and instead uploaded your version as Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpeg. It's usually a bad idea to overwrite an image that someone else uploaded, especially here since we can't tell which projects even use it. And anyway, there's no reason not to have both pictures here!

By the way, the link you provided to the Library of Congress doesn't work, and I was unable to find the picture there. Perhaps you could find it again and provide more information at Image:Alexander Graham Bell.jpeg?

Thanks, Dbenbenn 17:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I accidently overwrote the image. I already notified the original uploader, and he did not have a problem with it. Nevertheless, I agree, this is the best solution. Jan Arkesteijn 21:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Licences

Well... hello. I created an account here. But of course you already knew that, since you saw the images I uploaded: Image:Regular space.png and Image:Normal space.png. And that's the reason for my message: why did you change the licence tags the images had? If you check, you'll notice those were the tags on the previous images, en:Image:Regular.gif and en:Image:Normalspace.gif (if they haven't yet been deleted). --Fibonacci 01:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Fibonacci! If you check the history of en:Image:Normalspace.gif, you'll see that en:User:Toby Bartels, the author, didn't tag it as GFDL. And at Image:Normalspace.gif you'll see he specified "No rights reserved". I happen to know from talking to him in the past that he means {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, and not {{PD}}. See Image talk:Separation axioms.png for a slightly related discussion.

Similarly, Toby wasn't the one who tagged en:Image:Regular.gif as PD.

Of course, it's a pretty academic difference. Dbenbenn 01:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen the histories of the images. --Fibonacci 13:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In case there's any doubt, here's an official statement from the author: None of my works are public domain (unless they'd have been PD anyway regardless of my wishes), but they are all free for any use. -- Toby Bartels 21:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg

Hi David. Since you accidentally deleted Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg, perhaps you could undelete the image description page. That way those of us who have edited it will be reinstated to the history, as is required by the GFDL. Thanks, Dbenbenn 03:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary — I re-uploaded the image, and put the description back. David.Monniaux 08:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we should delete Sylvia Saint again. The picture is GFDL; the image description page is essentially a quote of Jimbo Wales saying that the picture is GFDL, and as such is not really a creation by those who wrote it... David.Monniaux 08:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I said "undelete", not "delete"! I want my contributions to the image description page to be properly attributed to me. As it currently stands, it appears that you wrote all that text yourself. Please click the "Restore!" button at Special:Undelete/Image:Sylvia Saint 001.jpg. Thanks. Dbenbenn 18:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paddy. I notice you protected Bomis, with the comment "empty and cannot be deleted". I recommend you replace the content with {{Pending deletion}}. Cheers, Dbenbenn 18:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We had a talk about the bomis pictures in the IRC because the article was marked for speedy deletion. So we asked Jimbo. It is funny, that he did not remember the Sylvia Saint foto though. Since the pictures have all been deleted I tried to delete the article too. Later I found out that the Sylvia Saint foto was OK. So I restored the article of the foto. I put the pictiure in the bomis article and must have forgotten to unprotect the article. Sorry. --Paddy 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

Hi villy. I wish you hadn't deleted Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg prematurely. I was in the process of transferring information to en:Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, where the image will be kept. Could you please undelete the image description page (temporarily!)? Alas, it appears from Special:Log/Delete that there were two revisions; but that information is lost now. Anyway, I want to know who originally uploaded the photo, and what their comments were about how they lightened it. Thanks, Dbenbenn 20:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I've restored the image description page of Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. Please tell me when you're done with the information you needed. Cheers. villy 06:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm done with it now. Dbenbenn 18:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

India location map

Hi, since you were last to edit the image:IndiaLocation.png map, I am contacting you. The map is an POV and we would like it to be as neutral as possible. Could you modify the image so that it becomes as NPOV as possible? Please see the India page maps on the Kashmir region. Thanks. Nichalp 20:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp. I don't know what POV you're referring to. I'd be happy to redo the map if you indicate what changes are needed exactly. Could you provide a link to wherever the discussion is happening? Thanks, Dbenbenn 20:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg

Hi Wgfinley. Thanks for fixing up the copyright issues with "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima". I have one nitpick: you tagged Image:Marked-ap-letter.jpg as {{GFDL-self}}. Don't you think that image is copyrighted by the AP? They wrote the text and created the layout, not you. Though I admit I don't know how copyright interacts with the fact that they sent it to you as a fax. Dbenbenn 20:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message (I haven't logged on Commons for a bit). Since the letter was addressed to me it becomes my property, so, I think that GFDL would apply but if you have other info I would be happy to get the tag correct if I misunderstand it.

--Wgfinley 18:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separation axioms.png PD?

w:en:User:Quadell claimed (here) that Image:Separation axioms.png was pure information and therefore ineligible for copyright. So you should have removed the {{PD}} tag only because you disagreed with that judgement. (IOW, not for the same reason that you removed the tag from other images that I authored, as mentioned in #Licences.) Note that I'm not disagreeing with you (nor agreeing either) about whether the image is eligible for copyright; I just wanted to clarify your intent. -- Toby Bartels 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether the image is copyrightable or not. If not, then it is in the public domain regardless of what tag it has. But if it is copyrightable, then we both prefer to release it as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. That's why I removed the tag.

To put it another way, the tag should specify the author's intent, and not depend on reasoning about copyright law. It isn't our responsibility to make that kind of legal analysis. For example, check out Image:Complete graph K1.png, which I multi-licensed. ;) Dbenbenn 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Founders' Copyright

You write on your user page that you intend your copyrights to expire in 28 years, but you don't seem to take any steps to ensure that they do. Have you considered the Founders' Copyright, a licence from Creative Commons? -- Toby Bartels 22:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, in 28 years I'll go through and re-tag all my contributions! Thanks for the link, though I don't think it's "Right For Me", since it requires an application process. Dbenbenn 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin proposal

You have been proposed here to be an admin on the Commons by Quadell. I've noticed you didn't express you agreement to this offer. Could you please mention there if you accept the nomination or decline it? Thanks. villy 08:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Congratulations! You are now an admin here on Commons. villy ♦ ✎ 16:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice deletion

Hi Roger. On March 28, you deleted Image:Rice 5x7 300dpi 8bit.jpg with the reason "duplicate". What was the image a duplicate of? It doesn't appear to have been listed on Commons:Deletion requests. And you didn't replace the image at Condoleezza Rice with the new title. Thanks, Dbenbenn 07:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please? Dbenbenn 02:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello? If you do not respond in a couple days, I'll have to ask for others' opinions at the Village pump, I guess. Dbenbenn 19:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry I didn't response faster, thought I had already done this ;) IIRC the deleted image is a duplicate of Official portrait of National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice. If this is not true, I'd ask you to show me the image again, there was a speedy deletion request with the image. Was the license free? Everything fine? :) --Roger Zenner -!- 10:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. The portrait at [1] is similar, but not the same. And according to Special:Undelete/Image:Rice 5x7 300dpi 8bit.jpg, the image was never tagged for speedy deletion. I'll go ahead and upload the portrait soonish. Alas, the version that User:Srbauer uploaded was tweaked a bit from the version at state.gov—his improvements are now lost. Dbenbenn 14:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Vatican City.png

This one is more accurate, since the color of the hoist side is yellow, not gold. A user pointed that out to me. Also, is the sourcing that I provided good enough for the image to be on the Commons? Thanks. Zscout370 (sound off) 15:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The information you provided is good (I just noticed I accidentally remove it before; restored now!). The only question is what the copyright status is of the coat of arms you used. If you could find out more about that and write whatever you learn at Image:Flag of Vatican City.png it would be helpful. Thanks! Dbenbenn 15:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I did find this:"[Flag drawings © The Flag Institute & Graham Bartram; Drawing animated flag © Pascal Gross; Drawing coat of arms of the Holy See © Mario Fabretto]." All three draw for the Flags of the World website, but there is no way the coat of arms have been drawn by Mario and I did not see an animated image on the website. Zscout370 (sound off) 15:53, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The copyright claims at The Flag Institute and the Flags of the World site are bogus, since they didn't actually create the design. Having thought about it some more, I'd say the coat of arms is very likely public domain due to age (assuming it hasn't changed in a while!). It's the kind of thing that tends to be difficult to track down. If I were you I wouldn't worry about it too much. Dbenbenn 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Airplane pushing vehicle.jpg

Hello Dave! You (or someone else) are asking for a name or an article containing information about this paritcular type of vehicle. There's one in the German Wikipedia called w:de:Pushback about the services performed by a so called "Flugzeugschlepper". I think this does exactly meet the description given for your image. So the action of such cars may be called "pushback" in German as well, since English is the lingua franca in the business of flying.

One might create a corresponding English article about it, calling the action "pushback" and using a name like "(airplane) pushback vehicle" for the cars doing that job. This is more or less the way I would translate the German word "Flugzeugschlepper". But I don't know if there's an exact English utterance, perhaps in a kind of specified language used by pilots or workers at airports. —141.53.194.251 20:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Dbenbenn 11:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hi Trexer. You marked Image:Wappen-oberberg-kr.jpg and Image:Wappenwiehl.JPG for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, the replacements you made, Image:Wappen-oberberg-k.png and Image:Wappenwiehl.png, aren't anti-aliased. Perhaps you could provide cleaner, better looking versions? Thanks, Dbenbenn 15:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dbenbenn. Sorry but I'm not able to fix this. Can you tell me how to do it? Thank you! --Trexer 21:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter. Possibly someone else will come along eventually to fix the jagginess. Dbenbenn 15:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Honey comb.jpg,

Hi Dbenbenn~

I'm sorry I can not use this system very well.

About the picture, I got it form Japanese Wikipedia and upload use for Chinese Wikipedia, and it said got from English Wikipedia, the word "英語版より。蜂の巣の画像。"

and I saw the English Wikipedia and it's said "Taken by fir0002".

That's all infomation for this picture I can find. --SEVEN 11:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that to the image description page! Dbenbenn 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll to do my best.--SEVEN 17:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Vicia cracca

Hi Dbenbenn! So I have to make a second attempt in Commons:Deletion_requests#Vicia cracca. Best wishes --Franz Xaver 00:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Stamp scanning

Unless you know more about philately than I do, you should have asked me, or used the talk page, instead of simply deleting my wording in Category:Stamps. I could easily be setting all the records for commons file sizes just by scanning a large cover at 2400dpi, but it's simply pointless; there is no additional information to be had. Stan Shebs 13:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stan. Please note that being bold is considered a virtue here. The edit that I made was not at all out of the ordinary. As for "setting all the records for commons file sizes", this is impossible: there is an 8 megabyte size limit, and there are lots of 8 megabyte images already. Also, please see Commons:Criteria for inclusion which indicates that images should be uploaded at the "highest resolution available". Cheers, Dbenbenn 19:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Simply deleting knowledgeable people's carefully-worded advice, and replacing with bad advice, is not considered a virtue at all however. An 8.5 x 11 cover scanned at 2400dpi is 1.5GB in raw form, so somebody following your "bold" advice would quickly run afoul of the 8MB upload limit. I'm amenable to discussion of recommendations, which I added because so many people were uploading tiny scans, however there is no point in me writing a better recommendation if you're just going to mindlessly delete it every time. Stan Shebs 02:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point about large scans going over the upload limit; I updated the text at Category:Stamps to reflect that.

I don't understand why you think I'm "going to mindlessly delete it every time". I modified some text that you had written; that's how Wikipedia works. Dbenbenn 03:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain you know full well that deleting is not just "modifying some text" - try deleting half of a policy page on en:, see how many minutes before it's reverted, you're desysopped, and sent up in front of the AC for vandalism. So please don't insult my intelligence by lecturing me on "how Wikipedia works"; it's going to be a long time before you've contributed as much to WP as I have. Since this "discussion" is going nowhere, I'm just going to do my thing, and revert your edits as I see fit. Stan Shebs 06:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith, Stan. This conversation might have been more pleasant for both of us if you had done that from the beginning. I honestly don't understand why you are so unhappy with me. Anyway, if we bump into each other in the future, I hope it works out better. Dbenbenn 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Things will work out better if you lecture less and listen more. Stan Shebs 05:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Pictures with a rotation in Wiki

You tagged Image:Sonne hinter Pflanze.jpg for deletion, saying "this is on wiki commons 2 times". What is the other version of the photo? Thanks, Dbenbenn 01:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Look at Category:Ranunculaceae down to the pictures there it is 2 times. i think one is enough. i dont know why it happens, but we dont need it 2 times.

Do you know how pictures can be rotated (some are with a rotation to the left or right at wiki) is there a posibity on wiki without copy and rotate and reload? --BotBln 10:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you click on the two copies of the image in Category:Ranunculaceae, you'll see they both have the same title. The image merely appears twice in the category. It looks like a software bug; eventually it should resolve itself.

You have to download the image and rotate it yourself; the MediaWiki software doesn't support modifying images in place. Please see this list of software that can do "lossless" jpeg rotation. Or if you want to give me the image titles, I'll be happy to rotate them for you. (Please leave your note at User talk:Dbenbenn so I see you've replied.) Dbenbenn 21:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your Infos. Pictures with a rotation to left or right in Wiki. There a several hundret Plant pics at wiki with a rotation - i dont know why its happens - while upload or does those users upload their pics with that rotation. anyway with that rotation those pics cant be used for a wiki-article and for that those pics are useless and waste space. i know how to rotate them after downloading - problem is those (old) pics are still on wiki - and if you upload them with the new rotation those pics are there with the name of the user who upload them newly (my or your name and not with the original users names). you have to give the original info to the pic. lot of work. or do you know a better way? By the way a little tool for that rotaion of pics in wiki would be really helpfull. But i dont know where i have to ask wiki specialist for that. Greetings from Germany --BotBln 11:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It isn't as much work as you think. Just download the image (make sure to get the complete image, not just a thumbnail), rotate it, then re-upload it with the same name, and an upload summary like "rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise". The original uploader's name is still there, and all the info they gave; you don't have to add anything more.

If you leave a request (with links) on Commons:Village pump, perhaps others will help out rotating those hundreds of plant pics. Dbenbenn 15:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg

Done. :) Thanks for your info and sorry for the Helsinki pic - I must have forgotten about it. Greetings, Aegis Maelstrom 10:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Dbenbenn 22:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

renaming, moving

Hi Andreas. When you want to rename a page (Creator:Michelangelo Caravaggio to Creator:Caravaggio) please simply use the "move" tab, instead of copying the content. Thanks, Dbenbenn 04:10, 30. Mai 2005 (CEST) (User:Dbenbenn).

Sorry, of course you're right... I don't know why I didn't think of that basic wikimedia principle in these two instances. Maybe because the creator namespace is such a novelty... --AndreasPraefcke 06:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Germany flag 300.png

Hi! just note that I left reply to your question in Image talk:Germany flag 300.png. It's interesting topic and it would be good to get some consensus/"policy" out of it --TarmoK 08:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Direct Media images

Hey, I saw you removed some of the information from the Direct Media images... I do agree that some of it is overkill (like the creator box on each images), however, I think some of the information... like where it is stored, its dates, etc are all useful... I reverted Image:Hieronymus Bosch 023.jpg then realized I shouldn't do anymore because we should solve since revert wars are no good. Most of these pictures will not have EN wikipedia pages, let alone AR, or RO, or any of the other numerous languages so this may be the only way that people who see the artist page and its link to the commons can get their descriptive information. There should be no image analysis on the commons but its locations, dates, do have a place here I believe.... actually as I am writing this I changed that image... I think the format of:

• Pertinent information
• Copyright tag
• {{Painter template
• categories

is a reasonable way to deal with this... and we can get rid of the creator template because that is overkill on each image. However, I strongly suggest reaching a concensus on the direct media talk page before we change these since this is a project Eloquence and many others have been working on... fair enough? gren 21:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about revert wars. Thanks for being so considerate!

In this particular case, there is Category:The Garden of Earthly Delights, which is where I feel any information about the painting should be consolidated. For English speakers, a link from the category to w:The Garden of Earthly Delights should suffice, though I agree that other solutions for other languages is appropriate.

Perhaps a note on the image description page, "See Category:The Garden of Earthly Delights for more information." would make that clearer?

I don't think I have the stamina to work on the other Direct Media images; I agree that it's something that should be discussed before making sweeping changes. Dbenbenn 22:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the Garden of Earhly Delights adding the basic image information to the category would be fine. As long as it's relatively easy for people to find so they can translate it for their wikipedias or for whatever use. I don't believe you should have to go to a wikipedia to get basic descriptive information though. I'm sure this will get discussed on the Direct Media page so we can see what Eloquence and the others agree on. gren 09:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

300px height

Hi Sanbec. I keep seeing references to flags being "300px height unified for the national flags serie". I don't understand why these flags all have to be 300 pixels high. Could you explain that, or point me to somewhere where it's explained? Thanks a lot, Dbenbenn 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember where I read that the 300px height flags were preferred at en:

You can question it to Marc Mongenet, he made the flag serie.

I think is a excellent idea to have a flag's serie unified. Why the 300px height? Why not?

I only known that this serie is the unique unified serie.

Regards, Sanbec ✉ 08:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see also Commons:Deletion requests/Archives01#Flag images by user:Marc Mongenet He gives very good points why 300px is good size --TarmoK 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any multiple of 300 is good for the same reasons: lots of factors. Dbenbenn 17:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

factors are only one benefit. Other ones are mentioned there + I have pointed out these also in our previous "conversations" (Image talk:Germany flag 300.png and Image talk:LocationIndia.png) --TarmoK 08:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

A million thanks for switching my mixed up source information. BrokenSegue 02:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original pictures

Hi WB. If you still have the original, un-edited versions of Image:GEBuilding.jpg and Image:Pentium MMX.png, it would be wonderful if you could upload them. Thanks, Dbenbenn 05:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure I could, but can I ask you why? thanks, WB 23:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps someone would want to modify the picture differently, or compare the two versions to see how you changed it.

By the way, in case you don't already know: you can just upload the original with the same name. Then you can restore the first version by clicking on the "rev" link in the "Image history".

Also, I see your camera can go as high as 2304x1728 resolution. Higher resolution is always appreciated here! Dbenbenn 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I usually just take pictures in low resolution because I like to save memory space. I will. I will also upload the originals. But in a different name because the modified one is already being used in several Wikipedia articles. WB 04:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to use a different name. You currently have the modified version at GEBuilding.jpg. If you upload the original version with the same name, and then immediately click the "rev" link (which will appear next to the modified version in the "Image history"), you'll still have the modified version as the "live" version that appears in articles. Dbenbenn 05:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will do that as soon as I get some time off. WB 22:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Done (at least the GE building one). The picture's lighter and it has higher quality than the editted one. So, I'll keep the non-editted one. WB 06:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PNG and JPG

Hi Fito. I'm curious why you uploaded both Image:ChichenItza-Dic2004.png and Image:ChichenItza-Dic2004.jpg. The PNG version is higher resolution; is that the original version? Do you have a digital camera, or did you digitize the photo with a scanner? Thanks, Dbenbenn 02:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the PNG file is the original one.--Fito hg 20:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)