Jump to content

User talk:Madmedea~enwiki/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforce

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Nikah Misyar

Hi, I think Striver can help you with it.--Sa.vakilian 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the heads-up on Tales of Legendia NPCs and Locations. I've proposed it be changed to list rather than an article, similar to List of Warcraft characters. Seems more appropriate. --Bookgrrl holler/looksee 16:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Madmedea. Nice to know I'm not the only newbie around! Thanks for your suggestion. I actually wanted to include an image, as one is available on their website and Template:Infobox_School does provide for an image to be included, but got a bit lost while reading about copyright/license tags, public domain, fair use, rationales and whatnot. I'll give it another shot though at a later stage—preferably after getting some sleep :-)

See you around! —XhantarTalk 14:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I borrowed your rationale from the examples you gave (hopefully it wasn't copyrighted), and uploaded Nsds_logo.png. I now feel less likely of being sued. —XhantarTalk 03:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Spanish political parties

Hi Madmedea. I was just wondering what your thinking was behind removing the italics from the Spanish party names (non-English words are usually italicised) and "un-wikifying" the dates. Without the links to dates everyone has to put up with the same date format. With them, we all see dates as we wish. Am I missing something? Avalon Avalon 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me.
  1. Absolutely no offence taken. I would have thought that a foreign name is still rendered in italics until it becomes a word incorporated into English, like samurai or matador WP:ITALICS.
  2. There are those who prefer the ISO format (about 1% of the world's population?) and if the links are used, they can set their preferences and that's what they get. I prefer day, month, year and that's what I get. I entirely understand about not getting back to this article, I was trying to "clean-up" the August 2006 wikification list and I kept leaving this hoping someone else would do it. It's a pretty dry list.
  3. I'm not trimming the list down. I hoped/assumed whoever was doing that knew something about Spanish politics. I don't.
  4. Well, time to start getting ready for (paid) work.

Ferrill

Of course no objection in the slightest. Especially since I had only an indirect reference to his career at U Wash., AfD is the way to go. You can look, and I can look, but the various people who have already posted on the AfD have found a great deal more than either of us. I'll de-prodd sometimes if it seems uncertain, not because I am sure. I like AfD, within limits. DGG 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to reconsider

Hi Madmedea,

Since you voted early to delete List of bow tie wearers, I've made extensive changes to the article which meet the objections to it. Please take another look and see what you think. Best, Noroton 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PetalsontheWind.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PetalsontheWind.jpg. 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. 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

William Burges

Thanks for your comments. Happy to add citations but will take a little time as I have been adding Burges pieces like crazy since coming across Wikipedia in January. What is wanted? Page references to the books I reference when I include quotations? Should these appear at the end of each paragraph? Excuse my ignorance but whilst knowing a bit about Burges, I know very little about how to edit Wikipedia. KJP1.

Burges again

Please wikify at will. I don't know how to do it properly and would be delighted if you were willing to have a go. If you had a moment, perhaps you would be kind enough to look at the piece on Mordaunt Crook. It says it needs wikifying but I don't know what is wanted. It hardly qualifies as an article, as I know little of the personal/professional life of JMC, and is really just a list of posts and works. But as he is the main, almost the only, authority on Burges, he certainly merits an article and I would be sad to see it deleted because I don't understand what is wanted. Thanks again for your help. KJP1

And again

Love the Burges page. Thanks so much. Will not clog up your messages again, this evening. KJP1

And It's Arsenal Afd

You recently !voted in this Afd. I've just seen one of the other prods was contested, for We all follow the Arsenal and have included it in the Afd and would welcome further comment. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Burges - broken promise

I know I said I wouldn't bother you again tonight but you wikified Mordaunt Crook, for which I am very grateful. A small return - do you know Burges' estate cottages at Forthampton? Nos. 46-47, Bishop's Walk. Not well known, and some debate over the attribution but see them and, if you know Burges, you'll know they are his. Your county, I believe, so maybe a pleasant afternoon. Many thanks.KJP1 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (did I get this right?)

Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject:Biography

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Mocko13 13:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From Acorn's ...

You might want to be more cautious with that link suggestion tool. It changed "hard labor" to work by convicts.

Acorns appear only on adult trees, and thus are often a symbol of patience and the fruition of long, hard labor.

Not quite the original meaning. BTW: What tool is that? Shenme 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Healing temples move

The move seems sensible enough, but there's two other names possible: Dream temples and Egyptian sleep temples. Are you sure sleep temple is best? Just wanted to check before the move. Adam Cuerden talk 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've made the move. Just wanted to check first, as it'd need an administrator to move it on again. (there's already redirects) Adam Cuerden talk 12:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Article origins

Hi there. Me again of the image alignment. I was just googling to see what sources there were available on Lycosura as it was a site I hadn't heard of. I came across this page [1]. I'm assuming that you haven't lifted your text from this page - I'm sure you too smart for that breach of copyright. So I guess (hope) you are the author of the website, and therefore able to freely recycle the material. If you are the author of the website it might be an idea for you to put a post on the talk page of any articles you've copied into wikipedia otherwise it does look like a potential copyright breach. If you're not the author of the other web page.... we have a problem. Madmedea 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That webpage has a "retrieved from Wikipedia" tag at the bottom. There are many sites that get their content from W. You may not be aware, but in the academic community even the insinuation of plagerism is a serious personal attack. I would appreciate more caution in future.--Nefasdicere 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was a wikipedia mirror site as it wasn't one I had come across before. I do understand how serious an accusation of plagiarism is - I'm an academic too - and that is why I was very careful in what I said and didn't just stick a copyvio banner on the page! I'm very keen that everything in wikipedia is properly cited as it would be in an academic publication - which at present that article isn't, although I know you've said you'd address that. I've come across many an article that is a copyright violation so it is something I always look at for, particularly with new users. No offence intended and please remember the Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle. Madmedea 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Hanley

Could you please see my question at Talk:Fiorello!#Ellen Hanley? - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on April Love (Hughes painting), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. John254 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Louisa May Alcott

Saw your message about my edit and would be happy to include the notes, but alas -- I don't know how. If I give you in the info, perhaps you can notate properly?

The NY Times reference is from her 1888 obit: "The parents of the authoress removed to Boston when their daughter was 2 years old, and in Boston and its immediate vicinity she made her home ever after." The obit is dated March 7, 1888. Current link: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1129.html

The Census records from 1850 show Louisa's sister Elizabeth as being 15 years old and born in Massachusetts. (1850 US Census, A. B. Alcott, Boston, Suffolk, MA, 12 Aug 1850). Even NY Times Obits have had errors (as have Census Records) but in this case they seem to agree that the Alcotts were in Massachusetts by 1835 at the latest.

Pre-Raphaelites

Yes, your list is a very good idea. I am intending to create articles on all of the Millais and Hunt paintings listed, and maybe Brown's too! Paul B 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone wants to delete April Love. I'll add some more stuff. Paul B 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

about using the "Edit Summary". I think you're right; even a little summary is better than none, although sometimes when I've made 10 different itty edits, it's hard to come up with anything better than "changed buncha stuff." I've now read the Help:Edit Summary section. Hope your neck is better! Peter Delmonte 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Iliad

I deleted those links because they were a quite subjective (even arbitrary) selection of "important" scenes. The links to the pages are still available from the individual book summaries. --Quadalpha 15:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dionysus amphitheatre...

I had to smile, I've read and edited that so often and never saw the most obvious *blush* --FlammingoHey 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Bayne

Nevermind, I'm silly and didn't see your listing when I looked the first time. I'm very sorry about that. Cheers! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, Texas

I had moved the article planning to do some additional editing to the Beaumont, Texas, article in the near future. If any changes are made, the climate section of the Beaumont, Texas, page needs to be drastically shortened and cleaned up. The climate article is basically a long list of Hurricanes that have hit Corpus Christi. The writing isn't poor, but it does need a separate article.

Deatonjr 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:SeulContreTous.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SeulContreTous.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

your bio assessment of Zinaida Serebriakova

Hi, thanks for your bio assessment of Zinaida Serebriakova. The article is currently illustrated with a self-portrait of the artist, although, I see now, that the caption does not say so. A photo would be a nice addition and I have seen some, however there may be copyright issues. Boris Kustodiev also features a self-portrait.

I noticed that you deleted an external link to a blacklisted spam site from the talk page. A less disruptive way to handle such links on a talk page is to replace them with informative dummy links or enclose them in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. The edit summary can be used to explain what has been done.

--Jtir 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the caption. Could you take a look? --Jtir 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1stBibleCharlesBaldFol011rInitGen.jpg

On my talk page you state "I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." I don't know exactly what you are looking for. This image is a copy of a page from 1100+ year old manuscript. The image description states "Image of folio 11r from the First Bible of Charles the Bald." The manuscript was created by an anonymous monk in the 9th century. I don't know who made the copy, but the image clearly qualifies for {{PD-art}}, which is on the description page. What else are do you want? Dsmdgold 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:0511.jpg

Hi. The user who uploaded Image:0511.jpg seems not to have been active here since October of 2003. I doubt they'll reply within the next 48 hours. It is good that Wikipedia has better criteria of listing sources of images now than it did in 2003. However I have no reason to think the image is a copyright problem, as it is a mechanical reproduction of artwork on a Classic era (more than 1,000 years ago) Maya vase; it is a moderately well known one that I have seen reproduced in more than one book, even if I don't know what particular reproduction the uploader scanned or downloaded it from. I disagree with your reverting my edit and tagging the image to be deleted in 48 hours, but I guess I don't understand your reasoning here. Could you please explain this, or reccomend a useful course of action? Thank you. -- Infrogmation 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(reply moved here from User talk:Infrogmation to consolodate discussion -- Infrogmation 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi, I reverted your edit as the tag shouldn't be removed unless a source has been provided - as is stated on the tag itself. I think the best thing that can be done is 1)to try and find the source of the image by googling and then provide a link to it or 2)leave a note on the talk page of the image for the admin who will review the tag explaining the situation and they will be the one to decide if it gets deleted. I know it may seem like a draconian application of policy in this case but I think its important that ALL images used on Wikipedia meet the criteria of the image policy - I'm for quality not quantity!. At the moment I'm working through all the {{PD-art}} images and transferring them to the Wikimedia Commons as WP:NOT a collection of images. As images without a source aren't eligible on the Commons either if I can't transfer them for this reasons it seems sensible to tag them for the problem they have. Madmedea 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to me that the thousand plus Maya vase IS the source. Thank you for your zeal, but I'm wondering some of it here is not guided in the most useful direction. I'm all for improved quality, but I don't see how quality is improved by deleting images by the likes of Albrecht Durer or ancient artwork when there is clearly no risk of a copyright problem whasoever. Or do you really think there is some copyright problem with using mechanical reproductions of centuries old public domain artwork? I'm going to ask for other opinions on this. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to get another opinion, if I'm doing something wrong I'll stop, I just thought that the policy was quite clear. I think part of developing the quality of wikipedia is in referencing - whether that is in an article or the source of an image. Ultimately, without a source there is no way to tell what an image really represents - no way of checking if it is a Maya vase or a Durer print. I wouldn't accept a fact in an article without a reference source, and for me the same goes for images. Madmedea 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought up the question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and it was pointed out to me that someone else has already brought the matter to discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sources_for_Mona_Lisa.3F. -- Infrogmation 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anightmare

What is the problem? The image is a 2D reproduction of an engraving by someone who has been dead for over a century. The tag says as much. I have a large collection of digital PR images. some of which I scanned, some downloaded. I can't specify the source, but the picture is repru=oduced in a nemerous locations and is out of copyright. Being an engaving, there is not even a single copy, but many. Paul B 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for image

You made me grin with your comment -- I went and read a couple of your recent exchanges before you posted your thank-you note to me just now, since I wanted to understand what the best/right/most efficient response was. So I see what you're talking about. As for pedantry; well, you're following policy, not setting it, so I don't think people need to bite you. I do have a suggestion that may help, though. I think, from reading the note you left me, that the image was not in danger of being deleted; it was not "unsourced and untagged", it was just unsourced. Is that right, or could it have been deleted just for being unsourced? If so, I'm a bit surprised, since I think there's little harm in retaining stuff that is pretty obviously PD-Art without a source, even if you do need that source to go to Commons. But if I'm right, and it was not eligible for deletion, then you might change that language to make it clearer. Actually, change it either way, since evidently I couldn't be sure which way to read it -- I just knew my source so I added it.

If the policy is that yes, it would be deleted without a source, I think I understand the reasoning, but I'd be loath to delete PD-Art stuff just for that reason. The reason for being draconian about image stuff is to manage risk, so I think a bit of leeway for some of these would be OK. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for the pleasant note! Mike Christie (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not sure why you were not notified of this, but there seems to be a lively discussion surrounding your recent image tagging at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Iamunknown 23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

4th Duke of Marlborough

I have no idea at this point where I got the image from, but it's a painting by Joshua Reynolds, who died more than two hundred years ago. Photographs of paintings are not copyrightable in themselves, so the image is clearly in the public domain. You are not seriously going to delete a picture of a 200 year old painting, are you? john k 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Look it up in a book of Joshua Reynolds paintings, for God's sake. It's obviously an 18th century painting. This is outrageous. Don't you have better things to do with your time? john k 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, I see no policy page that indicates anything about having to say what website I got it from. It's a detail from a painting by Joshua Reynolds. Reynolds has been dead for hundreds of years. Photographs of works of art are not eligible for their own copyright. The image is not a problem, and it is not unsourced. It is in the public domain, and is perfectly acceptable to use. john k 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After seeing your most recent response - I still see nothing in policy which would allow you to delete what is obviously a public domain image on the basis that I haven't said what website I got it from. The original source (a Reynolds painting), is quite obvious and easily verified, and the intermediate sources are irrelevant, since they can't convey a copyright. If you want to verify it, a google image search on "4th Duke of Marlborough" should quickly reveal several different websites I may have gotten it from. It is, once again, irrelevant which particular site I may have gotten it from, as all confirm what I have already told you - the image is a photo of a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds. If additional information is required to move it to commons, either find it yourself, or don't move it - I don't care. john k 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'm sorry I got so hot. I think in cases like this, it's better to leave an individual message than a robot template. The latter, which often are not quite appropriate, are fairly close to guaranteed to irk people. It seems fairly clear that the PD status of the image is not in doubt, and that it should thus not be deleted. As I said initially, I couldn't say where I got the image from - a google search reveals a number of possible sources. I definitely got it from the internet, and I'm fairly certain that I cut out the image of the duke from the full family portrait on my own (although I wouldn't swear to it). I'm sorry I can't be more help. I trust that the image won't be deleted? john k 00:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:2LORD-ROSEBERY.gif

Responded to your comment on my talk. seeing the discussion above, I would sat I completely concur with John K. Giano 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Source tag

(you wrote) Thanks for designing the {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} it looks fab - now I can tag images without p****ng everyone off (well not as much anyway). Can I just make one quibble.... you swapped the normal no source tag for the new tag on Image:Hanshaw.jpg in this case as the actress depicted was only born in 1901, and looks about 20 in the picture so doing the mathematics, this particular image is very likely to not be eligible to use the PD-art tag. The new tag is fab but in cases where someone has PD-arted something either blatentely not old or somewhat dodgy I think the original one should still be used. Do you mind if in this case I switch it back? Madmedea 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case I simply tool an image tagged with {{Pd-art}} and {{nosource}} and replaced the combo with my new tag, which i concieve to have the same meaning as the combination of these two tags. If the artwork in question is in fact not in the PD, or likely not, then this tag is inapproperiate, and so is PD-art, and a better tag should be applied. Please also note my new creaton of {{ImageRound-Nosource}} for cases where PD-art was incorrectly placed on an image of a 3-D work of art, as far too often happens. DES (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You make sense, and we could do it that way, but I disagree, at least in the short term. Note that my nerw tempalte does indicate reasons beyond copyright for providign the source info. But if others think we should do it that way, fine, not a huge deal. Parly i suspect we can better get people to sue one tag corretly than two. We can then move to the PD-art tag when/if a source is verified. DES (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(You wrote)Re: the {{ImageRound-Nosource}} - this doesn't quite make sense with the law as I understand it... the PD-art tag is not applicable to any images of 3d works of art. I didn't think that a 3-dimensional artwork in itself could be subject to copyright per se - but images of it may be. So I can go and take a picture of a greek vase if I have access to it and upload it under PD-self or another license, but if I use a museum's non-free image without their permission then that is a problem. Whereas a 2-d image whose author died 100+ years ago is public domain in the US whatever its source.....So if someone has tagged a 3-d object with the 2-d PD-art tag this should be treated as any other image with disputed copyright status is treated, with the {{PUIdisputed}} tag, I'm not sure we need another one. Sorry to be a pain. Madmedea 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually you are incorect. 3-D works of art can and do carry their own copyrights. If I made a sclupture last week, and sold it to you, you may not take pictures and publish them without my permission, unless I also sold you the copyright or a license under my copyright. This is even more true if the sclupture was placed on public display. (The same aplies to all other 3D works of art, like jewels, bas relifs, seals, vases, etc etc. There is a special exception for buildings.) A photo of a 3_D work of art is a derivitive work of the work of art, but also carries its own copyright. The situation is very much like that for a traslation of a textual work. The traslation is copyrighted by the traslator, but is also a derivitve work, and the permission of both the traslator and the original author is needed unless the origianl text is PD or freely licesned. Simialrly, an image of a 3D work of art needs BOTH the permission of the phjotographer AND the permisison of the creator of the work of art, UNLESS the work of art is itself PD. it is to register this latter fact (PD status of the original work), and to provide for documentign the source and the release by the photographer, that I created {{PD-Roundart}}. Yes we could have insted three sepeate templates: one to document that the art itself is PD, one for the source of the image (with a no-source varsion if missing) and one for the license on the image (with a no-license version if missing). I didn't think that was better, but we could choose to take that route. P.S. i have not been making any massive use of my new templates, and do not plan to do so. DES (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyrights on works of art, 2-D and 3-D, expire in exactly the same way and after the same periods as copyrights on books or other printed works. Works published after 1977 or never published expire 70 years after the dealth of the author (last living author if there are co-authors). Works published in the US before 1923 are now PD. Works publsihed elsewhere before 1909 are now PD. Works publishe in the US during 1923-1963 by US authors lost coopyright if the copyright was not renewed, or if publsihed without a copyright notice. Works of foreign authors published after 1923 are now in copyright, even if the author has been dead for more than 70 years, provided that they were in copyright in their home countries on 1 Jan 1996. The only difference between 2-D and 3-D works of art is that a "slavish copy" (which usually means a scan or photograph) of a 2-D work does not have its own copyright, but is in PD if the origianl art work is in PD, while any image of a 3-d work has its own copyright as of the date it is created. See this chart for more details. DES (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahmose Stele

I fail to see how that object could be considered a 3 dimentional work of art. Thanatosimii 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

well, if that's the law... it's a ridiculously stupid interpretation of 2d, but... Thanks for the heads up... Thanatosimii 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

commons

if you can drop me a link to commons (or howto) i will uload to commons. Nasz 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ENQAlogo.gif

Hello, Madmedea. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:ENQAlogo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Madmedea/Sandbox1. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to help Wikipedia or harm it?

A long time ago I uploaded an image dating from 1817. Now you are threatening to delete, even though you must know that it is out of copyright. I don't have the source, and I am dammed if I am going to search for the original in response to this sort of totally unnecessary disruptive behaviour. So if you go ahead and delete it, the whole responsibility for harming Wikipedia will be yours. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Piccadilly 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Madmedea~enwiki/Archive1&oldid=1143148178"