User talk:ValtinX

Three Ravens Image

ValtinX. Hello. I am contacting you regarding the Three Ravens image you have repeatedly reinserted into The Three Ravens article. Clearly you feel very strongly about the image. I am not sure you understand that a number of fellow Wikipedia editors feel just as strongly that the image does not belong here, and have either asked you to remove the image or have done so themselves. It does not appear that you have made a compelling argument for the inclusion of the image, and the community consensus appears to be against its inclusion... Except for you, and you alone.

By continuing to reinsert the image, you are engaging in an "edit war." Do you understand what this is? Do you understand the pointlessness of engaging in one? I am at a loss to understand why the inclusion of this image is so important to you and to explain to you that no matter how you may feel about the image, others appear to strongly disagree with you and with good cause. I am contacting you to ask you to spell out your argument, in full, as to why you feel that this article requires this image-- the fact that a centaur reference has appeared once in a scholarly journal does not by itself constitute a requirement that your image be included in the article as well. You must have other reasons, and I am inviting you to itemize them.

I also ask you to be willing to consider the possibility that the image perhaps does not have a place in this article, and to be willing to accept the possibility that whatever argument you may make, that argument may not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Having said that, I look forward to hearing your explication as to why you feel the Three Ravens article is enhanced by the inclusion of the image you have placed there. I will be checking back here on your Talk page for your response. Thank you. KDS4444^Talk 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Three Ravens. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please say where you got the picture you have inserted into the article The Three Ravens? You seem to have denied that it is your own work, so whose work is it? That question was asked on the article's talk page on 9 February, but as far as I can see you have never answered. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question can, I believe, easily be answered by reviewing Wikimedia Commons where the image sourcing is documented; that question is/has-been answered, although I do not think it is particularly relevant. How can a visualization of a recognized analysis of the ballad not be relevant and additive to the article? The fact that others/many do not agree with the interpretataion illustrated does not render the presentation of the image irrelevant. Those with a different view may post additonal/other images. Seeking consensus here is to capitulate to extreme bias that has no factual basis. The various "issues" raised have been addressed multiple times on the article discussion page. This image should be restored and the page/image protected from removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.89 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia commons image sourcing to which you refer says "Source={{own}} Author=ValtinX", which appears to mean that ValtinX (presumably you) is the creator of the picture, but ValtinX gave an edit summary saying "I did not draw" which, in the context, seems to mean that you did not draw the picture, in which case someone else must be the source of it. Another editor has raised the question of the image possibly being a copyright infringement, and so it would help to clear up that question if you could give a direct answer to the question "did you draw the picture yourself, and if not then where did you get it?" As for your comments about the relevance of the image to the article, I have no wish to get involved in that discussion, and I express no opinion on it. As for the issue of consensus, that is how Wikipedia works. You seem to be suggesting, if I have understood you correctly, that instead we should allow anyone to add anything they like, and if different people have differing views as to what is appropriate in an article then they should all be allowed to add all of it, so that an article would get progressively longer and longer as different people add their preferred content. here are many forums and similar web pages that do work more or less like that, and it is possible that you would be more at home contributing to one or more of those, but that is not how Wikipedia works. You can start a discussion to suggest that Wikipedia should be turned into such an open forum if you like. My guess is that you would not get very far with such a proposal, but you are free to try. In the meanwhile, however, we must work within the framework of existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the current system requires that individual editors do not persist in editing against consensus, and in this case there is a very clear consensus that your picture should not be included in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WELL!! that is news to me! I did upload the image, but at the time I did it I was allowed to say Author was unknown as I am not the creator. Also, I was allowed to affirm that there were no copyright issues.I do not recall the artist and I received the drawing over 40 years ago. Also, I was allowed to state that there were no copyright issues as it is public domain. It seems things have changed and the submission was modified. Can you verify this or did I greatly mis-understand how things were being setup?? thanks in advance.

You did not understand me correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.89 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just "state" that it is public domain if that is not true. In addition, when you uploaded the file you did not say that the author was unknown, nor that it was public domain. You stated that you were the copyright owner, and that it was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You have no right whatsoever to make such claims if you do not know who the author was or what its origin is. You can't simply claim copyright in someone else's work. The file is proposed for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file description page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to other events in my life, I've not had much time to go over the copyright materials you have refered me to. However, (1) I own the original copy; (2) the drawing was created at my request and for me exclusively to use as I see fit; (3) if there is a copyright owner, it is me; (4) I do not recall the name of the artist that actually penned the drawing. Given these facts, I'm not sure how this maps to your criteria, but I see no bariers to inclusion. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.89 (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ValtinX- More than a month has passed since you posted the preceding request for direction on copyright and ownership policies on Wikipedia. It does not appear that you received a response, and that should be remedied if only to prevent future misunderstandings. I am going to take a shot at it.

(1) You state that you own the original copy-- physical ownership of an original work of art does not convey copyright ownership, nor the right to freely distribute a digital version of that work of art. Such rights belong only to the original creator of the art until such time as he or she specifically releases copyright under a Creative Commons license-- and even then, he or she would likely still retain the copyright, but license the use of the image for others to utilize as long as the artist is given proper attribution for the work;

(2) that the image was created for you to use in any way you desire does not, again, give you ownership of the copyright of that image. I realize this may seem odd, but the Wikipedia policy is quite clear: unless the original author of the image specifically releases the copyright of the image, and you have documented evidence of this release, simply stating that "I have all the rights because it was made for me" does not include copyright ownership;

(3) you state that if there is a copyright owner, it is you-- the logic of this statement does not follow. Unless the copyright has been released by the original artist, the original artist is and remains the copyright owner, and therefore the copyright owner cannot be you, inasmuch as you are claiming that you did not draw the piece (which is what you have asserted);

(4) you do not recall the name of the original artist-- surely you can understand that failure to have knowledge of this does not convey ownership of copyright (how convenient a world it would be if anyone could freely distribute the work of someone else and claim no knowledge of that person's identity!).

Which is all to say that not having any more information about this image than you do is tantamount to stating that you "found" the image "somewhere" and would like to release it under a copyright-- owning the image and having had the image created for you at your request notwithstanding, Wikipedia protects itself from liability by prohibiting the use of such images.

Consider this scenario: you release the copyright to the image under a creative commons license, and the image gets used on Wikipedia. Someone else comes along, sees the image, and desires to use it for a commercial purpose (which they have the right to do). Then, the original author of the image discovers that his/ her image has been used for a commercial purpose somewhere, and demands compensation. Wikipedia checks the copyright, and verifies that it was released under a Creative Commons license... Except that the copyright was not released by the original artist, and was therefore invalid. The original artist would then have the right to sue Wikipedia for unfairly licensing his/ her work-- your ownership of the work having absolutely no relevance and you having no liability yourself. Wikipedia protects itself from such potential lawsuits by insisting on strict adherence to image copyright use policies-- given the facts as you have stated them, these policies would preclude the use of this particular image on Wikipedia.

I can see that the Three Ravens article no longer includes the image, and that the image has been removed from the Wikimedia Commons database. I have written the preceding not to encourage you to rethink inclusion of the image but rather to explain the policy by which it cannot be used on Wikipedia. I can easily see how you feel justified in claiming rights to the use of the image-- I hope what I have written here has clarified the issue for you. KDS4444^Talk 08:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.thethreeravens.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.8.89 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Image is commissioned work.[reply]

I've added external link (The Three Ravens Visualized) to www.thethreeravens.com in External Links section of the Wikipedia The Three Ravens article. The linked-to page contains the image and additional links. [ValtinX] 76.253.8.89 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]