User talk:Whiteonrice04

License tagging for Image:HolstonPanoramic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HolstonPanoramic.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. 05:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:WataugaDam.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WataugaDam.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. 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SiamBridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SiamBridge.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. 13:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SouthHolston.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SouthHolston.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. 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Images to Commons

Greetings! Let me first say that I really enjoy the images you've taken and uploaded to Wikipedia. They show some great stuff from the Elizabethton area and surrounding locales. You might be noticing that I've tagged several (and soon all) of your images as being moved to Wikimedia Commons. Commons is the website that is used to house free images, such as yours, so that Wikipedias worldwide will be able to use them. Once I move them to Commons, I tag the images here on Wikipedia with the {{ncd}} template, which instructs the admins to delete the image from Wikipedia so that the Commons image will be used instead. I've renamed some of the images to be more descriptive and unique, which explains some of the name changes I've made both to various articles and to your own Userpage. In the future, I'd highly recommend that you upload any new (free! not copyrighted) images to http://commons.wikimedia.org. Just sign up for a username there and you'll be good to go. If you ever need any assistance with images or anything else, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should point out that you really should not tag local mirrors of Commons images (like the ones of yours that I moved) should not be edited to include categories and descriptions. All of the necessary categorisation, etc, has been taken care of on the Commons side of things, and tagging them locally does no one any good.

Also, I noticed on one of the pages that you demanded that one of your images be included or you would "remove" all of them. As an editor, you do not have the right to dictate the use of images any more than any other editor on the site. If someone else feels a particular image does not belong, he or she has the right to remove it. If you do not like this action, you are certainly welcome to not upload any more, but you also have to realise that images uploaded under the public domain tag have been released into the public domain for anyone to do with as they please, even if you still technically hold the copyright to that image. I don't mean to alarm you or drive you away, just wanting to make you aware of the situation. Thank you again for the fantastic images you are providing to this free website. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for legal threats

Per this edit, I have blocked you for the legal threat contained therein. Per our blocking policy, this block may be lifted once the threats are no longer outstanding. -- Merope 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image attribution is available by clicking on the image. We do not have to provide it in each am every article in which it is used (because all link to the image description page where the attribution is). If/when you understand this note it here and I will unblock. Viridae ^Talk 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyright and GDFL images

Greetings! I'm going to attempt to explain the situation the best I can, as it appears that you do not understand the full meaning of releasing works under the GFDL license. I cannot guarantee this is a perfect explanation, but I'll do my best. First, let me provide the following link for you to read, as it fully lays out GFDL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License. Now, because you released the images as GFDL, you release the image into the wild for any individual to republish (or not), modify (or not), and do so either commercially or non-commercially, and any subsequent copies may be republished, modified, etc with no restrictions, so long as the GFDL license is included with each copy. That means that while you hold the copyright on the original image, and such ownership of the original must be reflected along with any subsequent copies of the image, any individual may do whatever they want with a copy of that image. The GFDL license is also non-revocable, and cannot be removed in favour of a more controlling license. Other licenses may be appended to an existing license, but only so long as the addition does not conflict with the original.

As for the issue of photographer credit, GFDL does provide for credit to be given to the original author(s) of a released work, and each subsequent copy of that material must contain such credit (along with a copy of the license), however, that does not mean that each instance of the image everywhere must credit the author. On Wikipedia, for example, articles are exempt from requiring author's credit for each instance of an image because every image is linked to a master image page, which contains a copy of the license and must therefore contain credit to the author. Thus, it is highly unnecessary and against general convention to include photographer credit on articles unless the photographer is highly notable and making such a notation is valuable to the article itself. I should note as well that licenses such as CC-by-SA also work the same way, so even if licenses could be changed, it would make no real difference in this regard.

May I suggest that in the future, it might be wise to read and fully understand the ramifications of the different types of licenses available. Wikipedia wants images that are released under licenses like GFDL and the CreativeCommons series, and wants them all the more if they are released into the public domain with no restrictions, but the author should be aware of what doing this will mean to them. Hopefully this will help, and as always, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask it here. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SouthHolstonLake.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:SouthHolstonLake.jpg, by Huntster (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:SouthHolstonLake.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Original uploader added material after image was deleted and moved to commons.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:SouthHolstonLake.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:SouthHolstonLake.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holston High Point.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Holston High Point.jpg, by Huntster (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Holston High Point.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Original uploader added material after image was deleted and moved to commons.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Holston High Point.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Holston High Point.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge2.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge2.jpg, by Huntster (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge2.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Page recreated by original uploader; however, image was already moved to Commons and deleted.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge2.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge2.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge1.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge1.jpg, by Huntster (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge1.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Page recreated by original uploader; however, image was already moved to Commons and deleted.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge1.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:ElizabethtonCoveredBridge1.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my images

I want all my images removed from Wikipedia. I tried to provide a nice service to the wikipedia community and was repeatedly stabbed in the back. Now I see why others warned me about contributing to wikipedia. You try to do something nice and people treat you like this. Remove all of my images immediately. --Whiteonrice04 17 July 2007

Not possible. You have released them under GDFL and that can't be revoked. Viridae ^Talk 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that I, the creator of these images, don't have the right to have them deleted. Thats a nice little racket you guys have going here on wikipedia. You guys make it so no one wants to contribute. You just bully up and make everyone else's life a nightmare. I will be sure to let everyone I know not to use or contribute to wikipedia. The word is already out there I just ignored it. I had plans to contribute lots and lots of my very high quality images to enrich wikipedia, but those days are over.

Thanks for being so wonderful. --Whiteonrice04 17 July 2007

With all due respect, perhaps you should have read the terms under which you licensed and released your work. Once the creator has declared that the images are freely available to the public, no amount of whining can undo that action. -- Merope 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Thanks for being so wonderful. You guys definitely know how to make new users feel welcome. I am sorry I inconvenienced you by trying to make wikipedia a prettier place. I know better now, and everyone else will too. I full heartly regret ever posting even one image on wikipedia. Oh and by the way I did read the terms that I licensed my photos. It clearly says that all works must be attributed to the author. That is what everyone on here denys. --Whiteonrice04 17 July 2007

They are attributed to you, and quite clearly. Any image has an entire page about its details; you can see when it was uploaded, who the author of the work is, and even details about the camera used. Your images all say that they were created by Ryan Rice. What we object to is putting redundant attributions in the articles -- since each image has an attribution inherent in it, we don't need to put it on every single instance of the image appearing. I am sorry that you are discouraged from your participation here, but our rules are very simple and your attitude of "Well, I'll just take my ball and go home" hasn't helped. -- Merope 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "Well, I'll just take my ball and go home" attitude has come directly from you guys. I haven't exactly been treated very well since I arrived. Can you not see why it is offensive to try to do something very nice and you get blasted by all of the "big dogs" who know everything. You guys don't do a good job of promoting new users to want to help out. This is kind of a club and you have the "we don't know you so go away" attitude. That is not what wikipedia was founded to be at all, but that is what you have turned it into. Kind of like when a non-trucker trys to talk to truckers on a CB. Its pretty intimidating. You have to realize that people are trying to be helpful and they you go and start blocking them. Absolutely ridiculas. --Whiteonrice04 17 July 2007

We had to block you since you threatened to take legal action -- our rules are very, very clear on this point. If you withdrew your threat of legal action, you could be unblocked, as I said earlier. I am sorry that you find the process confusing; we can certainly help answer your questions and help you contribute. We most certainly don't want to discourage new users, particularly ones who have made important and valuable contributions like your images have been. -- Merope 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go using terms like "our" like you own wikipedia. This is a public website not your property. I am done with this. Hopefully word will spread far and fast. Eventually wikipedia is just going to be you 100 or so users that control everything like it is your baby. Everybody knows that the info on here is bogus anyway. It is like an 8th graders research paper. Have fun. --Whiteonrice04 17 July 2007

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information." (this is funny that this is on your user page)

Contrary to popular belief, many editors and even administrators have a sense of humor. The reason I refer to it as "our" is because Wikipedia belongs to those who edit it -- which includes you and me. -- Merope 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to remind you of all the photos you are missing out on. I found one of my photos from wikipedia hanging on the wall of a local restaurant, and they knew how to credit me on the photo. Too bad you guys don't understand. --Whiteonrice04 09 August 2010

Dude! Take a pill! It sounds like you don't read licenses very well! You took some pictures. You uploaded them to share with the world, and were attributed credit to that effect -- ON THE IMAGE PAGE. Now you want "stardom" recognition by seeing your name in print on EVERY use of the image? Geesh! Get a blog -- or an art gallery. (And Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, mind you. It's growing by leaps and bounds!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.89.253.50 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]