User talk:SD6-Agent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I often blank this page. You can assume I've read any messages left here. I may or may not reply on your talk page, or on the relevant article talk page, as the situation warrants.

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 07:05, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the privlege and to those who voted for me SD6-Agent 13:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I've explained more than once that the problem has to do with commercial vs. non-commercial use, how is it that you still view the issue as being a dispute between Canadian and American law? Bearcat 06:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I may not comprehend the issue entirely but I would have thought that by now someone would offer a solution as to solving this issue.SD6-Agent 06:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's 3 a.m., and chances are that there aren't too many other canuckawikipedians awake just at the moment. Give it a day or two. It's unfortunately a very tricky issue; it's distinctly possible that we won't be able to solve it without consulting a lawyer.
You don't need to understand every last nook and cranny of GFDL, but please understand the basic point that because of the way Wikipedia content is licensed, Wikipedia is a commercial use. As a result, using material licensed only for non-commercial use is problematic. Please just don't upload anything else that's licensed for non-commercial use, until we can get a clear answer regarding the legalities involved. Bearcat 06:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We need a lawyer, or someone who knows laws well enough, to offer a solution. If this isn't a Canada vs. US laws issue then I have to wonder how a lawyer could help us.SD6-Agent 07:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer could tell us whether or not a commercial source can use "non-commercial use only" logos under the "fair use" provision. (And by the way, if we can, the appropriate tag to use in that case would be {{logo}}. But under the circumstances, I'd still recommend we don't just start using that until we can clarify the matter, because even the logo template cites "fair use". Everything with that tag on it currently is a corporate logo that isn't under an NCU-only license.)
It's unfortunate, but the reality is that there's a distinct possibility that we will have to delete the images. The way you've talked about the matter so far, I'm just worried that you'll take it a bit too personally if that's what happens. Bearcat 07:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I do understand this is not a Canada-US issue but when the result of this is that information provided by the Canadian government can't be used here because of a law it contradicts then I feel slighted.As a Canadian, I feel that a slap in the face of Canadian law (Crown Copyright) is a slap in my face too. SD6-Agent 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a slap in the face to Canadian law. It's just a conflict between two equally legitimate forms of content licensing. You don't even have to compare Canadian law to American law to run into this problem; it's a conflict that exists just as vividly within Canadian law. If Wikipedia were governed solely by Canadian law, we would still have this problem.
In the meantime, I've reviewed the items with this tag on it. "Official portrait" photos of political figures by themselves, intended mainly to illustrate their biographical pages, are unquestionably fair use. Retag those as {{promophoto}}, but do cite the source in the text box under the tag. But only do those for now; don't retag anything else (including group shots) until we can get further clarification. Bearcat 08:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Do you know of any legal expert you could contact to clarify this issue? SD6-Agent 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You said you understood it this morning, and yet you're still back onto the notion that there's a national law conflict here. I'll explain this point-form:

  1. Wikipedia is a commercial use.
  2. The terms of CanadaCopyright specify "non-commercial use only".
  3. A commercial use cannot use "non-commercial" content, because a commercial use is not a non-commercial use.
  4. If Wikipedia were based in Canada and governed exclusively by Canadian copyright law, there would still be a conflict between commercial and non-commercial use, and we would therefore still be facing the same problem.
  5. If the images were American, there would still be a conflict between commercial and non-commercial use, and we would therefore still be facing the same problem.
  6. Since the same conflict still exists no matter which country's copyright law is applied, the conflict is not between Canadian and American copyright law; it is between "commercial" and "non-commercial" use.

Could you please let me know which point you're still having trouble with? Bearcat 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this as straightforward as I can: Where can I find similar information, that I could get from http://www.parl.gc.ca, that is applicable under commercial use? SD6-Agent 23:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; unfortunately, that's what we're going to have to research in the coming days. SimonP already posted a link to the National Archives' database of Canadian-related public domain images. Unfortunately, however, some types of photos probably don't have any viable GFDL-suitable equivalents, but "fair use" doesn't always mean we can just use the non-commercial version anyway; in some cases, we're just going to have to accept that there just won't be any available image that we can legally use. Bearcat 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find someone who is familiar with Canadian law. I think that may be our only answer.SD6-Agent 23:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Featured article for December 25th

I noticed that you have listed yourself as an atheist Wikipedian. You will probably be interested to know that

December 25th
. You can vote on this matter
here. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 08:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • A conflict with what? The nomination for Christmas is floundering while the Omnipotence paradox has 11 supporters and 1 opposer. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish. SD6-Agent 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was just curious what you thought was conflicting. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lois Hole.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded,
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion
. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Barrie M. Osborne/Barry M. Osborne

Hi. I noticed you created both

Barry M. Osborne. Just wanted to let you know that they're the same person! I tagged them to be merged. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Image Tagging Image:Charlesdalfen.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlesdalfen.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Ethelblondinandrew.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ethelblondinandrew.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 07:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My User talk page

Don't bother to continue adding notices to my talk page about images of Canadian government politicians whose status are in question because of legal issues. I have given up trying to fight for legal use of these images against Wikipedia so this issue is now no longer my problem. SD6-Agent 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been added to the "do not notify" list. --Carnildo 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the

WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Image copyright problem with Image:T'pring.jpg

Thanks for uploading

Copyright policy
).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Rossrs 15:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Canadian television

List of years in Canadian television is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Canadian television. NickelShoe 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Tramell

Can you help me expand it please? - SGCommand

Happy Birthday!!