User talk:Dmgerman

Welcome!

Hello, Dmgerman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

A person claiming to be you [1] mentioned on Slashdot.org that you believed that the image Image:Limonadedmg.jpg was not licensed with the GFDL but only with the CC-SA license. As the Slashdot post illustrated, that makes life difficult for reusers, who can't expect that the GFDL license will be sufficient. To avoid this, the upload agreement makes all uploads by the creator GFDL licensesd in addition to any other licenses the uploader may wish to grant.

Please either confirm that you are willing to grant a GFDL license or, at your option, either list it for deletion (wrong license) or let me know so that I can do so. We've no interest at all in compelling you to license it in a way contrary to your wishes but are trying to maintain some consistency for reusers.

The Commons project does accept a broader range of images and you may wish to consider placing it there instead if you don't wish to grant a GFDL license but do still want to make it available for others to use.

You should also consider that your work is arguably a derivative work of the tent design, the logo on the tent and the design of the lemonade squeezer. For that reason, while you may be releasing your portion of the work under one license, you may be making fair use of the work of others, making the combined work fair use. Fair use is not accepted at Commons. It is accepted at en.wikipedia.org but that would require the GFDL license in addition to any others.

Thanks for your assistance in resolving the licensing misunderstanding. Jamesday 11:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

James,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. You raise very interesting issues, and at the core, in my opinion, is the issue of credit to the author. I checked the GFDL and it seems to imply that the user of the content should give credit to the author of the work. The wikipedia does this very well by allowing us to check the history of a document or an image.

But answers.com does not do it at all. They copy the content without giving any indication of who the author is. I would believe that this is contradictory to the spirit of the GFDL.

I agree with you that there is a potential issue of the value of this image as derivative work. But I have other images in the wikipedia that do not have this problem (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Straig_of_georgia.jpg ).

Answers.com is giving credit to the Wikipedia, but no the original creator.

What is your opinion?

daniel

Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Hair.jpg. I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper image copyright tag to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, Datepalm17 11:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PeirceTessellated4times.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PeirceTessellated4times.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. 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Style note

Thank you for the several articles you wrote recently. I have a note. One should not use capitals in article names or in section names. For example, I moved Guyou Hemisphere in a Square Projection to Guyou hemisphere in a square projection per WP:NAME. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previewing

Hi, Dmgerman. Welcome. I'm looking over your edits to Stereographic projection and its talk page. It appears that you've added a significant amount of interesting content; good work! However, I've noticed that you took 28 edits to do so. Please use the Show Preview button more, so that you can try out your edits without actually saving them. This will help you make fewer, larger edits, which are easier for your fellow editors to understand. Joshua R. Davis 12:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:StereographicProjectionTube.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StereographicProjectionTube.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:PencilGrades.png

Thanks for uploading Image:PencilGrades.png. 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. 11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:SBCsculpture.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:SBCsculpture.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Anrie (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

You don't only need a source but a Reliable source and blogs are not considered reliable sources as a rule, particularly if it a blog that belongs to the editor since that really is Original Research. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is an associate computer science professor in computer science who specializes in IP a reliable source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmgerman (talk • contribs)

Oh Please! You're being suppersillious! Please read my comment bellow. --CyclePat (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If his views are published in a journal or newspaper. Wikipedia has pretty strict rules about using yourself as a source or using self-published materials so your blog can't be used as a source. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to be a jerk here but this is a cardinal rule at wikipedia. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find an wiktionary:authorative, source. Have you tried finding the facts that are listed in that blog article. I noticed the CTV article which would most likely be acceptable (for this occasion but not necessarily all wikipedia articles). Also, if you add that blog information once more, an administrator will most like block you for violating our Three revert rule. Again, I recommend you find another source for your information. When doing a research project at university, this will be a key element between most like a grade of C vs. A --CyclePat (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on The Hockey Theme

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you noted that [2] is your personal home page/blog. You can't source your own website as a reliable source within an article. Also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for other issues with your actions. --Madchester (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dmgerman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:StereographicProjectionTube.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:StereographicProjectionTube.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:I am canadian.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:I am canadian.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Victoria harbour.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Victoria harbour.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Victoria harbour.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Victoria harbour.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Lemonade stand, Vancouver.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lemonade stand, Vancouver.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BelleHaleineEauDeVoilette.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BelleHaleineEauDeVoilette.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]