Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 18 July 2014

	Big Daddy is Watching You
	Trolls and drama royals thrown over bridges here.

Archives (index)

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp

As you might notice by the fact that I'm responding now (-: I don't have a lot of time for Misplaced Pages right now but I'll answer your question as best as I remember. The reason why the templates contain this wording is that whether a work is fair use or not depends on four factors. The first is the purpose and character of the use. Restricting use of an image of a stamp to discussing a stamp means that the image is likely being used for the purposes of criticism or commentary. A court would see these uses as transformative (i.e. more likely to be fair use). On the other hand, using an image of a stamp to illustrate the subject of the stamp may be more likely to be seen as derivative (i.e. not so likely to be fair use). The second and third are irrelevant to the template wording. The fourth is the effect of the use on the potential market. If we allow use of a stamp to illustrate anything, we may be competing with postal services (e.g. I know that Canada Post has issued books about Canadian history, illustrated with pictures of postage stamps; a history article illustrated with stamps could be seen as competition), which would not be good for a claim of fair use. Restricting use of the stamp for discussion about the stamp does not have that drawback and might even be seen as increasing the market for the stamp itself, which would be good for a claim of fair use. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 03:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi JY. Thanks for responding here.

I enquired originally because I was interesting myself at the time about the applicability of the Fair Use criteria for stamps. While I can understand the distinction between an image and the event it depicts in the case of photos and the need to avoid competing with the commercial interests of photograph agencies, I couldn't see that Misplaced Pages can be considered as competing with postal services, whose primary business after all is the delivery of commercial packages (though I agree that postal history itself, as you suggest in your forth case dealing with competition above, would be a grey area). So I think that's an artificial distinction. Thus in the Peace Bridge article, mention is made of a dual American-Canadian commemorative stamp. The Americam stamp is illustrated with a fine Commons image because US stamps are not copyright until 1978. But the Canadian stamp is in copyright and is not illustrated with even a Fair Use image because of this artificial distinction. That's pretty lame frankly.

I've found it pointless arguing with the Fair Use concession at Misplaced Pages. Of its two principal protagonists, Keepers of the Great Seal of the Misplaced Pages Foundation, one is overly authorative and not disposed (evidently equipped) to argue beyond yes/no assertions, while the other, plainly juvenile, will argue until the end of time over the most self-evident issues. I just can't be arsed. No-one likes being told what to do like this. For me, main area visual arts, it means that most of what I wanted to do with my account I can't in fact do, or at any rate any longer feel enthused about doing it. I did carry a note about that at the top of my page a while ago. At the moment I'm travelling and not always able to safely edit at my Talk page because of local prejudices against social media sites such as Misplaced Pages. When I return I shall reinstate the notice.

Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My god Hafs! have you installed a cam on my Talk page? - I was just drunkenly contemplating a pasta supper when I saw your suggestion. I think I'll go for pesto. Expect no feedback next eight or so hours. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. it is not a cam, it were little angels who told me where you were and what you were doing... Hafspajen (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as they're not ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty, don't paint them where you don't wan't them... Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

How was your dinner? Did you had any bacon with it? Hafspajen (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't really remember, a possibly disturbing feature of my late night suppers I should be doing something. I did offer the butcher a tenner for a decent spot of bacon, but he wasn't having anything of it. The price of food these days. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't remember YOUR SUPPER? Hafspajen (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Breakfast then?

Hafspajen (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite a lot more calorific then I'm allowed these days. Tissot I don't know at all well though I do know the Cobb Arms quite well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks better now. Tissot. Hafspajen (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Try nominating this one then, if you feel partiotic. File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg. I am not going to do it, because I don't really care for this kinds of subjects, but at least it is a good artwork... Hafspajen (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK; forget it, it is nominated already. Hafspajen (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, wait a minute it is only on commons, than you can actually nominate it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well of course that's a very famous and gorgeous painting I love, whereas frankly I think the Cristy sucks. But I shan't nominate it because it's not really in my expertise (for lack of a better word offhand).Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OH, you monkey. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is Hafs that whether you or I like a particular painting or not is neither here nor there when it comes to considering the merits of an image of it as a Featured Picture. And in this case I'm aware that very many Americans, I would say the greater majority of them, admire this painting for (again for lack of a better word offhand) patriotic reasons. So that needs to be respected as well. But it's true the lack of detail is a cogent issue here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WEll, then I can actually tell you a thing, that you probably did't thought about... I LIKE that picture. But it is not god enough, not for a Featured Picture. Hafspajen (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't tell ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Näääää ... Hafspajen (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

But I mean, what shall I do? If I really think it not a great artwork, even if I like ( and I do) it I can't say that it is. This picture is not represented among the art histories great works, nor the artist. It may have its merits as a partiotic picture, but the file qualty is not great. I hope I am not hurting peoples feelings. Hafspajen (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all I think you probably are hurting people's feelings. I don't mean that in any serious way, but the fact of the matter is that most of us who edit at Misplaced Pages do so as a hobby, so yes it's a blow when obstacles are raised in the way of our projects. It may be that I'm misunderstanding the Feature Pictures criteria WP:FP?, but I don't think I can be. FP just isn't about great artwork. It's about images that have EV, and in the case of artwork that will normally mean it's achieved some degree of recognition as great artwork. But that need not always be the case, the current example being just such a case. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine that it can be this way, and I am sorry. But we still have to keep up a certain quality - otherwise why Featured Picture? It should't be easy and just for please every nominator's picture that was nominated to be declared as Featured Picture. It really should be really the best quality found. And you are doing quite well... You already have succeded. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think the criteria for art work should be upped somewhat. Google Art Project means that we have a plethora of images > 2.25 MP available. But the curious thing is that many of those images are, so to speak, stopped down in quality. The museums have released high resolution images to Google Art Project, but not always at the highest quality they have available. Similarly the National Art Gallery of Washington, for example, has made much of making high resolution images available, but don't make them available at ultra-high resolution, as is the case with Fragonard's Woman Reading you nominated (a painting I do like incidentally - I only wish Manet's painting of the same subject was available at high resolution). So I would agree with you that it should be the best quality found certainly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, not always at the highest quality they have available. Hafspajen (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But I wouldn't support any change right now. Just a guest for the time being. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hate you disappearing. Hafspajen (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a gadfly. But I'll always take an interest. I do thinks it's a very worthwhile project. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Olalala, now don't take pride in that one, hey there. You had a couple very clever points, you know that? And you are good at finding all kinds of interesting sites to complement discussions! Hafspajen (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well thanks, just a hobby. Expect to be a bit busy again the next few days, so shan't be looking in very often. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know that... (Have fun...) Hafspajen (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Berthe Morisot With a Bouquet of Violets

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Edouard Manet - Berthe Morisot With a Bouquet of Violets - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 07:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice girl, this one, no? File:Geena Davis talks gender in media (9922589823).jpg - my favourite. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't know Geena Davis at all well apart from her role inThelma and Louise, which I only saw once. I have real difficulty these days in getting through films at a single sitting, and I seem to have developed a taste for the Marvel universe, not exactly Citizen Kane is it? ... not sure Geena would be fantastically chuffed at being called a nice girl, боже мой ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

yeah, yeah - intelligent girl? Smart? Good looking? Talented? With lots of undiscovered possibilies? Witty? Hafspajen (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 09:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

.

So, well done, Coat of Many Colours ! Listen here, why on earth should we delete this one? Nice guy and sourced. What's the point? Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look Hafs, but the last time I joined in an AfD drama I got oversighted by an admin ... I told him to be off with himself in the nicest sort of way. If had done that in a nasty sort of way, as my instinct is very wont indeed, I probably wouldn't be here. Have a look later tonight. Cheers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, be careful. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Had a look. I don't see how I can credibly make a contribution as I don't normally edit in those sort of areas. I did create a stub BLP a few months for a prize-winning South African journalist and novelist Margie Orford and was astonished to find the stub templated for notability. There are evidently editors out there who take notability very seriously indeed. I think I'll pass on this one, but right I do think the nominating editor should show good faith and mind his own business. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think the same. That one and I had our dusting ihop on different issues, you know, sugar. Well, that's life... Hafspajen (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And anyway... .Hafspajen (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Takes me way back. Shared with all the family. Thanks for those. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, HATE that picture. Not everything that is van gogh is gold, I say. Now I am not going to vote more for a while just to avoid it. Hafspajen (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Which picure Hafs? The new version of Almond Blossom or the Roots I nominated at FPC? If it's the new Almond Blossom let me know and I'll restore your version and upload the other as a new file. Do it tomorrow once I hear from you. If it's Roots that's my favourite van Gogh. You don't have to vote for it! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nä. Not Roots, the Skull. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah of course. I loathe it too, but it is amusing. Crazy Vinnie had a sense of humour after all. BTW I just reverted Almond Blossom back to your version. I'll do the Tiles as a separate file tomorrow. Watching the football tonight! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my Good, isn't ready yet? Who is winning? Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute - did you changed the picture? You should have done that as an ALT. This is not the same picture any more. What happened? Hafspajen (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo? That picture looks different now... Hafspajen (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope I changed it back to Crisco's trimmed file. I had problems reverting and in the end I just downloaded and re-uploaded his version. If it's not right Hafs, then just do whatever it takes to make it right. Sorry about that, just wasn't thinking. I'll check it tomorrow night and make my my own separate file for my VGM version, leaving your nominated version and its links alone. Its colour might indeed be better. It's not really a painting I know well. Football was brilliant. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not the same - and I don't know how to fix it either. Who won? Hafspajen (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I THINK Crisco fixed that. Now you must be very nice with Crisco, he is a great guy, promise that? I the main time I just go into isolation and eat grass like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus . Or maybe rather like Diogenes ... go back to my dogs. Hafspajen (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I uploaded the right Crisco file. I checked. What happened was that you probably saw my VGM version first. In truth there's no real colour difference between the two. It's just that our eyes are incredibly sensitive to colour. When you saw it reverted back to your 'pale' version you remembered the VGM darker version and no longer see it as pale as you originally saw it. I reverted the VGM version partly out of deference to those who voted for the original, but mainly because the file was no longer a Google file as the header describes it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I paint, draw and I am actually an artist, even if nobody belives that, anyway. You ain't much worth as an artist if you can't notice the difference between to shades. Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I can discern the difference between the shades.But what we see is greatly influenced by what we remember and expect. The next time you look at something black on your TV examine it carefully. How black is it? As black as black can be? Well yes. But then how can that really be? Your TV image is back-lit. Switch it off. That screen's now not black, it's grey and nothing you see when it's switched on can in truth be blacker than that grey, as you can confirm by waiting for a reasonably large patch of black and then looking through with hands suitably ssreened to cut of the rest of the picture. That 'black' is now a light grey. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stopped wathing TV like in 2009, Coaty - I don't like the adds. read books instead. If you are about to find better files, why not try this one, and this. Hafspajen (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't be getting on with the pre-Raphaelites I'm afraid. Solid Turner man me. There's a film out about him. Be sure to catch it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If IHafspajen (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) know you... ha.

It was the "like in 2009" above that worried me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Where? Ah, what's wrong with stopping watching TV in 2009? Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One rather had no choice at the time, but I'll let you off just this once Hafs. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh. I would't bother about what happened in 2009, water under the bridge, new times. Hafspajen (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

... Bullshit. Hafspajen (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, let's forget 2009. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Solid Turner man me. What? Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Mallard. Doing my drinking now for this evening and I'm also about to engage myself in a project to remove Craquelure from iamges of oil painting. It's time I made my mark on humanity. I may be away for a while as I thrash out an algorithm. I do have some quite good ideas I think. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A mysterious creature

	A puppy for you
	Hafspajen has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend from the past. Hafspajen (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

.

I like that picture and I don't like what you are doing on that nomination. Please stop. Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You just won't see the point. But right, there's no point in continuing to interact over it. If I see nominations like this I will oppose citing inauthenticity as reason and shan't otherwise comment unless provoked to. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)