User talk:Cavic

Hi Cavic. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia, especially with such great images. However, I have reverted your additions to the MJ and Auerbach pages because they contain watermarks. This is generally discouraged by Wikipedia, especially considering WP already had free and untampered images of these people. Please see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images for more information. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I do appreciate the images. I left your images in the articles where there previously was no image and only removed your images where WP previously had a free image. The general consensus of the Wikipedia community is that watermarks strongly should be discouraged. It is essentially the equivalent of a user adding their name somewhere on an article, just because they edited portions of it. That would make the article look very unprofessional. Editors are credited in the page history, just as you are on the image page, so most people generally don't feel that extra attribution is needed. Have you by chance discussed the watermarking issue with the other administrator? I am hoping we can all work something out as the images are terrific. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did discuss the credit with the other administrator and he was fine with it. I'm waiting to hear from him by e-mail about this. I don't understand your comment regarding credits being unprofessional. My photos are not a collaborative effort. They are solely created by me. Uncredited photos are unprofessional. Photo credits are used in most all publications throughout the world and are very important to the artist. I would think that a properly credited photo provided by the original artist would be vastly preferable to some of the images now used in violation of copyright. Cavic

Your photo is credited though, just on the image page. My argument is that adding copyright information on the image itself looks unprofessional, especially when almost every other image on the site has no watermarks on them. I am not suggesting that you don't deserve credit and I really am a big proponent of giving credit where credit is due. However, does that credit really need to be on the image itself?. Some publications put the image copyright on the image, others put it beneath the image or in a listing in the back of the publication. The practice at Wikipedia is to put the copyright information on the image page, not on the image. The basis of Wikipedia is for people to be able to adapt content as they please and it makes it difficult to do so with watermarks on the image. As I said previously, I really do want appreciate you taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia and I want to see issue resolved in a way that everyone is satisfied with. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I just wanted to drop you a message that I have readded the image to the Michael Jordan image. Someone used Photoshop and the rights you released under gfdl to remove the watermark. I hope you are ok with this as I know it was something you wanted to include in the image. Thanks again. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you mean Dennis Johnson, not Michael Jordan. No, I'm not OK with someone removing my copyright. Not only that, someone removed the credit underneath my photo that a kind administator had previously added. I have countless images of NBA players and other material that I was eager to upload, but this is taking the wind out of my sails. These are original images that I have created, not text that soemone has cut and pasted from another source. It doesn't seem too much to ask that my credit accompanies my images.

I was referring to the Michael Jordan image (it is near the bottom of the article). The current version of the image is here. I have asked from some input from the community on this issue at the village pump. I understand your frustrations. You just want to help out Wikipedia and receive credit where you think it is due. We just disagree in the manner of how you should be credited. I encourage you to hang tight for a bit and wait and see what some others from the community think. By the way, who was the admin who ok'd the watermarks? Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "credit" in the caption underneath the image on Dennis Johnson for a second time (the first time was not added by you, as you mentioned above, it was added by an admin, though they hold no special powers so that should not mean it is any means of endorsement). Image attribution and credit is maintained on the image description page, not in the articles. Please do not restore this caption/credit. --MECU≈talk 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting of the image on commons to re-include the watermark is a violation of our image use policy. Please do not revert the image to include the watermark. --MECU≈talk 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image from the article because you apparently don't want to allow anyone (including) us to use the image under the GFDL license, and only by your terms. Such "with permission" or "restricted" images are not allowed on Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, in regards to your edit summary, the fact that an admin put that there does not make it anymore valid. Admins hold no special powers and their edits are not any better or worse or more official than any other user, even an IP. --MECU≈talk 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third edit to Dennis Johnson which has been reverted three times[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles even if your ultimate intention is to revert them. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ronbo76 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin prior to your edit removed your link. Please do not post it again. Ronbo76 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

Per Jimbo's statement on the outcome (to summarize): The image with watermark shall be deleted. I am proposing that this image be unprotected, reverted to the unwatermarked version. If you revert it to the watermarked version, or states otherwise that he wants it deleted, then it should be immediately deleted. Also, the caption shall be completely removed, and if you restore it in any capacity or state otherwise, the image and caption shall be immediately deleted and removed. --MECU≈talk 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]