User talk:Henrib736

Simplified procedure.

1. Edit talk page, copying material you wish to archive to your computer's clipboard.
2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:username/Archive N" where N is the lowest whole number for which no archive exists. Your archive will be the N-th archive.
3. Search should say that this page does not exist. Click the link offering to create/start it.
4. Paste the clipboard contents into this archive and add {{talk archive}} to the top and bottom of the source. Save the new archive.
5. Delete copied material from main talk page with edit summary mentioning the name of the new archive.
6. If an archive box doesn't already exist on the main talk page, add the line {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} as the first line of its source and save.
7. Finished!^[1]

I asked in commons about copyright on the 40' rubber duck. The creator may have the right not to have any pictures of it allowed in wikipedia. Without a picture it may not be worth adding to the rubber duck article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. It's created by an artist so it is a modern work of art, despite appearance. Since it's outside in a public place, it would be free to use under UK law, but most jurisdictions are tighter, I know the US and France don't allow this sort of use.. Presumably we will find out about the Netherlands, but I suspect it's similar to France Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We may be able to email the creator and see if he wants to release a photo under a free licence. I don't think he has an article on wp yet, but he may give us some images if we create one for him. Notabilty should be met.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how we will find his email address? Henrib736 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• mail@florentijnhofman.nl
• http://www.florentijnhofman.nl/dev/contact.php website

He may not speak english though. Is there a Dutch project group on english wikipedia?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a picture of the giant rubber duck on wikimedia commons. Link:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mummie_duckie.jpg We can use it, right? Henrib736 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It may still be a copyright violation in Belgium where the photo was taken. I asked at commons and it may be deleted if it is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So not all media on Wikimedia Commons is freely-licensed? Darn. Henrib736 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It all should be but some slip though the cracks. If you wander over their and look at files in deletion discussions you will see how complex copyright can be. Pictures af statues in the USA and many other countries are usually not allowed as the sculptor's rights are being violated. You need the photographer and sculptor permission for images. The Little Mermaid (statue) images are being discussed there now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have found a project page called "Notice board for Dutch Wikipedians". Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_Dutch_wikipedians We probably can find some Dutch speakers there. Henrib736 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Mummie duckie.jpg is allowed to stay on commons. It seems photographs of 'utilitarian' objects do not viloate FOP laws in that country.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

YESS! That makes it so much easier. I don't have time right now, so I'll add the picture to the duck website when I get a chance. Thank you! Henrib736 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems it is up for deletion again at commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Argh. We'll have to wait and see then. Henrib736 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to email the sculptor and see if he wants his image in wikipedias? If he gives permission under a 'free licence' at OTRS in commons that we can keep it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Henrib736,

I've declined your deletion request for that article, I'm guessing you're fairly new here, so I figured I owed you an explanation in English, rather than in our usual codes, abbreviations and acronyms.

We have three our four paths that can be taken to delete an article (speedy deletion, proposed deletion, articles for deletion), more or less in decreasing order of how certain it is that the article needs to be deleted right now. The "grounds" for a good speedy deletion are very narrowly defined, generally things like attack pages, spam, nonsense and copyright violations, and the concerns you have about that disambiguation page don't fit any of those criteria.

You can read a bit more about each of the processes at their respective pages ( WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD ), but if you'd like to pursue deletion of this I'd recommend the last of the three. Instructions are available on that page, there's a little paperwork involved, but that will generate a discussion that will usually go on for about seven days, at which time an admin (such as myself) will come along and assess what the community consensus is on the questions you raise. Drop me a note if I can explain further. Welcome to wikipedia! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! Thanks for the very speedy and thorough reply! Henrib736 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)