Open main menu

Contents

File:Pack of Thalidomide tablets c.1960.JPGEdit

Can you specify the location of the Photo? If it is a museum, the date would be authentic! This is important, because warnings are already on it. Early packaging of the drug have no warning. Summer ... hier! (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Science Museum in London... which gave the date... my understanding is that warnings on packs began in 1960 but not in every country... since defective births were diagnosed from 1959 thus would make sense--Stephencdickson (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I have added it in the image. Feel free to change it. -- Summer ... hier! (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Summer ... hier!: @Stephencdickson: I'm strongly sceptical that this pack dates from 1960 or anywhere near that time. The general package design- primarily the choice of typeface, but also the style of the logo- looks far more recent, and not at all typical of the era. It's even more unlikely that packaging back then would have featured a barcode as this does. Ubcule (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Just going by what it said in the museum--Stephencdickson (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but while it might sound arrogant of me to claim that the Science Museum got it wrong, I just noticed something else that backs up my suspicions. I included it in the "fact disputed" tag:-
"Pack features National Drug Code (NDC) number which was introduced in 1972 and the 5-3-2 number format shown here was introduced later ("The NDC was introduced in 1972 ... Later, the FDA expanded the Labeler segment to 5 digits, with 2 configurations (“5-4-1” and “5-3-2”)")"
Ubcule (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"is it okay to use photos of graves on Find a grave?"Edit

Comment moved to end of page by Ubcule, I am not the author

Hello: is it okay to use photos of graves from Wiki on Find a grave? Thanks, SJ

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixturmn (talk • contribs)
Question was also asked by this user at Commons_talk:FAQ#Find_A_Grave in this revision. Ubcule (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not fully sure as the Wikimedia people can be odd about what they often Wrongly interpret as "copyright" but if you send me what you are after I can independently send you copies

The "commons" certainly allows free use within the Wiki umbrella but I am not sure about other use--Stephencdickson (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons does *not* restrict the use of images held here to Wikimedia Projects. On the contrary, images here are supposed to be available under a free license or in the public domain such that they can be used anywhere. If they've been released under a free license- which should be listed on the image page- see that license for details of what you can or can't do with the image.
Of course, this does not solve the problem where someone wrongly uploads an image they *don't* hold the rights to and claim they've released it under a free license, or where they don't supply the correct info and it's unclear if it's legitimate or not. However, that's a different issue. Ubcule (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page content has been archivedEdit

Hi there,

I've archived your talk page content (up to 12 August 2015) to User talk:Stephencdickson/Archive 1 and User talk:Stephencdickson/Archive 2 (see links at top of main talk page).

I wouldn't normally modify other peoples' talk pages like this. However, it had grown so long that newer template-based messages- boilerplate and the like- weren't showing up correctly. (If the amount of templates already on a page exceeds a certain amount, then newer ones aren't displayed properly; that's what all that "autotranslate" nonsense was about).

Since your talk page is the primary method for other users to contact and notify you personally, and since we need to be able to leave you such notifications and know that you've read them, I felt that this was necessary.

(You might want to check User talk:Stephencdickson/Archive 2 to see if there are any messages that you hadn't seen properly before, although they'll be six months old and not much use now).

However, I haven't set up auto-archiving, so you may need to archive your content again in the future.

Hope this explains things. Ubcule (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks.. I had a problem with two people who did not understand British access rights to public art --Stephencdickson (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see- particularly with respect to this case- the problem was that you hadn't explained *why* the images were free to use.
The onus isn't on anyone else to "understand British access rights to public art" or to figure it out for themselves (#), it's the uploader's responsibility in every case to explain why an image is freely-usable. (It's to be assumed that the uploader knows that reason, else they shouldn't be uploading it).
If an image is free because it's out of copyright (as almost anything from 1861 is likely to be), that still has to be made clear. This wasn't the case with your uploads.
I appreciate that you re-photographed a lot of these images and that when you said "own work" you may have meant that. It's not entirely clear whether (e.g.) one can claim ownership for a straightforward reproduction of a 2D work of art under UK law (under US law it's generally accepted that you can't, elsewhere you can).
But regardless of whether you can claim copyright in your photos, the copyright (or lack of) in the source images themselves still remains, and that has to be made clear.
FWIW, the reason your talk page had been on my watchlist is that I'd asked you to supply more information about an image around eight months back. I didn't push to have that deleted- since I knew it *was* almost certainly free and I just wanted the info added- but I notice I didn't get a reply and it was deleted by someone a couple of months later anyway. Too bad.
(#) Sometimes people will do this anyway, but there's no obligation on them to do so.
Ubcule (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wikimedia licencing system does not cover all issues... what was particularly irritating was that the issue of "copyright" is often a red herring in instances where I got formal approval both from the artist and if necessary the gallery...I am an architect by training plus have two years of training in copyright law. My interpretation is the same as the general interpretation of British copyright law: that my 2d image of a sculpture is MY COPYRIGHT..my many artist friends AGREE this interpretation, as does the wording of the law... the issue of PERMISSION to photograph is a separate issue but is not a copyright issue as such... the difficulty on Wikimedia is that it blurs the two separate issues of copyright and permission into one single entity... which it is not... in the same way has wholly non-copyright articles may actually require consent of the owner to photograph. I always get explicit consent to photograph which is why this whole issue was very annoying... the licensing format could usefully be redrafted to add a section on permission (as distinct from copyright) ... the issue as to whether sculpture is in a public place or not is also a complete red herring as UK copyright law makes no distinction on location... so the current interpretation is clearly at loggerheads with what the law actually says --Stephencdickson (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The cases I had in mind were primarily re-photographed works which were 2D in the first place (i.e. photos of drawings or other photos), such as the one I personally asked you about. To the best of my knowledge, these are treated differently to photographs of 3D sculptures.
I might be wrong, but in the case I referenced above, I think you misunderstood SchroCat's point. He did not mention permission as the issue. As far as I can tell, the problem was (as I already stated) that you had not indicated clearly that the re-photographed source image was out of copyright, simply assuming that giving a date of 1861 in the title was enough for anyone to know that. (It wasn't).
I'm not convinced that Commons *does* conflate permission to photograph and copyright itself. I've seen at least one case where it was said (something like) "X might have agreed to such-and-such terms [regarding photography] but that's not our [legal] concern". Also, the Commons' understanding of UK FOP seems to imply that "permission" is not an issue in any remotely "public" place.
Was the reason for the deletion given that the 2D images of 3D sculptures weren't taken in public?
I agree that Commons policy isn't clear enough when it comes to cases where there may be more than one issue of copyright to be covered (e.g. the copyright- or lack of- in the source and the copyright in the reproduction in countries where that is granted). I've raised this issue before, but I'm not convinced it was the problem with your uploads.
Could you let me know of any cases where a 2D photo of a 3D artwork which- as you say- is generally legal was incorrectly deleted? It's hard for me as a non-admin to judge, since the upload pages of deleted images are no longer visible to me, but I'll try to see if there was any obvious problem.
Ubcule (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

ALL the images related to Louise Giblin (sculptor) were 2D images of 3D items taken with her consent and consent of the galleries... to my mind this sort of thing need not be spelled out in full as it needs a full essay... I was invited to London specifically to take the photos and all in all there was great personal expense to the exercise... as there is with MANY of my uploads ... I was too disheartened by the mass deletion to go through each one to request its re-acceptance as the numbers involved were huge and it would have taken longer than the original task...but the Giblin ones would be good to put back as they would be hard to redo--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, we wouldn't want an essay to justify each upload anyway; it would be entirely impractical to manage things if that were the case!
I've raised the issue here, so we'll see what sort of response I get. Ubcule (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional; (as per reply in undeletion discussion) what part of the gallery were they taken in? Was it an area that could reasonably be described as public? Ubcule (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It was a private gallery which is WHY I specifically got the permission of both arttist and gallery owner (which I can PROVE)... but THIS IS MY ISSUE... the law itself makes no distinction of where an artwork is... this is a Wikimedia introduction... but where SPECIFIC CONSENT IS SOUGHT AND GAINED the image should be wholly permissible... I will add that all parties were also told that it was for Wikimedia use !!! --Stephencdickson (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be right with respect to the law- as I'm not an expert (and don't claim to be), I can't argue either way. Similarly, I can't say whether the guidelines and policies in this area are overzealous or not and I'm not here to defend (nor attack) them.
However, that's kind of the point. Most people here aren't legal experts. Commons would obviously be unworkable if (i) Everyone was required to be an expert in the relevant area of law and/or (ii) Every image had to be judged individually with reference to the law. (You understand this yourself as your "essay" comment implied!)
If the guidelines or policies themselves are wrong or unnecessarily restrictive, they can be changed. However, on an image-by-image basis the only issue should be if the guidelines/policies are being properly followed.
I apologise if this sounds officious, bureaucratic or blind-leading-the-blind, but it's pretty much necessary to make most projects like this workable!
Anyway, the reason for all that preamble is that I wanted to ask you what form your evidence takes (whether or not you believe that it's necessary) so I can see if that might work with OTRS. Thanks! Ubcule (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a series of emails with Louise Giblin organising my trip to London and giving me access to gallery and specific rights to photograph, also explaining that the gallery have been told that I am NOT part of the official press (who would also be present)--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC) I agree the overall policy... however most UK galleries simply need a VERBAL check... usually specific works (usually those ON LOAN from private collections) are highlighted as no photos and/or no FLASH photograph (note= NONE of my photographs ever use flash)... but the other UK issue is that public galleries are literally owned by the public... this means that if I request to see a work IN STORAGE they are obliged (given fair notice) to provide access to this, and may copy if desired...this is where the issue of "where in the gallery is it" goes wildly off track as this is not relevant in UK law... as long as it is part of the permanent collection (on display or not) special visiting exhibitions have their own rules... as do non-public galleries--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As I commented above, you may well be correct but I'm not enough of a legal expert to say either way, so you're casting your pearls before swine here! I'm still looking into what form the OTRS permission should take, and I'll get back to you. Ubcule (talk)
Hi again
Would something like this (see top of page) be acceptable?
Ubcule (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it looks like that isn't going anywhere. :-( Ubcule (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to let you know that while I tried my best with this, I think the whole situation is more convoluted and complex than I'd anticipated.
I'm not in a position to say what's right or wrong- I've never claimed to be a legal expert and don't want to play "amateur lawyer" by pretending otherwise(!)
The issue of permission in the discussion started getting too convoluted for its own good. (I don't expect- nor want- the original sculptor to sign some request out of the blue asking for more legal permission over her work than we might need).
Unfortunately, given this, I can't really recommend a course of action to get your images re-uploaded.
You're welcome to take part in the discussion directly if (big *if*!) you feel it's worth your time. I'd hoped to be able to deal with the Commons side despite having less legal expertise than yourself, but I think I've taken that as far as I can. Sorry I couldn't be more help here. Ubcule (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed license on uploadEdit

Hi again,

I've changed the license on your upload File:Early calotype of John Cay by Hill & Adamson c.1850.PNG to {{pd-art}} (i.e. both authors died well over 70 years ago, so this is clearly PD).

See the image itself for the license details.

Did you mean to claim any additional authorship in the re-photographing/reproduction process? If not, we can change it to the simpler {{pd-old}}.

All the best,

Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


File:London Bridge by Charles Ginner, 1913.JPGEdit

 
File:London Bridge by Charles Ginner, 1913.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Gunnex (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Jack Coia by Archibald Dawson.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Jack Coia by Archibald Dawson.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT, the info required is that relating to the photograph, not the sculpture itself. I've tagged this image with {{FoP-UK}} as the (copyrighted) sculpture can quite clearly be photographed on that basis, but we still need you to make clear that it's your photo, and what license the photo uses. Cheers, Ubcule (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Ok... I am perhaps confused by previous debates which challenged my photos of non-copyright art. It is my own photo and I am happy for it to be used. On previous use of photos of sculptures others have stated "this is not your work"... It is my photo of a work in public domain in the same way as my photo of an il paining is... the wikimedia licencing is much clearer on (specifically for some reason) "oil paintings" but is vague and/or misleading on other artworks and focusses purely on the US norm without a UK understanding of access to public art (owned by the UK taxpayers).--Stephencdickson (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to say whether or not the sculpture is now public domain or not, but assuming it was permanently situated in a public place, you should be able to photograph it as {{FoP-UK}} regardless of whether it's out of copyright or not. If *you* can show it's public domain and- that being the case, you object to the FoP notice where it might not strictly be required- you probably don't need that, but I'm not sure what tagging would be best there; you'd have to ask someone with more knowledge.
If the {{own work}} tag is in addition to the FoP one, it should be clear that it refers to the photograph, but you can append a note before or after "own work" to clarify that it applies to the photo and why it was used.
You'll also need to license the image (e.g. {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}).
Sorry, I don't want to get out of my depth here, as the last time I (and we) wasted a lot of time that was ultimately not productive. I simply wanted to clarify what tags were (apparently) missing here as the info on the original upload wasn't sufficient and likely to lead to it being deleted.
Ubcule (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia remains confused on the issue of photography of sculpture, and as we have gone over before finds it hard to distinguish the rights to the photo from the rights to the 3D work. This remains fuzzy due to the US rather than UK interpretation (I studied copyright law for a year so am far from ignorant in UK context)... but all Wikimedia appears focussed upon US laws and rights with NO mention of international law or copyright. I have been previously told that my photos of 3D work is NOT my work, but illustrates someone else's work. Personally I think these sort of debates are fruitless unless Wikimedia sort out their definitions and start to distinguish copyright from licence and from PERMISSION to photograph.--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Your complaints almost certainly have some legitimacy- as (IMHO) Commons isn't always clear as it can be when there's more than one area of copyright to be clarified. I'm sure there *is* a discussion to be had there. However... as I said before, I'm probably not the person it would be productive to have that discussion with. A better place (if you're inclined) would be the Help desk or the Village Pump.
Basically, I was just trying to clarify what tags were missing from the original upload (i.e. the reason it was tagged as having insufficient info on its copyright status) and the easiest way to correct this so your image- which I'm pretty sure legitimately belongs here- hopefully wasn't deleted.
As I said, there might be other ways of tagging it in a compliant manner that's more to your satisfaction, but I'd be out of my depth there and can't help you personally with that.
All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Ilya Kopalin.jpgEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ilya Kopalin.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ilya Kopalin.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

ShinePhantom (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ilya Kopalin.jpgEdit

 
File:Ilya Kopalin.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

(talk) 18:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:10 Bellevue Crescent, Edinburgh.jpgEdit

 
File:10 Bellevue Crescent, Edinburgh.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do no0t understand the problem... this is a photo I took on the street to illustrate an article and has no copyright issues whatsoever--Stephencdickson (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Eve Casini (model) by Stephen C Dickson.jpgEdit

 
File:Eve Casini (model) by Stephen C Dickson.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I donot understand what is the problem, it is my photo of my painting, which in turn is based on a photo by myself--Stephencdickson (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The linked deletion request makes clear that the reason is that your image lies outwith Commons' educational scope; as it says here,
Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: [..] Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills
If you disagree with this, you should probably contribute to the deletion request. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.17.224.172 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
86.17.224.172 12:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject is an Italian model living in my city whom I intend to write an article on at some point. Whilst the creation may be considered "premature" it is hoped to ultimately use the image in the said article--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If the model in question is notable enough to potentially warrant a Wikipedia article (whether or not that article has actually been written), then it's highly likely to be in scope here too.
On the other hand, if it's just a photo of someone who happens to be a model (i.e. like most of us, not notable in her own right), then this would not apply.
There may be other reasons why it might be educationally useful. However, it is (or was) your responsibility to explain these at the deletion discussion. Unfortunately, it appears you didn't contribute- discussion here isn't taken into account- and the image has now been deleted. 86.17.224.172 14:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:A sketch by Charles Avery.JPGEdit

 
File:A sketch by Charles Avery.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pippobuono (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:The cover of Gardening in Colour by Ward Lock & Co.jpgEdit

 
File:The cover of Gardening in Colour by Ward Lock & Co.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ubcule (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional; I only nominated this because I spotted it while looking into the other deletion nomination above. (Which in turn was only drawn to my attention because I'd forgotten to remove your talk page from my watchlist after the last time we spoke).
Have to admit I don't understand why it was uploaded here though- unless it was an oversight on your part and intended to be uploaded to en.wikipedia instead? It seems to be a fairly clear-cut fair use but not free image. Anyway, probably better to discuss it at the deletion request itself if you disagree.
That said, thanks for all the other great images!
Ubcule (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the photo it is done in a way that does not compromise any copyright... it also clearly adds to the article on Ward Lock--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(Please see my reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The cover of Gardening in Colour by Ward Lock & Co.jpg.) Ubcule (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I studied copyright law for two years... in my opinion the angled image of the book does NOT compromise the copyright of the individual photographic images on the cover as they effectively become incidental background... in the same way that images of books appearing in film does not breach copyright. Whilst a square-on view WOULD be problematic the distortion frees this in copyright terms and does not impact on the integrity of the copyright on the original photographic images. That said, it does not bother me too much, if deleted, but could you point out the section of the UK copyright law which you feel is breached--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we please move this discussion- or at least aspects specific to this case- to the deletion request page where it belongs?
To be clear, it seems like you're engaging in a de facto deletion request discussion- and putting some effort into it, and making some points worth addressing- but this is the wrong place for it.
This is purely a personal (and academic) discussion between ourselves and will not be seen or taken into account by the community when looking at the deletion request.
Maybe I gave the wrong impression when I added a comment to the template, but this was merely supposed to be clarification of why it was nominated (which I viewed as a side issue). Anything more than that belongs at the request page. Thanks,
Ubcule (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit; I should have been clearer that if you post at the deletion request, your feedback *will* be taken into account, and is also far more likely to be seen- and get productive responses from- other people, not just myself. Ubcule (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice you've only contributed once to a deletion request, and if you dislike posting there (for whatever reason) that's your right, but please understand that arguing your case on the talk page with me alone is likely a waste of your effort for the reasons given. Ubcule (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Too late. However, for future reference:-
"the individual photographic images on the cover [..] effectively become incidental background... in the same way that images of books appearing in film does not breach copyright."
I'm aware of the general principle, please read de minimis. I didn't see this as "de minimis" by Commons' existing standards, and I'm 99% sure that the closing/deleting admin did so because he felt the same way. Feel free to ask him/her about it if you disagree.
Ubcule (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

"Too late"... great sarcasm... my issue overall is that many Wikimedia users seem wholly untrained in Copyright Law and seem to guess... it should not be up to individuals, especially with a legitimate knowledge of copyright law, to fight to keep legitimate images.... but as I say, it is of no great concern as a deletion, it is just sad that the system is run by those who seem to have never read the law. The overall attitude is not useful and serves no legitimate purpose, and, at its extreme, may lead to calls of destruction of intellectual property. I am trying to make fair and useful additions. I make many contributions but am in poor health and cannot afford the mental effort for major intellectual challenges (not that I feel this falls into this category)... I just think the whole thing is sad... spending some time reading the copyright laws may broaden your own understanding, and help Wikimedia overall... which is, after all, THE POINT OF IT ALL--Stephencdickson (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessarily blunt on my part, for which I apologise. However, it was an expression of my frustration that I'd tried- and failed- to encourage you to post where it mattered in defence of your image- rather than wasting your effort posting here- yet you didn't do so.
Yes, I do accept that you seem to put a lot of effort into discussions like this, which was why I felt obliged to redirect your comments to where they'd be more productive instead of effectively wasting them on an unseen discussion between you and myself. That's why I refused to go into the "deletion request" issues here.
I made clear previously that I'd already been guilty of overreaching myself- and ending up wasting both our times- trying to help personally rather than (productively) drawing the line and redirecting you to a community page where more experienced users were likely to read and contribute useful feedback.
Commons operates on the precautionary principle, so yes- I'm sure some legitimate images do get deleted, often where it's too complicated to figure something out. You understand copyright law? Good- I'm quite prepared to believe that you know a lot more than I do, but we still need you to make things workable and clear. Posting on your talk page rather than the deletion request page in this case (for example) didn't help- I cut and pasted your original comment to the request page- since it would be taken into account there, and in hope of you continuing the discussion there (with no extra effort on your part)- but you replied here again, and... well, I tried, but I draw the line there.
The whole point of having a deletion request page is that it *isn't* a personal discussion between you and me. It's supposed to be a community discussion- not a foregone conclusion- and it's *not* my decision whether it gets deleted.
I've already said that complaining to me personally on your talk page- to someone that's never claimed to be anything more than some minor, random Commons user trying to help out- about Commons' alleged lack of understanding of copyright is a waste of both your time and mine. You've said similar things before, but what do you want me to do about it?
Commons doesn't- and shouldn't- require everyone to be an expert on copyright law. Rather, people who know what they're doing *should* have figured it out and created guidelines that are workable for everyone. If you disagree with how we interpret the law, that's fine, but as I said, there's no point directing your criticism at some random user (i.e. myself) on your talk page and expecting much to come of it. If you feel strongly about this, please contribute where your effort will not be wasted.
However, enough- I think I've probably spent too much of *both* our time and mental effort on this (something I set out not to do at first, so my apologies).
As I said previously, we do appreciate your contributions (most of which aren't in dispute), and I apologise if I let my frustration here get the better of me. However, if you want to meaningful feedback or responses to your complaints (that don't simply repeat what I've already said), you'll probably have to direct them more meaningfully. Ubcule (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

and I had tried and failed to encourage an attitude where copyright legislation is not GUESSED AT... that is my primary issue... the time spent discussing this insignificant image could more usefully have been spent reading the legislation and thereafter inducing a look before you leap approach--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Who is this comment directed at? Ubcule (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Lord Belbury (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC) This appears to be saturation coverage completely ignoring the fact that most of these are simply created to improve the quality of 19th c non copyright images. It completely ignores UK guidelines on destruction of intellectual property as I have already had clear confirmation that these are my own intellectual property. Therefore proceed at risk--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC) I would also point out several of those listed are veryt far from the derivative source(s). Can you explaion the logic where they are far from original.? You are effectively saying no-one can ever do a portrait of a dead individual unless it is 100% conjectural--Stephencdickson (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I must have missed your earlier suggestion that some of the originals might in the public domain. I thought you were saying that the whole point of all of these pastel works was to avoid infringing copyrights, and I took that to mean that you'd created each of these works because you knew it would be against copyright to upload the untouched original - meaning that they were all derivative works of copyrighted images, which Wikimedia Commons would not be able to host.
If you could clarify which of your portraits were created to avoid infringing the copyright of a portrait that is not yet in the public domain (such as the 1977 Alan Sutherland portrait of Sir William Gray), that would help decide which of your pastels could still be used by Wikimedia Commons.
I'd guess that if there were no public domain photos of an individual but many copyrighted photos and paintings, it would be possible to create an original work which was derived generally from that body of artwork, rather than copying any particular image, and gave a fair depiction of the person without infringing any other artist's copyright. Perhaps a very loose interpretation of a specific image (to the point where it couldn't be determined which of many photos of the subject it was based on) would also be fine, although I don't claim any authority on copyright. If any of your works are in those areas, I apologise for missing that when preparing the list above - please flag them on the deletion page so that others can assess them. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors have begun marking files as PD-or-not-PD at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson - would appreciate your help in filling in the blanks here, where we haven't been able to determine a source or the identity of the original artist. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Peter MacGregor Chalmers by Stephen C Dickson.jpgEdit

A question on File:Peter MacGregor Chalmers by Stephen C Dickson.jpg -- the source for that image appears to be here, but that is for Robert Stodart Lorimer, not Chalmers. Another photo of Lorimer is here, and that certainly seems to be the person you drew. Am I missing something, or is your drawing mislabeled (and used on the wrong Wikipedia article)? This is the Chalmers page on the same site, which has a 1901 photo, but does seem to be a different person. The copyright status of your drawing is difficult -- the Lorimer drawing on which it appears to be based is dated 1910 or 1920, but it also has a signature on it, which I can't read at the resolution of the image on that page. We would have to identify who that is, and find out how long they lived. Do you know who made that underlying drawing? Thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Samuel JosephEdit

Hello! I was looking through the photos we have of Samuel Joseph's sculptures, of which you contributed the majority (thank you!). One little thing -- am I right to say that File:William Trotter of Ballandean by Samuel Joseph.jpg is held by Edinburgh Council? Where did you take the photo? Best, Jarry1250 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further derivative worksEdit

Per ongoing discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson, please don't upload any further sketches which are based on a single copyrighted photograph, as you did with File:Sir John Smith Samuel.jpg recently. These are considered derivative works.

If the source image is in the public domain (as your recent File:Henry Dunlop of Craigton.jpg seems to be), it'd help to mention the the source image you used or the name of the original artist/photographer (rather than listing it as "Own work"), so that other editors can verify its status and consider transferring the original work to commons also. This is particularly important for images where the source isn't immediately verifiable through a simple Google search (such as your File:William Burney Bannerman c.1910.jpg, which I am unable to find the original of). If you aren't sure of the original image's copyright status, you can help other editors by providing as much information as you have about the source.

Wikipedia is certainly crying out for original portrait artwork for biography articles where no usable images exist, and you could do a lot of good here, but as that linked page says: It is extremely important that the piece is original and can not be considered a derivative of any existing work. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The John Smith Samuel portrait would be very hard not to call "my" creation as it is specifically a pencil sketch from scratch, based on 3 images in the public domain in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The underlying debate continues to read that if my work was poorer there would not be an issue... Are you saying that any image (not just mine) should ALWAYS refer to original designer/creator. This seems inconsistent and taken to extremes would mean that a photo of any man-made object should always refer to its designer (and everything, even a road, has a designer). Looking at the many hundreds of thousands of images on Wikimedia I find none that follow this philosophy. Can you point me to a specific parallel to see exactly what relationship you seek to be referenced to the original designer. I am aware the checking all began with a debate on a photo of a modern building but was there any conclusion as to how a picture of ANY 20th century object (all with designers/creators) should be referenced... or are we saying nothing 20th century is safe? You will note most of my contributions are photos of graves. Is it forgotten that every gravestone DOES have a designer. And a photo of a grave is also "derivative". My lawyers are still of the firm opinion that where a new artistic concept is created it is not an issue. This is most strongly evidenced in the public realm by the works of Lichtenstein and Warhol.--Stephencdickson (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The John Smith Samuel portrait looks very similar to this 1932 portrait photo, to the point where I assumed this was your only reference. Apologies if this is not the case - you should clarify this at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson, as other editors have (where a closely similar painting or photograph has been located online) assumed all these works to be direct derivations from single reference sources.
I don't believe it's required to credit original artists, but it would certainly be helpful here - it lets other editors examine any potential derivative status, it allows them to confirm that the work is correctly described (as raised further up on your talk page, File:Peter MacGregor Chalmers by Stephen C Dickson.jpg may actually be Robert Lorimer?) and would be of general benefit of any historian researching the portrait subject. It also makes it clear what the viewer is actually looking at - if I upload a sketch of a Degas ballerina sculpture, it's more useful if I say that's what it is, rather than describing it as merely "drawing of ballerina, own work".
I can't point to any examples of credited sketch copies offhand, but I'd expect them to be rare - if the original was a copyrighted artwork which could not be scanned or photographed, the sketch would have been deleted as derivative; if the original was public domain, there would have been no need to make a derivative sketch of it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Commons:Derivative works#Casebook has some example-by-example analysis here, including the advice that "Remember: Always provide the original creator's name, birth and death date and the time of creation, if you can! If you do not know, give as much source information as possible (source link, place of publication etc.). Other volunteers must be able to verify the copyright status." It's talking about photographs of paintings, but the same would go for sketches based on single reference sources. --Lord Belbury (talk)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Etching of Charles Mordaunt Cracherode, 1818.JPGEdit

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Etching of Charles Mordaunt Cracherode, 1818.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Yann (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Carbeth Guthrie.pngEdit

Copyright status: File:Carbeth Guthrie.png

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Carbeth Guthrie.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 20:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Toussaint L'ouverture Engraving Permission with AttributionEdit

Hi, can you please verity that the Toussaint L'overture Engraving is indeed available for re-use, even commercial, with attribution?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgalbsgo2 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Edward William Lane by Richard James Lane, 1829.jpg = National Portrait Gallery NPG 940?Edit

 
Edward William Lane by Richard James Lane, 1829

I think File:Edward William Lane by Richard James Lane, 1829.jpg is the statue in the National Portrait Gallery, inv. no. NPG 940 and have edited the description page accordingly. Could you confirm? If not please revert me!
Thanks a lot in advance for one or the other! --Marsupium (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Christian Schad self-portrait 1927.jpgEdit

 
File:Christian Schad self-portrait 1927.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

NNW 22:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Stephencdickson".