User talk:SD6-Agent

I often blank this page. You can assume I've read any messages left here. I may or may not reply on your talk page, or on the relevant article talk page, as the situation warrants.

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela . 07:05, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the privlege and to those who voted for me SD6-Agent 13:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

about Sleepover (2004 movie)

Hi, I noticed there is a double entry on the movie Sleepover. You created Sleepover (2004 movie) on Aug 1st, while User:Zanimum created Sleepover (movie) on June 9th. How 'bout the two articles are merged so as to avoid duplication? Maybe you could talk with him first. --*drew 05:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. It happens. Just request a merger of the articles. SD6-Agent 17:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

I don't really want to bring up the copyright issue again after our discussion regarding Canadian judges but I noticed you uploaded an image of the Cross of Valour Image:Crossofvalour.jpg which appears to be copied directly from the Governor General's website [1]. The Governor General's website, like other Government of Canada websites does not allow commercial usage without written permission. If you have a source for this image which is compatible with the GFDL perhaps you could mention this on the image's description page along with the license underwhich the image is available. Al guy 17:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I read the copyright notice on the website which is practically the same as any other government of Canada website and I accredited the source as it requested. SD6-Agent 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As was discussed in relation to the Canadian judges, the GDFL license requires commercial usage rights. All government websites require written permission to use any of their content for commercial purposes. As User:Indefatigable said above in the section on Canadian judges that you just blanked out,

"the issue is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia: the users of Wikipedia are to be free to use it however they wish, including republishing it on a commercial Web site on in a commercial book if they want. About the only thing they can't do with it is restrict the people they distribute it to from being free to do whatever they want with it. If we have material that's "free for non-commercial use", it's simply not free enough for Wikipedia. It has to be free for all purposes, with no discrimination on field of endeavour. It's really an issue of the Wikipedia philosophy, not a legal issue."

Al guy 18:45, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well then I guess we should delete every page relating to information about the government of Canada because that is a lot of violations. That sure is a lot of information. Shall we start with deleting the main Canada page? SD6-Agent 18:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which parts of the main Canada page are copyrighted and where is it copied from? Just because other articles use material that infringes the Government's copyright doesn't mean that it is ok to infringe the copyright. I am puzzled by your response because in the Canadian judges discussion (blanked above) you made almost the same comment [2] but after some more discussion it was agreed [3] that those pages copied directly from Government of Canada websites should be rewritten because of this commercial use copyright issue. Al guy 19:46, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

So this goes back to the issue of rewriting the Canadian judges pages. Fair enough. That is no problem. However, you also made an issue of "commerical" use of the image mentioned earlier. I see no commerical use here. I am not making money from it being there. SD6-Agent 20:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your I see no commerical use here. I am not making money from it being there argument is just a tiny bit pathetic, in light of the explanation given by Al Guy above, starting "the issue is that Wikipedia is". You are not Nelson; this is not the Battle of Copenhagen. Playing fast and loose with other people's copyright is not a sensible nor an acceptable way to proceed. There is a large message at the foot of each edit page saying DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION. There is an email address on the Canada site from which you have been abstracting content - copyright.droitdauteur@pwgsc.gc.ca - and I make the suugestion that rather than being complacent you should either check that you are on solid ground, or desist from taking content and risking the good reputation of Wikipedia. I'm told you're an admin. You're not imho setting a good example. --Tagishsimon

The commercial use of both the image in this case, and the text in the case of the judges flows from the commercial use allowed under the GFDL. I posted a note about this discussion at the Wikipedia:Village Pump and several people have commented on the issue there. Al guy 22:30, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Other posters are correct, commercial usage rights are required for all inserted material as per our license, images which do not have them are slowly weeded out, text can be removed immediately. Besides the legal requirement of the GFDL that any combined materials must be under the same license, which allows commercial use (therefore any combined materials also have to allow it), there is a moral case to be made as well. We have many Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, some of them cooperate with us very nicely, and most of them have Google text-ads or something similar = commercial use.--Eloquence *

Well now if I was to depend on Canadian government websites to submit information and I had to follow the copyright permissions from here, with their pricing on every article, I simply could not afford to submit any more information from any government of Canada website. SD6-Agent 18:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. You can certainly use government websites as a reference to help you write or create articles. What you can't do is post content verbatim -- including images -- from government websites without copyright permission. Bearcat 09:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the rule of which I have followed for proper copyright permission and I don't believe I have violated it thus far. SD6-Agent 15:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, all content in the Wikipedia requires a 'commercial use' license. The GG's copyright page says that any commercial use requires written permission of the Public Works ministry. If you have obtained written permission from the ministry please post it on the associated talk page of any article. If you do not have written permission, the material can not be used in Wikipedia. Al guy 21:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you posted an image of Gus Cloutier for the Serjeant-at-Arms page which you listed as 'Public Domain'. Please refer to the public domain source for this image because in other locations on the internet (see [4]) the image is listed as copyright Canadian Press and photographer Tom Hanson. It is highly unlikely that a modern professionally taken photo is public domain. Al guy 21:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

About The Hours (2002 movie)

Hi, could you request for a merger on this article? There is another older article called The Hours (movie) created in May 2003. Thanks for your attention. --*drew 16:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Canawikipedian coffeeklatsch

Just discovered there's a Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Spread the word. Bearcat 03:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Auditor General of Canada

Hi again...when you're posting a chronological list, it should go forward from first to current, not backward from current to first. Thanks. Bearcat 03:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)