User talk:Queeg

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Queeg!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

motd_thumbtime

Hallo Queeg, please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#protected_template_edit:_motd_thumbtime for info. I have seen that you did insert the full length of the videos in the thumbtime and did include s and m units. Those units do not work. And the full length would be not useful. The "thumbtime" is the time from which a thumb should be displayed. See the today's lightning video. Now we have a nice thumb. Without thumbtime it would be simply black. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was completely and simply without understanding of what the template does! And more: I was beginning to experiment here with making the first frame of the video to be my choice for the thumbnail. You have saved me a lot of time. Thank you.

Do you know if there are any existing methods or plans to display images that are included with audio files? File:Boswell Sisters-Old Yazoo.ogg contains a 12x12 pixel thumbnail, a 320x320 pixel image and an additional 120x120 pixel image -- the last I included to see if I could get it to display here.

the thumbtime -- that would be nice for video pages as well? -- Queeg (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have updated Commons:Video#Video_usage to include this info.

The motd templates are poorly/not documented. Yes. I did not create them. ;-)

As far as I know it is not possible to specify a thumbtime for the file's page itself. Just when you include it in an article or page.

@the ogg with embedded image: not possible to use it (to my knowledge). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! :-) Just for info: I have changed Template:Motd/2011-06-05 thumbtime and Template:Motd/2011-06-03 thumbtime. I noticed you have used 0.24 and so on. Please note that if this should be 24 seconds it needs to be 0:24 or simply 24. 0.24 is rounded to 0.2 seconds which wasn't your intention probably. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Caught! I "repaired" my errors quickly -- too quickly to get on with something else I was doing.

I did really think (originally) that it was a way to tell how long the video or audio lasted so that people viewing or listening would know how much time to commit. Perhaps I will make this part of the description as this information really did seem useful to me at the time I got that templates function wrong.

Sorry and thank you for your vigilance in this matter. -- Queeg (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that the template dislikes "08" and it breaks with ":08"! I ended up just converting all of the times into seconds. -- Queeg (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, put some info on the templates talk page. I guess it will work with 0:08. But not with :08. I am not totally overwhelmed by your idea to include the duration in the caption. But I am also not against. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to share my thoughts: For todays MOTD File:Dixiefried.ogg it would be nice to have the record File:Dixiefried.jpg as small image on the main page. Maybe the templates should be extended to have an option for a addition image for audio files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The file includes a 320x320px version of that image of the record, a 32x32px version (both filling a pre-defined image type that was mentioned in the metaflac documentation) and another 120x120px of the same image which I assigned "type 0" to in the case that the commons software could already display it -- "0" is "other" (http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tools_flac.html#flac_options_picture).

I was surprised that the software here did not already handle this and would be less surprised if it turns out that it was that I did not put the dedicated image into the right type or that I just have not yet discovered the proper template for it.

I have also kept this idea that the included image could be displayed in the back of my mind to see if a method of how to display it would surface eventually. Perhaps seeing how the software digs a frame from a video file would help with my thinking about this.

Something that I have found since I uploaded those files is software that checks to see if the audio file has exceeded some sound boundries. Several "high quality" music files I downloaded for personal use were "clipped" by sox "play" which seems to be quite sensitive to that kind of thing.

Perhaps I should have checked the Dixiefried ogg before its big day arrived!! I like it when the software is a little more sensitive than me for listening problems. sox was willing and able to adjust volume, bass and treble up to ten places behind the decimal! I gave up "fine tuning" before it did; my goal had been not to lose too much of the original file(s). -- Queeg (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the file includes an image - but the software is not using it. Even if the software would - it would not help for most files as most do not have an image included. There needs to be a template modification if there is consensus to enable thumbnails for sound files on the main page. However, I do not have time to do/prepare it.

Another thing, I am quite confused about the copyright release in the "liner" of the record as the file's description page says. Is this usual, that record companies give away their copyright? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not believe nor disbelieve the "Permission" claims of the file here; having observed the wikimedia copyright machine, I feel that if the file is here then it is allowed to be here. Perhaps if this copyright checking machine (by machine I mean mechanism and people using the mechanism) were used to investigate uploaders and not files, I should be more suspicious of the files that are available here. It would not serve the stated goals and purposes of this and similar wikimedia projects though, I think, to investigate people and not files.

The file has been here for almost two and a half years! Do you really think it would be here that long without its permission to be here being checked? -- Queeg (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an active part of this "machine" and I can definitely tell you: yes - sometime we even have files olders than 2,5 years that need to be deleted. Some files are just not in use long time, are not a "stupid" copyvio on the first sight or similar. I do not see this file as a high risk file - but if the permission (copyright release) would be documented better (e.g. at least by a full quote of the text in the liner) it would be nice. I think I will try to ask the uploader... Sometime people are just making false assumptions. One example is press materials by companies: some people think that it is public domain which it isn't. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My respects to a member of the machine then. If I remember correctly, the Sun Records audio files that are here were all of "traditional songs". The uploader seemed to think that if the song writer was unknown (due to the song being an old folk song) that it was fine to upload.

I have actually been recently more watchful for fakes being introduced into the files I have been getting for personal use. I bought a Boswell Sisters vinyl record in the 1980s and some of the files that were/are on that Rhino recording are also available at archive.org. However, at least one of them was different than what had been on my vinyl. Then I looked at a list of Boswell sisters recordings and at least one of the different sounding songs had only been recorded once. There is a Boswell sisters tribute band on youtube and it just seems that the two facts, the "different sounding" recordings and the existence of a tribute band go kind of well together.... Later, when I was making my collection into an "album" with replay-gain, the software refused to work with a few of the files because they were with 2 channels and the most of the files were appropriately mono (single channel). I deleted all of those 2 channel files from my personal collection. One of the files I deleted from my personal collection is here: Old Yazoo. False advertising is not a copyright violation, but it seems like it should be a good reason to delete a file.

I loved that record of mine and listened to it often. I think that you can hear the difference -- actually. http://www.archive.org/download/BoswellSisters-11-20/BoswellSisters-DownAmongTheShelteringPalms.ogg is incomplete but other than that, the same that was on my record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKCyAcU is similar but not the same, "underneath the weird audio transfer noises".

I am so bored with copyright problems and eh, originally only became very very interested because of two friends. One of those friends gave me a "throw out" image that was interesting and cool but considered to have no commercial value to put on my web site and when it got an audience there it was taken back in an action that is far more serious than any government law -- something we used to call "indian giving" back in the 1960s when such terminology was not considered to be as politically incorrect as the action it describes (when you give something and then take it back). Another copyright nut insisted that I take a photograph down from my site, and respectfully, I did this -- along with an apology. Later, the first friend was screaming at me all of the time for no reason that I knew of and the second banned me from an irc channel for no good reason. Even my first and only dip into the creative commons was such a very very bad experience -- I am sorry that I did not keep that mail to show now as good reason to stay the hell away from that bunch. This is perhaps not evidence of boredom, but of the futility of my caring about it.

Delete what you will, you will find no argument from me; caring about it has been the source of my biggest and most unexplainable problems. If I disagree enough, I have other options for online locations of these files and enough real concern for the commons credibility -- both its real credibility and the "machines" feeling/self-perception of credibility.

Please delete that one file! It is not that I think that the sound of the tribute band is bad; it is that I don't want to be included in the false advertising and I don't think the commons should be included in it either. I don't know of any policy that covers this kind of problem.

Perhaps all of the Boswell Sisters songs I uploaded should be deleted, actually. They have a PD license at archive.org but I have no idea if their idea of PD is the same as commons idea of PD for this kind of file. If you could wait to delete HeebieJeebies though, until the day after tomorrow (to me it follows the giant bug very nicely for media of the day and it sounds PD and is perfectly politically incorrect enough to land it in the public domain. -- Queeg (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Boswell_Sisters-Heebie_Jeebie_Blues.ogg

File:Boswell_Sisters-Heebie_Jeebie_Blues.ogg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Saibo (Δ) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooops - honestly, I did not see what you wrote just some minutes ago here. I had translated the file's descriptions and then (stupid) looked at the licensing. Then I discussed it shortly with user:ZooFari at 02:29 (UTC) and came to the conclusion of above. I have not read your long comment above as i have to go to bed now - it is really late here. I will respond tomorrow and help to find a new file if you have not found a new one then. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In my lengthy comment (perhaps made longer than necessary due to being a little slap happy from having watched an hour of television with the most concentrated violence and sexism I have ever seen -- 1950s,60s and 70s toy commercials) I expressed a concern about the file Old Yazoo which might be the product of fraud.

In the world of crime, a copyright violation starts with a warning and a request for removal but FRAUD has been placed on a completely different level and is less prone to warnings and is assigned a far greater punishment? Right and wrong might be "black and white" but criminal actions have been ranked and given different degrees of criminality. Copyright is probably closer to a civil infraction and fraud is probably more like a misdemeanor or felony. -- Queeg (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)