User talk:Reddi
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Reddi has not edited Wikipedia since 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist ...
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.
Put new comments below
Past discussion can be seen through the History page
Responses
- [replies here; sniping addressed ones; user responding to - comments; most "quoted" comments are in italics]
New criticism, comments, and feedback
From time to time I'll respond here and delete the old content; see history if you want the archive. J. D. Redding 22:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
copyright on Shuttlecock photo?
@Reddi: Did you get legal permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the File:Shuttlecock - Nelson Art Gallery.png to release a photo of that art under a free license?
Please excuse, but my reading of Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US says that the copyright owners of public art like the giant Shuttlecocks do not relinquish their ownership of the copyright by installing it for public viewing, especially anything first displayed 1989-03-01 or later. Per Linten (2010), these giant shuttlecocks were installed 1994-07.
I think all changes to US copyright law since 1970 have been monuments to political corruption. However, another nonprofit with which I'm associated just got demand letters for $1,200 each for two photographs on their website without copyright permission. I'm concerned that WMF could be sued big time if this photo were distributed claiming that we have a right to distribute an image like this when we do NOT have such a right. US copyright law is complicated. The artists who created those sculptures may retain the copyrights and may only have sold the sculptures to the Nelson.
I'm not making this up. At my suggestion, Stephanie Kelton tried to post a photo of her to Wikimedia Commons; it was rejected, because it had been taken by a professional photographer, and Stephanie could not prove she owned the copyright: She may have bought only the print.
Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- okay so looking into all this I think I get your point. Thanks for raising this. I took the photo myself, but I think understand the issue you’re pointing out — U.S. freedom‑of‑panorama doesn’t cover copyrighted sculptures like the Shuttlecocks. If this means the file isn’t eligible for Commons under current policy, I’m fine with whatever action is appropriate. Let me know if there’s anything you need from me J. D. Redding 14:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
References
- Christopher Linton (18 October 2010). "World's Largest Shuttlecocks: Four 18-foot-tall badminton shuttlecocks lie scattered about the lawn of a Kansas City museum". Atlas Obscura. Wikidata Q137797098.
DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- for what it's worth I took this picture this is my picture it seems like an eon ago but yeah I live in the city there so I took it with my old camera I don't even remember I used to have a floppy disk drive I love that camera J. D. Redding 13:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what your objection is
- So maybe if you delineate a little better, I would know J. D. Redding 13:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- and I don't ever remember uploading it to wiki Commons I uploaded it to the encyclopedia locally. Wikipedia version can remain under fair use. J. D. Redding 13:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I took the photo myself, but I understand now that U.S. freedom‑of‑panorama doesn’t allow freely licensed photos of copyrighted sculptures like the Shuttlecocks. I also didn’t realize this had been uploaded to Commons — I originally uploaded it locally to Wikipedia back in 2007.If the Commons version needs to be deleted under current policy, I’m completely fine with that. And if that happens, the Wikipedia version can be handled under normal non‑free content rules. Let me know if there’s anything else you need from me. J. D. Redding 14:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the clarification. I’ll leave it in your hands. J. D. Redding 14:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I took the photo myself, but I understand now that U.S. freedom‑of‑panorama doesn’t allow freely licensed photos of copyrighted sculptures like the Shuttlecocks. I also didn’t realize this had been uploaded to Commons — I originally uploaded it locally to Wikipedia back in 2007.If the Commons version needs to be deleted under current policy, I’m completely fine with that. And if that happens, the Wikipedia version can be handled under normal non‑free content rules. Let me know if there’s anything else you need from me. J. D. Redding 14:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- and I don't ever remember uploading it to wiki Commons I uploaded it to the encyclopedia locally. Wikipedia version can remain under fair use. J. D. Redding 13:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
"List of protoscience" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect List of protoscience has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 29 § List of protoscience until a consensus is reached. consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 13:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.