Talk:Finch

I see nothing wrong with this illustration that I made of a woodpecker finch. I don't understand the accusation user's have made that it is a "parody" or "cartoon." I understand how it could be interpreted as "cartoony" but I assure you it was meant as an illustation. What exactly makes it "inappropriate" for this article? MB 14:46 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more obvious why this pic is unacceptable to the serious bird writers and illustrators of Wikipedia if I put up two real pics of a woodpecker finch, alongside yours .......

Missing image
Woodp.finch.1.250pix.jpg
http://www.worldbirder.com/photo/photo.asp?PID=216

Missing image
Woodp.finch.2.250pix.jpg
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld015.htm

Unhappily both my pics are copyright so in a few days I will have to have them deleted. But do you now understand why your most excellent piece of clip art is not suitable for serious bird pages? You drew it very well and probably took a long time over it but time spent doesn't count with Wikipedia, only accuracy and usefulness. Could I recognise the finch off your pic? No! Just look at your beak shape, it's wrong. And is the birds front yellow? No! Does it have very thick legs? No! I withdraw my silly "troublemaker" remark but not my remark that this pic just looks so very wrong on the page. Sorry but I have to say what I think.
Adrian Pingstone 16:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I have read your response, I will now delete the copyrighted images. You could have just provided a link, it would have been as effective. It's kind of upsetting that you uploaded copyrighted images to the wikipedia. MB 03:28 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please don't be upset, the only fair way to compare your drawing to the actual bird was to have them properly alongside each other. So that's what I did.
I will now ask a Sysop to delete the two pics and no harm has been done..

Here are the two URL's ........

http://www.worldbirder.com/photo/photo.asp?PID=216

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/zoohons/lecture5/sld015.htm

Best Wishes,

Adrian Pingstone 08:19 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I already deleted them (I'm an admin). You really didn't have to upload them to make your point. Please don't do this again. Thanks. MB 14:18 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll do exactly what I wish, and if proves useful to do a brief upload of a copyright pic following by a full deletion that's what I'll do! Admins do not dictate to contributors what to do, they suggest (big difference)!

Adrian Pingstone 21:04 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Admin's enforce the rules that make it possible for the wikipedia to exist. One such rule, on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page states "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others." You blaitantly did this, and I asked you not to do it again. I did not tell you you couldn't do it again. I didn't request that you be banned for breaking the rules. I asked you to please not do it again. I honestly don't understand why you are being so defensive, but I am willing to let this go as a mistake or misunderstanding. I just ask that in the future, when you click the box next to "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright" you ensure that you indeed have the right to upload the file to the Wikipedia, and you aren't just clicking it to get your file uploaded. Thanks. MB 21:17 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm slowly learning the proper behaviour on Wikipedia so I apologise for my language to you recently. In future, I'll try to express my thoughts straightforwardly and honestly but without emotion. Best Wishes,

Adrian Pingstone 07:08 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No problem, miscommunication is common on the internet, and exceedingly so on Wikipedia. MB 13:54 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)