User talk:Glenmark

Revision as of 04:46, 25 February 2007 by Hoary (talk | contribs) (Explanation needed before deleting content: reformatting)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Glenmark. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

Copyright of cdegroot's pages?


I have noticed that the recent addition you made to the Yashica page comes from this page of the Photo Wiki managed by Cees de Groot. I would be surprised if the content of this Photo Wiki was compatible with Camerapedia's GFDL license: at the bottom of the page, I read " Copyright (C)2000 Cees de Groot -- All rights reserved ". I am sorry, but I will be forced to revert your contribution if you cannot point me to a page that clearly states otherwise, for example saying that the content of cdegroot's wiki site is under the GFDL license. --Rebollo fr 19:04, 22 May 2006 (EDT)

Hi Rebollo: If you will note the attribution at the bottom of the Yashica History article you cite, you will notice the author's name - 'Glen', which is myself ("You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself.."). The article I contributed to Cees' page was MY contribution to a free interactive Wiki page, modifiable by others (just as it is here). Copyright protection of the original article and history, if any, could be reserved only by the original author, myself. But feel free to contact Cees if you have other questions, he's a fine fellow, and well aware of the article, see this 2005 Announcement: --Glenmark
Hello and thank you for the clarification. I did not understand very well how the whole content of a freely editable wiki site could be copyrighted by one person only, but I prefered to ask precisions rather than risking to let a copyright violation slip into camerapedia. The high quality of your contribution is much appreciated, and I apologize for the above misunderstanding. --Rebollo fr 12:15, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Explanation needed before deleting content

Hello, Please have a look at the Schneider talk page where I am asking to warn before removing any content. I see that you have removed from the Minolta page the following sentences:

  • "The "Classic" name indicates a move back to knobs and dials and away from buttons and menus - as had always been on the Minolta 9000, by the way, even in 1985, the height of computerized push-button camera introductions. Photographers applauded this return to a logical control layout that allowed them to directly see settings on clearly visible knobs, and didn't require the memorizing of pages from the manual."
  • "Similar control layouts were adopted by other manufacturers, but none matched the completeness of Minolta's direct-read-out knob-control offering."

I completely agree with you that these sentences were unsatisfactory and pretty irrelevant in the maker's page. However I would like a word of explanation:

  • in the change summary: "irrelevant sentences removed"
  • or in the discussion page: "I removed such and such sentence because they were unclear, poorly written and irrelevant"

That is a little more work for you, but there is much more work for me in checking each end every contri if I cannot be confident enough that you do not write things out.

This said, your contributions are much appreciated and are filling out some of Camerapedia's most blatant deficiencies. --Rebollo fr 06:20, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

No problem, I will be most happy to comply. I will endeavor for the most part not to delete content at all, but to add material where necessary. In most cases there is little reason to delete anyway, barring a few entries where contributors have posted clearly incorrect information. glenmark, 3 June 2006