Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/Nov 2011: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:01, 11 November 2011

Revision as of 07:00, 12 November 2011

Line 501:

{{Done}}: when the request is done. -->

::Thanks! [[User:Andre Kritzinger|André Kritzinger]] ([[User talk:Andre Kritzinger|talk]]) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== Teapot ==

{{resolved}}

<!-- nothing or {{resolved|1=~~~}} or {{Stale|1=~~~}} -->

<center><gallery>

</gallery></center>

'''Article(s):''' [[Palace Hotel, San Francisco]]

'''Request:''' Requesting that the text be removed and a reasonable amount of space around the image be maintained. Because of the text removal, the background would either need to be restored, or replaced entirely. I believe the background is already not original to the photo, so your call, I suppose. Thanks! [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 04:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

'''Graphist opinion(s):'''

<!-- This area is for wikigraphists:

{{I take|name}}: when you accept the request ;

{{Done}}: when the request is done. -->

{{Done}}: Left the red background... thought it looked rather nice. A simple single color would probably be more encyclopedic, but who says we can't be stylish from time to time? Also, the original image had a "shadow" (probably photoshopped). Reproducing such a digital shadow, while possible, is not something I can do with any competence... so I didn't try. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 22:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:Looks wonderful! Thanks much! [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

::I have restored my original illustration which contains text that identifies what it is and why it is significant. SchuminWeb, having someone alter an image to materially change its meaning -- ''especially'' doing so "behind the back" of its creator and original uploader -- is totally unacceptable behavior and again shows an apparent lack of understanding of how WP is meant to operate as a community, not a fiefdom. If you had some issue or question about this illustration (not "photo"), you knew perfectly well that I created it as you had just moved it to Commons (along with many of my other images) and also how to get in touch with me. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Working through some [[WP:OWN]] issues, Centpacrr? [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 02:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Centpacrr, I understand why you would put the descriptive text in the image. Your intention is good. However, it is preferred that any descriptive text go into an image caption or the image description page rather than the image itself. This is for a few reasons... it makes it easy to translate that description into multiple languages, it makes the text available to search engines, it makes the description easier to change or update, etc, etc. Given those considerations, I think you'll agree that text based, rather than image based descriptions are the way to go. By all means, add pertinent information to the image description page. It would also be helpful to add a few categories to the description page as well. This way the image gets grouped with similar or related images. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 03:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I think SchuminWeb sees it as a teapot, and Centpacrr as a poster. Centpacrr is the uploader. As an admin here SchuminWeb could show an example of tolerance and collaboration. Proposal: JBarta can upload his version as a derivative on Commons, and SchuminWeb can revert himself. I think we shall all benefit from this. Peace. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::My issue here is that this materially changes the illustration by deleting text that identifies the teapot as being from the ''original'' Palace Hotel and thereby obscuring its meaning and significance as being a very rare "survivor" of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire which destroyed the 1875 Palace. This is not a matter of [[WP:OWN]], but instead restoring what, as its creator, I consider to be an essential part of the overall illustration (as opposed to a "photo") which identifies what it is if and when it is used ''outside'' of Wikipedia. I might add that significant changes were also made to the artistic elements of the illustration by altering the background which have nothing to do with the text. What I also object to is the way that SchuminWeb went about this. He knows perfectly well who created the illustration, but instead of contacting me with whatever concern he may have had he instead went behind my back and had it modified without having any idea of why it was the the way it was. It is arbitrary and unilateral behavior like this that eventually drives editors away from contributing to WP as being not worth the aggravation. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::: Centpacrr, you're hanging on to the notion that descriptive text ought to be in this image. It's really not a useful thing to hang onto. And how someone might use an image ''outside'' of Wikipedia has no bearing on how images should be used ''inside'' Wikipedia. Also, you mention "artistic elements" outside of the text. I assume you mean the shadows, etc. It would be supremely useful if you would recreate that image with those artistic elements, but leave out the descriptive text. That certainly would be better than my edit. That combined with your description on the image description page (and adding categories) would be ''very'' useful, completely in line with WP policies and certainly wouldn't be objected to by anyone. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 04:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Centpacrr, if you license your images under a free license, we do not need your permission to modify files that you have uploaded. Remember the old line in the edit box: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you don't like others making modifications to images you have uploaded per the free license you have released them under, you are more than welcome to upload your images to Flickr under an all-rights-reserved or otherwise more restrictive license rather than here. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 06:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::The objection I had was that the way the illustration was altered ''changed its meaning.'' I have now created a new version that illustrates the teapot as well as the original Palace Hotel's crest (which also appears on the teapot) and logotype, and added that information to the file's host page. In the future if you have some issue with one of my illustrations then please have the courtesy to contact me with your concerns instead of seeking to have someone else alter it without my knowledge and without knowing why it was created the way it was and thus changing its meaning as you did in this case. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::You really do need to work through your issues with [[WP:OWN]], because no one needs either to seek or receive your permission to modify the images, and your addition of unencyclopedic material is quickly becoming ''disruptive''. So stop it already. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

*Apparently you have not read ''either'' this illustration's description on the file's host page or its caption in the gallery. This new illustration is meant to show ''three'' things, not just one. It illustrates: 1) the "crest" of the original Palace Hotel; 2) the logotype the original hotel used, and; 3) the individual silver service teapot from the original Palace Hotel. This is ''not'' an "unencyclopedic" illustration as all three of these elements could legitimately have their own ''separate'' illustrations in the gallery, but as they are related I have combined them in a single illustration. With respect, sir, it is your constant interference in this matter that has become "disruptive" editing, and your behavior towards both [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_November_7#Concluding_comment|me]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchuminWeb&diff=next&oldid=459811729 other editors] constitutes ''exactly'' the kind harassment that drives good contributors away from the project. This is not only unacceptable when practiced by regular editors, but is ''especially'' egregious and oppressive when it comes from an Admin. Remember that WP Admins are the ''servants'' of WP's editors - not their ''masters'' - and as such they are held to a higher standard of accountability because of the powers they have been entrusted with by the community." [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::You know, I was happy to get out of this, but I'll jump back in because I'm getting a little irritated with your ridiculous thrashing about. Let's be perfectly clear and honest here. Based on your image of the [[:File:Palace Hotel Silver Teapot c1900.jpg|teapot]] and [[:File:Palace Hotel Room Key c1935.jpg|keys]] and your little advertisment on the description page (''Original digital illustration created by User:Centpacrr (DigitalImageServices.com)'') it seems to me that your intent (in this instance) is not only to provide encyclopedic content, but also to advertise your graphic talents for either gain or ego. And throwing a fit suggesting you might take your ball and go home if other editors don't play by your rules is a whine older than the hills. It doesn't do you any service. I implore you as a fellow editor to hold ''yourself'' to a higher standard and knock it off already. Just upload purely encyclopedic images and leave the artistic showcasing to your own web site. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree that adding that link was overtop and removed it. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::*While we're arguing this, perhaps someone would care to explain how this is not a derivative work of two copyright images taken from [http://thepalacehotel.org/ this website], or even wholely lifted from [http://thepalacehotel.org/images725/PH_teapot_c1900_725.jpg this]? [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See above, [http://thepalacehotel.org/ "ThePalaceHotel.org"] is my ''own'' website and has been 100% created by myself alone. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 05:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::thepalacehotel.org is owned by Centpacrr. (Do a whois on the web site). Interesting copyright question though. The images may not be his to give. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 01:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

*I ''personally'' created all of the illustrations of items (PH teapot, PH keys, CPRR button, etc) from my personal collections that I uploaded them to Wikipedia and did so in order to share them online with others who may be interested as they are not on public display. I also own the ___domain [http://thepalacehotel.org ThePalaceHotel.org] (which is registered to my d/b/a "Cooper-Clement Associates" aka "CCA") which hosts my non-commercial, freely available on-line illustrated history of the Palace Hotel which has been up since 2003 and which currently contains more than 125 historic images and illustration as well as a brief written history of all three Palace Hotels that have been in San Francisco. The purpose that I have built and maintained this free site for more than eight years and at my own expense is ''also'' to share the many items about this iconic historic hotel from my private collections which are not otherwise available to the public. Any illustrations that I have uploaded to WP which appear on that (or other non-commercial history sites which I may have permitted to use them) were all created from scratch ''by me'' alone and thus I am their copyright holder. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::I found [http://digitalimageservices.com/restoration/DIS_14/index.html this] which supports my belief that part of your motivation here is to advertise your graphic services. Specifically addressing the teapot and copyright questions, did you take the [http://digitalimageservices.com/restoration/DIS_14/PHTP_orig.jpg original photo] of the teapot yourself? If not, where did you get it? If you did take it, is the teapot itself part of your collection? The original photo of it? The digital composite of it? [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, DIS is inactive and has not accepted any online business in more than five years. I took all the pictures of the teapot whihc has been in my collection since I acquired it on eBay in 2001. The original illustration was created in 2003 for my ThePalaceHotel.com free online PH history site or more then three years before I ever even heard of Wikipedia. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 07:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: Materialscientist, while the link does appear to violate both [[WP:LINKSTOAVOID]] and [[WP:PROMOTION]], you're sidestepping the main issue which is his adding unencyclopedic content to the images, thinly disguised as added encyclopedic content. That's the real problem. In addition, I believe you're adding to the problem by suggesting there is no right or wrong, can't we just get along, and goodness, we don't want to upset this editor because he may pack his bags and deny WP his valuable services. Reading some of his talk page archives, this sort of thing seems to be an ongoing issue with this editor. He has carved out his own little playground on WP and is eager to defend it. I think some of ''your'' recent efforts have simply thrown gas on that fire. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::*Odd how he lists it as coming from the Cooper Collection... If he were to upload higher resolution images, or images that don't seem to be derivative works of online files, the copyright issues would be much clearer. Regarding the teapot, the logo itself should be PD (hotel was founded over 100 years ago). However, the image of the teapot itself must be taken by the photographer; derivative works of PD three dimensional works of art are still propriety to the photographer. Perhaps he owns the copyright to the files recently deleted, but as he does not upload high resolution files and the images are located on copyrighted websites, he has a heavy burden of evidence to show it. [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 01:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not upload ''high'' resolution versions of my own images and illustrations to WP because I am contributing them for the purpose of web viewing ''only''. I generally upload my own images at roughly 600 to 1,000px wide which is more than adequate for that purpose. I do not freely license high resolution versions to WP (or anywhere else) as I am not interested in having third parties exploit them to make high quality prints for profit.

As for the original teapot photograph from which the crest/logotype/teapot illustration was created, that was also taken be me as were every other image (other then historic PD ones) that I have contributed to WP. Despite the unsupported claims of SchuminWeb, none of my uploads have been derived from the non-free works of others. As for other sites on which my work appears, all of those sites (other than WP) either belong to me, belong to my family, are social networking sites like Facebook, are railroad history photo sites like NE Rail, or the images have been filched from one of my sites without my knowledge or consent. Anything I have contributed to WP, however, has either been in the public ___domain or I am the owner its copyright. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 05:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:That's fair enough. That settles copyright questions as far as I'm concerned. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::It seems Centpacrr is also Mr Cooper of The Cooper Collection. This is stated [[:File:CPRR Button 1867.jpg|here]]. At the risk of being nitpicky, he states the digital image was created by him... not that the photo was taken by him. He states that it's from his "private collection". Is the object itself part of his private collection, or just the "digital image"? He could have lifted the image from God knows where, given it a nice background and called it part of his "Cooper Collection". [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 03:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add information for anyone following this discussion, Centpacrr has uploaded a [[:File:Original Palace Hotel (SF) crest, logotype, & teapot.jpg|duplicate of the above teapot image]] and has substituted this new file into the article. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:The reason I have done this is that it is a ''different'' illustration -- and has a different name -- then either my original illustration or the one the others replaced it with. In addition to the teapot the new illustration contains the original Palace Hotel's "crest" as well as its logotype in order to illustrate all thee of these related items in one image as opposed to making three images. (The crest in the new illustration is the same as the crest on the teapot which is very hard to make out.) The earlier image is called "Palace Hotel Silver Teapot c1900.jpg" and as far as I am concerned that Commons file can be deleted as obsolete. The new illustration is called "Original Palace Hotel (SF) crest, logotype, & teapot.jpg" and is very different from the plain one of just the teapot that SchuminWeb keeps reverting the Commons file to. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 05:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::Now you're just being duplicitous. The [[:File:Original Palace Hotel (SF) crest, logotype, & teapot.jpg|new image]] is a duplicate of the [[:File:Palace Hotel Silver Teapot c1900.jpg|old image]]. Rather than deal with the issues of the image, you upload a duplicate and declare the old one all of a sudden "obsolete"? What on earth do you have against simply uploading a simple image of a teapot without all the fluff? People do that everyday on WP... they snap a picture of something and upload it. Images full of added crap like yours often get deleted or modified as being unencyclopedic. I realize you're trying to [http://digitalimageservices.com/restoration/DIS_14/index.html make a buck], but WP is not an advertising vehicle nor a showcase for your artistic skills. If you also want to illustrate the hotel's crest and logo, then upload separate encyclopedic images of each. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 05:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A) I am ''not'' being duplicitious here. I uploaded the ''new'' version with the ''new'' name to en.Wikipedia when SchuminWeb again reverted my new one on Commons to the teapot alone image. After I reverted it back to the new one on Commons, I then decided to just upload the new version on en.Wikipedia with the new name so that people who visit it know that it is intended to illustrate three things, not just one. I put the three elements in one picture because they are ''related''. The crest on the teapot is almost impossible to make out so that is why I added the detailed version to the illustration. The original Palace Hotel logotype identifies where the teapot came from. Please tell me exactly how you think that is "unencyclopedic". ([[WP:UNENCYC]] actually says that ''"Unencyclopedic" is an '''empty argument.''' It means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?'')

:I read [[WP:UNENCYC]] and it seems you're correct. "Unencyclopedic" is not a valid position. Further I've found no specific guidline that is violated by this image ''as it is now'' other than my charge of self-promotion/advertising which you refute (though I noticed in the [[:File:Original Palace Hotel (SF) crest, logotype, & teapot.jpg|new image]] you snuck your website URL back in after Materialscientist removed it from the old image). [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 07:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] is a non-policy essay, i.e. the musings of one or more editors. Considering that our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, "unencyclopedic" is a perfectly valid reason for deletion for locally-hosted images that are not used on userpages, because there is no reason to keep an image around on en.wiki if it is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 18:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Thank you for pointing out the difference between essay and policy. Would you agree that "unencyclopedic" is largely a subjective judgement? One editor says it's encyclopedic and another says it's not. Then what? Further, regarding this specific image, is there any WP policy or guideline that would frown on such a composite illustration rather than a more plain photo? [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

B) I'm sure lots of folks just "snap a picture of something and upload it" but that does not make for high quality illustrations. Why one thinks "snapshots" are good and "high quality" is crap is beyond me.

C) As I have said several times before -- DIS has not been an ''active'' online business since before I even heard of Wikipedia, and I have not accepted any online business for it for more than five years.

D) And finally this is ''exactly'' what I meant by the kind of thing that drives good contributors away from WP. Having to spend hours "defending" my contribution of a single illustration in a gallery of twenty from a gaggle of wikilawyers just isn't worth it. Why should I put up with all this just because I am willing to share with the community an image of a rare historical artifact without being called "duplicitous", "disruptive", a "vandal", a "plagiarist", and who knows what else? I don't know why you can't just accept my judgment of what the illustration should include, appreciate my "gift", and leave it at that. Really! [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 06:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:There is a short answer to this all, it is a wiki which nearly anyone can and may edit. People disagree on things. There are several hot battles between our finest editors going on right now, rolling front and back core WP articles, wasting time and nerves. I think we should be more attentive and accepting to the opinions of others ... and perhaps clean up the gallery in [[Palace Hotel, San Francisco]] per [[WP:IG]] ;-). [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 06:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::Materialscientist, I think ''you'' should be the first one to jump into that article and perhaps clean up the gallery per [[WP:IG]] Be sure to come back and let everyone know how it goes ;-) (Truth be told, I'm a supporter of robust and plentiful galleries, probably moreso than [[WP:IG]] suggests.) [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I would like to have all those image in one category on Commons. This category is already linked in the article. The recent WP policy is to move as many images as possible to Commons, and resistance to bots is futile :-). Thus Centpacrr is encouraged to upload the images there directly - having half images here and half on Commons is inconvenient for linking. Right now I can't make time for image editing or uploads. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 08:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Not to worry, Materialscientist and Jbarta, to make everybody happy and to avoid having to waste anymore my time (and Wikipedia's server space) in here, I have simply deleted the teapot and a variety of my other images which I'll just say are "unencyclopedic". (Some of them are only "snapshots" anyway.) Not all will be lost, however, as I'll just use the new crest/logotype/teapot illustration to my own PH history site where it can be seen at full size and won't be in further danger of being arbitrarily altered. You should thus feel free to speedy delete the teapot files in both Commons and en.Wikipedia as being "orphaned". [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 08:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't delete orphaned files with a valid license :), but if you want them deleted, just tag them with some {{tlx|Db}} template, like db-author. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 08:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 08:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:Your images are quite valuable and I hope you'll consider moving them to commons and making sure they are properly categorized. Though as I said earlier, my own personal preference is for robust galleries, so if you wished to still leave them in the gallery, you wouldn't get much objection from me. I suspect you probably wouldn't get much objection from Materialscientist either seeing as he's so busy at the moment. Regarding the notorious teapot image, all along I thought something like [http://digitalimageservices.com/restoration/DIS_14/PH_teapot_325.jpg this] would be perfect. And the deleted key image is also valuable, though I'd prefer if you just limited it to a nice picture of the keys. Also, the logos you placed on the teapot image are valuable, though personally I would prefer simple high quality black and white images (a high quality png with a transparent background would be especially welcome.) I understand you have ideas of what makes a good encyclopedia image, but keep in mind that others have ideas as well. Sometimes it's good to defer to other ideas if you think they are better ideas. If you don't, well then you don't. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

'''NOTE''' The teapot's Commons file has now been deleted at my request. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:Are you going to upload a less controversial image of the teapot or are you sticking with "my way or the highway"? [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::The illustration [[:File:Original_Palace_Hotel_(SF)_crest,_logotype,_%26_teapot.jpg|"Original Palace Hotel (SF) crest, logotype, & teapot.jpg"]] is available on en.Wikipedia but is currently not in use in any articles. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Maybe I should have been more specific... are you going to upload something like [http://digitalimageservices.com/restoration/DIS_14/PH_teapot_325.jpg this]? And are you going to upload what I suggested above? That would be supremely useful, unimpeachably encyclopedic and almost certainly wouldn't cause a stir from other editors. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::The "plain" teapot is posted on Commons [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palace_Hotel_%28SF%29_teapot_c1900.jpg '''here''']. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Um, it's nice, but I was rather thinking of an image the size of the other teapots you uploaded. C'mon, don't be difficult like this... it's really not becoming. [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 02:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how I am being "difficult" and/or "unbecoming" by contributing at no charge an illustration that I created. This is the illustration you asked for and linked to above with some of the background trimmed away. I am not really interested in licensing a larger version of the "plain" teapot, however, as it's not an image I am happy with or ever intended to release into the public ___domain. I have nonetheless posted this version here as a courtesy. If anyone really wants to use it in a gallery, it would actually be displayed smaller than this anyway. [[User:Centpacrr|Centpacrr]] ([[User talk:Centpacrr|talk]]) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:Fair enough. Nevermind then. Carry on.... [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta|talk]]) 02:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)