User talk:Cadet Programs

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The patch website linked to on that image page did not contain any version that matched the manufacturing pattern of your patch. Nice find, quite the collector's item! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've created a new sub-category of Category:Insignia of the Civil Air Patrol just for unofficial patches. I've also cleaned up and organised Civil Air Patrol patches. In the interest of maintaining sanity and cool heads here, I want to work with you on this. All I ask is that everything be maintained in its proper place. Truce? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and welcome. Cadet Programs (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. Please remember to avoid using bold text in articles and descriptions. It's just one of those wiki things...it has been found that most readers find excess bold text distracting, and is generally frowned upon. Another thing is that I'm concerned about your source for a few images...it appears you pulled the KTC Winter Survival, Texas CT&EP, and CAP/EAA Oshkosh patches directly from the http://www.incountry.us/cappatches website, and then modified them. While they are technically in the public domain as derivatives of CAP material, I would strongly suggest crediting the exact image link in the source field for any image you may have used from that site. Just a thought. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I own all the patches that I have supplied pics for...perhaps I pulled the wrong pic out of my file. You may also notice that many of Ace's pics were submitted by others....I am one of those others....so they might be my original pics anyway. I will give him a call this weekend and make sure all is well. I was unaware of the BOLD issue and will unbold now. Question: Can we make it so the dates are on a second line? That's why I went to the BOLD to start with. Surely there must be a way....... Cadet Programs (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Just add "<br />" wherever you want the new line to appear. And that's a good point about the pictures...if you feel it necessary to contact the site owner, then do so, but otherwise I'm satisfied with your reasoning. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. BTW, on the WWII-era Cadet patch that you "color corrected" recently--the actual colors of the WWII-era stuff did vary but were darker than the royal blue common today. Your "corrections" aren't technically wrong...but...the examples I have are darker than your enhanced version. I will take another (clearer) pic soon and the colors will pop a bit better. Cadet Programs (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I coloured mine to match some other examples I had found, both on the CAPPatches site and elsewhere. Oh well, no big deal. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the new section I've added for COLLECTORS you will see a side by side comparison that clearly shows the color variations that existed. In the early years of CAP things were not always Royal Blue as they tended to be after the birth of the USAF as a separate branch in 1947. Cadet Programs (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting comparisons. On the largest display, what is the patch in the top-right corner (the six-point one)? For those three pictures, it might be useful to indicate what each patch is, rather than force the viewer to try and collect the info themselves.

Also, per a conversation with User:Closeapple, it appears you will need to change the licenses on official CAP patches to {{PD-Art}}, since the U.S. does not respect copies of public domain 2-d or 3-d works as having a new and separate copyright. In other words, just because you took a photograph of a CAP patch, does not mean you can self-release under a new license, even if that license is also public domain (PD-self), since they are already public domain.

This also presents a problem regarding the novelty and other non-official CAP patches. Because they were not necessarily released into the public domain, you again cannot claim PD-self for the photographs. You would have to get the explicit permission of the original patch creators and ask them to release the patch into the public domain, or under another free license (Creative Commons or GFDL). I know it is a pain and may appear to be a minor issue, but it is one that does have legal implications for the website. I'd be more than happy to convert the official CAP images for you if you'd like, but the unofficial ones are going to be a problem :( -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The patch with the six sided thingy is the Sixth Army Service Corps. This is in the display as it is why 62 appears on the Wisconsin Wing patch. Many wings have a number on their patch......learn more here: http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library/Numbers.pdf As for the license stuff--- I understand (sort of) but would ask this in response: If there was an article about architectural designs and I took a picture of my house to show an example of a certain style....would I need the permission of the builder to post it?? I own these patches....that means I bought the right to take a picture of them. Doesn't it?? If not--- then Closeapple should feel free to change and/or delete any file that can be PROVEN is in violation. Last question: Is the Collector's Corner section lame? I'm not sure if it really fits? Maybe each individual patch would be better?? I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Cadet Programs (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Also, I added labels for the two non-CAP patches in that display pic.

Thanks for the info on the patch. I've read that article regarding patch numbers before...very interesting. Also, while I don't think the Collector's Corner bit is lame or anything, perhaps it would fit better as "Comparisons" or something similar. Not a free-for-all, but a way to compare and contrast similar patches.

Sorry for taking so long to respond...I've had to rewrite this thing several times to properly explain the situation. U.S. copyright law makes a distinction between what is considered a work of art and what is not. For example, a building or a car is not considered a work of art, so photographic reproductions can be made and will be considered a new work (that's what there are so many buildings and cars on Commons). A painting, or in this case, a patch, is considered a work of art, and no matter how the work is reproduced, the original creator always retains copyright on that object. The original blueprints for the building or car are also considered to fall into this area, so they could not be reproduced. Just because you buy something, does not mean you now own the copyright to that item, or own the right to reproduce it.

In the same way that a painting is copyrighted, so to are the patches. While the CAP authorized patches are in the public domain, the unofficial ones are still owned by their original creators, and permission would have to be obtained by them to release into the public domain (which is a whole other can of worms).

United States copyright law can be a bit...confusing. More than anything, its nuances are what drive most image contributors away from both Commons and Wikipedia as a whole. I have a fairly strong grasp of how this all works, though I admit I lapsed regarding the PD-self and PD-Art thing. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Well, I am the designer and photographer of: File:CAP Cadet Programs Patch.jpg File:CAP Cadet Program Officer.jpg File:Unauthorized CP pocket flash.jpg File:Unauthorized 20 YEARS.jpg and on this one I took a gov't issue and added the 161....so, I kinda designed it (as it stands) File:161 flash.jpg I will delete the others. Cadet Programs (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, any that you actually designed, you can do whatever you want with them. And since you physically modified an already public domain item by adding the 161, the new patch falls under your copyright as well, and again you can do whatever you want with it. If I can help with anything, please let me know. I know we got off on the wrong foot, but it would be silly to continue in that trend, and I hope that is firmly in the past :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and support. As for our "wrong foot" let me quote one of the best movies EVER...Casablanca, "That's so long ago, I don't remember." Cadet Programs (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I haven't seen that movie in so long...need to go rent it when I actually get a day off. So, are we go for changing the license tags to PD-Art? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes....as I don't REALLY understand the details of how to do it or change them, I will have to leave it to you. I'll learn. Cadet Programs (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure, it takes a little while to get the hang of the processes around here. If you ever get lost on something, please ask. I try to check the site at least daily. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Historian and Wolf Pack patches

Just a note that the PD-Art/CAP license tag you changed to on File:CAP Historian novelty.jpg and File:Wolf Pack Training Center Instructor with Flash.jpg is invalid if they are novelty patches and were not designed in an official capacity by CAP... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, I was hoping to have this gallery project be fun and easy......well.....ah....I'm thinking that the UNOFFICIAL section has too many little details to worry about. How do you feel about dumping the section all together and sticking to a more 'encyclopedic' rendering of actual patches that may be useful to articles and avoid the confusion of the novelty/commemoratives?? I'm going to delete it....if you think that you want to go on with it feel free to undo the edit. I am going to only deal with the official (public domain) stuff. Cadet Programs (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, going the strict CAP public domain route might be easiest for everyone, and would certainly avoid the licensing headaches. Since you obviously have more experience with what is official and what is not, I'll defer to you on that matter. I'll try to speak with an admin on here regarding getting rid of the non-official stuff, but remember that while some of the unofficial stuff will likely need to go, your own creations can probably stay since you can license them however you wish, if you want them to stay. I guess my confusion regarding Hawk Mountain and Airborne Rangers is that the CAPPatches website was treating them as official, or rather, gave no indication they were unofficial, as it typically does. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ace does a very good job. I also refer to The Collector's Catalog of Civil Air Patrol Insignia 1942-1985, by Maj. Lee Ragan (later Lt. Col.), which was printed by the National Historical Committee-NHQ. After re-examining the details I guess I have to say it it unclear....perhaps you were correct....??? Any way.... I am much happier with sticking to the mainstream, official stuff. Cadet Programs (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, yeah....go ahead with the deletion process, thank you. My stuff can go as well, no need for it. Thank you for doing most of the work. Also, how do I underline something?? Cadet Programs (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess the questionable stuff can go now, and then if it is determined to be official, it can be re-uploaded in the future. If you have any contacts in that area, it would be an interesting bit to get clarified, for both the old and new Hawk Mtn stuff. As for underlining, just use <u>Test</u>, which yields Test. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cadet Programs (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hah, you beat me to the reorganisation. Looks great! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, User:ShakataGaNai took care of the deletion bit. All should be in order. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Medical patch

Are you sure this is an official patch? I cannot find any references for it, on CAPPatches or elsewhere. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Cadet Programs (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you back :) Did you design that Medical patch? If not, I'll need to get it speedy deleted. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....please speedy delete it at your convenience. Cadet Programs (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CP Officer.jpg

File:CP Officer.jpg 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!

--MGA73 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cadet Programs.jpg

File:Cadet Programs.jpg 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!

--MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Cadet Programs!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 09:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:48161 on pocket.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Jarekt (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)