This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is the official picture of a Congressional candidate, and permission has been given.
I've noticed you putting up a few images for speedy deletion (no source, copyright holder, that kind of thing) with complex reasons. Speedy deletion really isn't meant to handle that kind of request. If no source / copyright holder is given at all, or if no fair use rationale is provided, that's one thing. But if they're provided and you think they should be deleted anyway, the best thing is to go to WP:IFD. Mangojuicetalk 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the request for free images image form this page. If you look at step for of the upload instructions you get when you follow the links from that image you will see why that doesn't work with the current system. At the moment there doesn't seem to be a work around but I am still thinking about it. It is ceritanly something I would like to be able to do.Geni 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is of a bookcover which fall under different Wikipedia standards than promotional photos. The publisher is credited on the image's page. Please explain why you are contesting the use of this book cover.
Why call for its deletion instead of moving it down to the segment about the book?
The book was referenced in the article as its source and I changed the prose but mention of the book was already there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Cavett&oldid=112085745#References . The image was not in violation of fair use its placement was, why call for its deletion instead of improving the article and moving the photo?
This image states it's promotional, however it sources a fan-wiki, which then sources a fan site, I believe that it is incorrectly licensed.. is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have asked around on Flickr, there was one user that had many photos of her, but he could not change the license of them. I'll look later (though there is a photo of her as the BSD Devil I want to use). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded the same-looking image that you tagged, but from a different website this time. It has a different name of course, check it out → Image:FullHousecast.jpg. I linked the source directly to the image white page. I hope everything is okay now. QuasyBoy 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this image it's unfree and unauthorized for being here. thumb|right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.41.237 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
No need to apologise. Believe me, much less relevant stuff often winds up on that page, and I don't mind in the least; it being, well, a wiki and all. I had responded, to say much the same thing. As it turns out, we seem to have an example to illustrate the point. Jkelly 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Riya Book.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
((Replaceable fair use disputed))
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --NAHID 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You can delete the image if you want. As long as the poster is up on the Saw IV page, I don't really care if you delete the poster. Image:Saw IV Teaser poster-1-.jpg Enter Movie 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Bah, get a life shh...of course I'm kidding. A rude kidding. It is sad that you have to do the images for deletion process. You have way too much time on your hands. The odds of me being the copyright holder is very very slim. Forget wikiquette and just be rude. Just orphanized on questionable "fair use" images such as magazine covers that don't relate to a subject. You're informing me an upload that I did over a year ago. No need to go all the time consuming images for deletion. Be a rebel and an orphan image bot. On your user page: I'm a self-described-self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor. Good luck with the 1.6 million pages of going through... --J. Nguyen 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page about the image. I don't understand how one can obtain a free picture of a guy who died 11 years ago. Thanks. Dr.K. 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You're sort-of preaching to the choir; this category is a mess (if I recall, the Wikipedia:Signpost quoted me on that quite a while ago). In theory, however, it should not matter whether or not media is actually "promotional" or not, because there is nothing about something having "an implicit license to reproduce [but not modify]" that should matter in terms of en:'s Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy; the claim ("rationale"), in theory, needs to be just as compelling for this material as it does for any other unfree content. Of course, we are substantially less likely to get contacted by an irked copyright holder if the media really is promotional, but this should be beside the point. In any case, as I am sure you are aware, the board is doing some thinking about the role of unfree media on the various projects, and it may be that we will get some direction on the larger issue at some point in the not-too-distant future. Jkelly 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note, removal tag has been disputed on image page, and comments added to talk page in supporting a keep Hackajar 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Richard viguerie.jpg is being contested as an invalid image. Please review talk page for explination. Hackajar 12:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank for messaging me. Please take care to see Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg where both source and license are provided, and this, since the document's upload. Thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if my observations are not welcome but might it have been easier if Captain scarlet would have simply added an appropriate tag once this had been brought to his attention. There seems to be little point in a continuing debate about this as I would suggest that adding copyright tags are best left to the original uploader as they will have the best idea as to how the image meets the fair use requirements. Adambro 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your addition to Template:Law-enforcement-stub - I dig it. Could probably double as an icon for the BDSM folks as well:) Bobanny 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you. Don't add it back again. The imagevio tag is for identifying images that are claimed to be free but which are actually copyrighted by someone else. The image is identified as copyrighted, the copyright holder is identified, and a fair use claim has been made. If you dispute it, there are proper channels, namely WP:IFD, but that's where this is going to have to go. The imagevio tag is NOT for general use to try to delete any fair use image you want deleted. Mangojuicetalk 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you are evidently confident that a free image of Mark Lawrenson could be reasonably be found, can you please find one, instead of merely removing the image from the page? Where can one be found, please?
In the (likely misplaced) anticipation that you have a clue what you're talking about, I've reinstated the 'fair use' image, until you can demonstrate that a free one can be found, reasonably or otherwise. jamesgibbon 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Though most of musical artists CD, DVD images are permitted, why are B'z, Jun Shibata album covers removed? X Japan (see X Japan discography), Glay (see Glay discography) and Dir en grey (see Dir en grey discography) etc album covers are not removed. Why are they no problems? Removed personal attack --Hatto 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been several days since you posted your last message on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?, but I want to let you know that I've replied to it. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali. Thought you should know. Megapixie 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I bet the blurry one is legitimately CC-licensed. From the rest of the pictures, it looks like he went to this event and sat pretty far away. I imagine he downloaded some professional photos (including the good naomi campbell one) and stuck them in the flickr set to let other people know what was going on... asking on flickr would probably be a good solution. Calliopejen 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Your take on what is and is not acceptable for photos is an interesting one. I therefor invite you to look at the article for the rock group The KLF. Though the picture used in the infobox does not seem to be acceptable under your standards it was included when the article got featured article status. Doesn't the existance of this photo prove that your take on fair use is mistaken?
Still no action on Image:The KLF - Why Sheep?.jpg I see.
By your interpretation this image shouldn't even exist in wikipedia, but instead its part of a featured article.
Thank you for your message. But why do you think that this image fails to meet the fair use criterion? Meursault2004 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen some admins misusing the "tools" lately, but this is the first time I see one really shot his own foot. :) --Abu badali (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the fair use policy prohibited use outside of the article space. Thanks, I'm learning more every day. :) pbryan 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of Image:Megatren lrt2.jpg , per Philippine_copyright_law#Government_copyright, works of the Philippine government (as well as government controlled corporations) are ineligible for copyright. This image appears on the official web site of the Philippine government, so it appears to fall under the scope of ((PD-Philippines)). Thatcher131 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! This site lists itself as "Operated for NASA by SAO This site was developed with funding from NASA under Contract NAS8-39073." As far as I know, content by NASA is considered public. So can we use these images. What is the exact legal status of these images? I am in process of contacting these people and getting this image on Wikipedia. Please reply on my talk page, and I am a little busy in my real life so please don't hope quick reply :)--Scheibenzahl 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Any reason you haven't ever given a response in your RfC? It's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Mangojuicetalk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit is unhelpful and borders with personal attack. I have reverted it. Please do not do it again. Alex Bakharev 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, that's more like it... close enough to kiss. Yum! I take back every bad thing I ever said about you. :) Wahkeenah 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you dislike any images that I have placed in an article please delete them as quickly as possible and I hearby give you persmission to do so without cluttering up my talkpage with notifications. It seems likely that Wikipedia will soon instigate the same photo policy as wikinews which bans any photos that claim fair use at all - allowing only free images. Again please delete whatever you like, I do not contest your actions, I do not require and do not want notification. Thank you for your time,
Abu badali, I have confirmed that Chandra images, if not tagged on the site as including information from ground-based telescopes which are not under the control of NASA, are, in fact, completely public domain for all purposes, including commercial, so long as NASA-endorsement is not implied through their use (which is actually a completely different issue from use). If you have listed Chandra images for deletion, could you let me know what they were, so I might look up and find out if they truly are fair use? Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Abu, I am happy to mediate any disputes on wiki since I do not like disputes. There are two things that may be needed:
you guys are more then welcome to remove this image if you want, I just felt it would be a good idea to put a recent picture of him up b/c he does not look similar to his old photo (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted image -Nv8200p talk 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Due to your recent image nomination in deletion process, I would like just to hear your opnion here. These boys are getting crazy with fair use just to show their fanboy alma --Ciao 90 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Johntex. Plase, reconsider this. Posting another person's personal information may be considered harassment. Please, take this as a good faith warning. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does this quote come from? I cannot find which policy contains it. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The image was (I believe) clearly tagged as being a screen capture from the DVD of One Day in September, and I believe in that capacity qualifies for fair use. Please advise further if more copyright info is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BassPlyr23 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Got the email; might take me a little while, but I will follow up. Thanks. Jkelly 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't stalk other users, follow them to my talk page, and then make quips at them there. Policies like assume good faith are in place to help users get along, not to be useed passive agressivly as weapons. It is not funny or clever to try to wind people up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. Let's keep the conversation in one place. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The dance move was (I believe the article says somewhere) inspired by the poses on the covers of the magazine, and likewise the song was about the dance move. Neither of them would exist without the magazine. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The image that I added to the page which you deleted is listed as a press photo on the Epitaph Website, here: [4] and was added to the page by me at the request of Sage Francis Febodyed 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Is getting ridiculous, seriously can somebody ban this guy? I'm referring to your comments on Ashley Massaro's Playboy cover. Trevor GH5 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivana_Baquero&diff=113233434&oldid=113070016 ? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to understand your rationale for wanting this photo deleted. "Abu" is a title frequently used by Palestinian terrorists (Abu Daoud, Abu Nidal, Abu Mazen and Munich's Abu Halla come immediately to mind). Nobody wants to be constantly reminded - especially by photograph - of innocent victims of their ethnic group's crimes. Would you rather I had posted a photograph of the blown-up helicopter? Would that make you feel better about this whole thing?
You say you enjoy being confrontational - that's not the point of this project. I am not intimidated by you, whom I have never seen before as a legitimate editor of Wikipedia. According to other frequent editors of Wikipedia with whom I've been in contact, I have provided enough information to prove the fair usage of the photograph in question. Please stop threatening to remove it. BassPlyr23talk 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali, have you seen User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali? I figured you should if you haven't. I hope it doesn't escalate to that. Best, Iamunknown 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead of arguing an telling me that there are better, free images, why not find them. Also, do you know the 4 conditions of fair use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use. Also, before being a copyright terrorist, maybe read the context and learn about fair use. You seem to have a trend of deleting/threatening to delete legitimate images and I think it should stop. Slayerofangels 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
STOP BEING RUDE, on this very talk-page I told you to delete whatever you wanted to and to stop cluttering up my talk page with notifications. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abu_badali#Please_delete_any_image_I.27ve_posted_if_you_so_desire
Feel free to go through my logs and delete any image there that you find wanting, but stop posting notifications to my talk-page I have no desire to contest anything you do. I am now of the mind that Wikipedia should be stripped of any images that are not free. --Wowaconia 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to know a lot about the free use and copyright policies and I have a question - I hope you don't mind. I've been doing some work on the articles about The Mighty Boosh and I noticed that the photo Image:Autoboosh.the.list.cover.jpg is used on this page, and I'm not sure about the copyright to it. On the magazine cover copyright template it says that the image is fair use if:
But does this mean that only one condition must be satisfied (in this case the second is and the photo should stay right?) - or do both have to be satisfied (and the image has to be removed from the page?
Sorry this seems like a trivial matter, I'm still getting my head around WP:FUP. Thanks, ...adam... (talk • contributions) 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
He directed the film and received an Academy Award nomination for it. -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali, I'm curious, have you ever come across a promotional image that was from a press kit or a site indicating in the terms of use that the image may be used for promotional- or press-related things. A while ago when I picked thirty or so promotional images at random, most of them did not include a source, those that did were from an official website but weren't promotional, and think that there was one I thought might actually be a promotional image. What have been your results? --Iamunknown 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you running a script or bot with this account? I've noticed a high rate of user_talk:'s regarding images. The content of these is not in question, simply the edit rate. I could have just caught you at a fast peak, but if you are running this automarically then you should be running this from a bot account to avoid flooding recent changes. Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) <please reply on my talk>
Hi Asu Badali. Picture is used with free license. Please ask for translation. I specified this to the President's secretary and she told me that the President agrees. Thanks. Dr.K. 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you tagged this as no source simply because the link was dead. This is because the extension changed from .asp to .html, so please check if that has happened in the future. --Tom (talk - email) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
With the increasing refusal of users to explain their edits, your consistent use of edit summaries deserves recognition. Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
I never 'uploaded' this image, I simply restored it to the form it was in when the uploader first placed it on Wikipedia. Duke53 | Talk 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not likely to get a similar replacement photo, as the ballpark burned to the ground in 1944. Wahkeenah 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically, it would not be possible to get a free photo like the one shown, except by waiting for a bus to pull into the stadium parking lot. Wahkeenah 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
You left me a message on my talk page regarding the image I "uploaded." I was merely reverting this image that you yourself reverted from Yummushummus's upload.
That last sentence was a little confusing, so here's the story: when patrolling recent changes, I came across this edit, which I decided to investigate. I did a Google image search [5] and checked IMDb [6] and found that this image doesn't look close to Janice Dickinson, so I reverted the image back to this one.
Now that I look at Google image search, I can see a possible source of the image is from thehollywoodgossip.com [7]. But where The Hollywood Gossip got that particular image, I don't know. You might want to ask Yummushummus, since he is the one that uploaded the correct image of Janice Dickinson originally. Unfortunately, Yummushummus doesn't seem to be a very active user, so that's a problem. Looks like we may have to use one of the publicity images from IMDb and call it fair use.
Thanks,
BazookaJoe 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abu badali,
Your IFD of one of the images which I had uploaded and used in an article got me to thinking about the number of questionable images which I see. I am wondering what to do with them...
Some of them are sports images from websites or magazine covers like [8].
Many fall into the into the category of being listed as Sports Posters and I've been compiling a list of those as "questionable FU"[9]. If you can tell me the best way to proceed to tag these images in some way to get the editor to replace the wrong license and then to apply the correct license, I'd appreciate it.
I like to do things correctly when I know how to do so.
Thanks for any input that you can provide.
Take care,
--Lmcelhiney 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
help me to insert the correct tag about the copyright content in instead of judging the criterias and analazyz about it?
Image:LeToya_Promotiona_Pic.jpg
Eduemoni 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove images from articles without good reason, please. Michael Sanders 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Image, please do what is necessary in your opinion. Maharaj Devraj 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeToya_Luckett#revision.2C_but_under_vandalism_action
I've revised this article, with the intention to someone else, revise it, correcting, removing some unfactual and unbalanced statements, even if I wrote any. This one and the album too, LeToya (album), you can even check prior version, in both articles. Then take a look at the main article, LeToya Luckett. I was about to violate the 3RR.
I would like to know about your opinion
regards, Eduemoni 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
You recently left a message on my talk page, and I thought it best to reply immediately, explaining my actions.
There is a backlog of IfD discussions, many of which were open — even though the images in question were deleted. Given that the items I have been working on were at least six days old — the standard for most deletion discussions — I was simply being bold.
After closing out the discussions for images which were already deleted, I started reviewing the rest, looking for possible consensus. Many of them already had the ((ifd)) tag removed from the image in question by other users, so I went ahead and closed those as well.
According to the deletion process, it is permissible for non-admins to close discussions, provided there is no conflict of interest and the closer is in good standing.
Of course, since you object to certain edits, I apologize for running roughshod on you. Furthermore I accept your reversions.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but hopefully your questions have been answered. If you have any other related ones, please feel free to leave me a note.
Cheers. --Aarktica 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm the main contributor to Michael Jordan, which passed FA last month with a vote of 19–0 after the nom was re-set. See the second sentence in the article, statements are allowed to be put in the lead if they are sourced elsewhere or not likely to be disputed. Leads do not require sources, I know you don't contribute much writing to articles so you might not know this but, leads are supposed to be summaries of the articles they're in therefore they do not require sources. As a matter of fact leads generally don't have sources, also as said before the fact is not likely to be disputed. See the legacy section that explains all his achievements and recognition from various sources. Quadzilla99 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Abu, thank you for your message. I did close several IFD's yesterday. Most of them I closed to delete, I believe, and deleted the corresponding image files accordingly. Not all IFD's end in delete, of course, that is why we have a process for deleting them. An admin looks at and evaluates the various arguments presented. Some of them are closed as keep.
I would like to make a slight correction to the impression you seem to have of me. You said on my talk page, "I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's instance on unfree content." This is not quite accurate.
I am very happy to promote free content. In fact, just yesterday I placed several new, free images (created by me) on Commons, added a couple of them into relevant articles, and added some more links from articles to their appropriate commons repository pages.
However, promoting free content does not and should not mean that we fail to make appropriate use of fair use content when it enhances our role of creating an encyclopedia. It is when we blindly or mechanically begin trying to remove all fair use content that we have gone over the top. We must balance the objective of promoting free content with the objective of making an informative encyclopedia.
As was argued successfully by other people at IfD, the images I kept were appropriate images. For instance, a magazine cover depicting the very blow that apparently caused a fighter's death is clearly a significant historical image. Johntex\talk 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You've tagged this article as if it needed sources. It already has them; look at the end of the article. User:Ejrrjs says What? 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines."
However, I wouldn't mind if you want to go ahead and do it. Best, User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just thought you'd like to know:
A template you put up for a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I see it's tagged that way, but I don't see it in the page that lists images for deletion. I think it got removed from an article so essentially it's an "orphan". Is that the reason? Wahkeenah 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to your beliefs, the attribution and rationale for these and other photographs that fall under WP:H!P are above and beyond what is needed. if you think free replacement images exist for these items, I challenge you to find them. If not, then I recommend the removal of your witchhunt tags within 12 hours. --Cjmarsicano 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, I retagged this with ((nsd)). You're right - the image is clearly not a newspaper scan covered by the tag since no newspaper name, etc. is visible. Considering the importance of the image, I felt fixing the info would be best, but without the source I can't... so if it gets deleted, that should be why. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. My ability to articulate thoughts is the terrible. I've fixed it. WilyD 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you comment that you "wouldn't oppose a full revert". Why? The draft was posted for 10 days (and two days before that, in fact). This was announced twice on the talk page, with invitations for feedback and complaints. I spent a lot of time producing the new version; why would you revert it after I've done the right thing, going through a rather long consensus period.
To my logic, there is consensus if no one has complained or asked for changes under those circumstances. If not, what do you consider would be consensus? I even asked whether anyone wanted a different timeframe ... nothing.
Thanks for your edits; they're really good.
Thanks for your reply, Abu. That's excellent advice, but I don't know how to implement it (in particular, the tag). I wonder whether you have time to whip up one?
I do feel strongly that the language of the criteria needed to be fully edited, and was disappointed that none of the experts would participate in the process until (11 days ago) I implemented the changes. Gmaxwell fully reverted it then, and I want to avoid a repeat of that; I'd be upset if your comment encouraged him to do so again. I'd feel then that it was impossible to copy-edit language that is of great importance to the running of WP, and that was pretty badly written and formatted.
I can understand people's caution, but that doesn't stop me acting to improve the language. As a non-expert, I sympathise with WPs who had to try to understand rules that are very difficult even when expressed well.
Thanks. Tony 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your contributions to the new version. Tony 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Care to add three more pages to your watch list for images? Kata Kärkkäinen, Marina Baker, and Monique Covét. You should see why in about 12 hours time. :) Tabercil 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to respond to your tag on Image:Johnbracken.jpg. John Bracken died many years ago. I do not understand how a free image of him could be obtained. --Eastmain 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i think we have discussed about the situation of Hwang Woo Suk pictures in the past. To be honest i dont have such time to be arguing with you again. If you want to delete the pictures, fine, thanks for screwing the article's quality.!
I dont care about defending the images with fair use vs wikipedia copyright policies againg, that political blur is not for me. But if you want to fill my discussion page with empty and automatically made messages, please stop!, i dont like that.
Let's say i am filled with nostalgia, but it doesn't mean much to your ticked-off victims, who probably remember a time when wikipedia image watchers had human made responses.
Why does a wikipedian which seems to spend more time watching images on an online encyclopedia rather than to worry his or hers personal life, rely on an abusive automated interactive message system to deal with other users. It is very time consuming and irritating.
Those acts are really a symbol of stalking people. If you want to feedback a response to my page fine, but stop being rude. --HappyApple 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw you put the picture up for speedy deletion. I have answered in the relevant talk page. I would appreciate a reply as to your reasoning. Regards, Cplakidas 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not recall where I obtained the image, but do I remember the caption credited the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as noted on the photo description page. ericg ✈ 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Of Ernest Hemingway and Bob Hope on the English American page . why?
--Anglo6719:40 UCT
I do believe that it could be saved, but I would never have created it. I only noticed that it had been created and that there was a dead link. As I have clearly stated, I am an inclusionist (when in doubt). If information is accurate, I believe that a person looking for information, even on obscure topics, is served by finding the information in an online encyclopaedia.
Truly what led me to contribute to Wikipedia in the first place was the diversity of information I found here when looking for it, much of which might not meet the strictest challenge. My time is much too valuable to do more than minor edits at this time. Doc ♬ talk 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain please why this does not meet the criteria?
There are no images available and copyright and ownership info are provided with the picture.
Juda S. Engelmayer 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. Iranian copy-right law specifies that copy-rights on photographs expire 30 years after the date on which the photograph has been taken. Taqizadeh having died in 1970 (that is 37 years ago), it follows that all his photographs are at present public property. Consequently, I should like to request you to be kind enough and restore the original copy-right status of Taqizadeh's potograph; for the reason indicated above, all photographs of Taqizadeh displayed on Wikipedia pages belong to the public. --BF 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded [11] There is no public domain photo of Rend al-Rahim Francke. She is normally on TV programs which are of course copyright. She has been to press conferences which are also attended by the media and are again copyright. I cannot take a picture of her myself. There is no freely available picture of her. I spent considerable time looking for one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Where should I go to get a free image of Rend al-Rahim Francke? I have looked all over th internet. I looked in the library. All photos were copyrighted. Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly also use fair use copyrighted images. What is the difference? It is quite legal under fair use to use the photo I used. It conforms to the 1976 copyright act.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In all seriousness why is it ok to have a copyrighted image of Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly but not Rend al-Rahim Francke? In both cases there are not public domain photos available.
I quote:
"If this image is of a living person, it should not be used without first making an effort to find a free alternative (at the very least, search mayflower and yotophoto). Should you find and upload a free alternative, please label this image as depreciated."
You are in effect outright banning any fair use of a photo of a living person because maybe some time in the future, someone somewhere may obtain one. That is extreme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Even if you think that all regular photos of living people don't qualify under fair use please note the following about: Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg
a) no public domain photo is available. b) This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. It also was trying to demonstrate that the demarcation between his head and face was blurred as a result of the beatings. The article talks about it. He also was hurt very badly in one eye. The photo shows that. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible, because hopefully he will heal. Additionally people in Zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the Zimbabwean government tried to suppress all photos of him in this state for political purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of Zimbabwe.
Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if you think that all regular photos of living people don't qualify under fair use please note the following about: Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg
a) no public domain photo is available. b) This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. It also was trying to demonstrate that the demarcation between his head and face was blurred as a result of the beatings. The article talks about it. He also was hurt very badly in one eye. The photo shows that. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible, because hopefully he will heal. Additionally people in Zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the Zimbabwean government tried to suppress all photos of him in this state for political purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of Zimbabwe.
Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:
1. it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; 2. the photo is only being used for informational purposes. 3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public. 4. Specifically, it depicts a press conference where Mackris and her attorney are talking about the Bill O'Reilly case which made her notable. AnonEMouse 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
what is the difference between my use of a pic and the above example.
The BBC is not going to lose revenue over this. The give the news. This news is quite old now.
Rule 2 states:
Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
This Wikipedia article presents history. The commercial value of the bbc news is not depreciated. Once news is old, no-one is interested in it. People aren't interested in yesterday's news. The original market role was to provide news for that day. Now time has passed. That role can no longer be fulfilled. Otherwise historians would be unable to reproduce items from newspapers under fair use. Yet we see that they are.
Everytime one used one of it's images freely, it's lost revenue for them. --Abu badali (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong - major falacy. Most if not all people viewing the wikipedia article if they would not see the pic concerned would not choose to pay for it. Indeed media organizations buy the rights not individuals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its inclusion in wikipedia does not degrade its commercial value because it doesn't compete with its commercial value. Its commercial value is as news not as history. Many historians use images from the past under fair use. (Of course if this was a current affairs wiki that would be different entirely.) Custodiet ipsos custodes 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Response to deletion request, there is a discussion on the Smithsonian template right now about images from there and fair use, it is possible the consensus will be to change the smithsonian license template to a source template if so this image and many others would have a source. see [[12]] Nowimnthing 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali, due to your continued tagging of justified images and refusal to participate in a fair and open minded debate on their merits, your non response to your six month old RfC and your stalking and harrassment of users, I and several others have launched an arbitration against you. Jord 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for your information: The current project banner for the law enforcement wikiproject is ((law enforcement)) not ((Law enforcement stub)).
Best Regards and Happy Editing
Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your text on my talk page "I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." -- These are all products (either Signal Corps photographs or maps created by the U.S. Army) of the U.S. Government, specifically the United States Army, and "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of 17 U.S.C. § 105" -- what more source information is required? Please clarify before you delete public domain images. Thank you. W. B. Wilson 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely NO reason why we should not use them on this site. The same images appear on other sites such as soapcentral.com and soaps.com. The images illustrate the subjects of the articles very well - screenshots just don't cut it. I provide sources and very valid rationales for any images I upload. Kogsquinge 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think the article on Jack Ackroyd is sufficiently fleshed-out now to warrant an end to calling for its deletion. I just wish the article's originator took more time to form a proper stub. As it was originally composed, it was poorly written, and I think that is why you asked for its deletion. I believe the current revision is more than good enough for a start category, and could easily be considered a B category with a few improvements. What do you think? Abebenjoe 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Just delete it. Wahkeenah 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the fair use rationale for this image. It's a publicity photo from the official government website, which expressly states that the image may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes. I've added an expanded fair use rationale to the image. Please review it and let me know if there are any questions. Regards Rpvdk 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have proposed the deletion of File:JayneMansfield.jpg, which was appropriately deleted. I always thought the artcile has way too many pictures, most only depicting how the subject looked like, adding no informational value or historical significance. Can the number of purely eye-candy images be reduced here? I know the images are of a subject who is long dead, but the number of images may be carrying that loophole in the policies a bit too far. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to respond to the evidence provided by other users you can create a subheading under your own section for this purpose, titled along the lines of "Response to evidence present by X." Picaroon (Talk) 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your comments...
1.) With respect to the use of unfree material on list pages, I have no opinion on that matter, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with copyright laws and liability. I do know that in general Wikipedia prefers free images, but, that when a free image is not available, unfree images are allowed on a limited basis. You should note that the last time I editted that list page, there were no images on it.
2.) With respect to the specific images you have cited, three of are dead politicians where no free replacement would be able to be found. The fourth is of a retired politician who is no a business man who I suppose a free image could be found of perhaps at the Annual General Meeting of the company he heads.
- Jord 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
re: Image:German1 shepherd German States Before and since the French Revolution I Baden .jpg
Hi, Fabartus. Is this PD map still useful in some article? --Abu badali (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
((Commonscat1A))
and ((Wikipediacat1A))
between our image categories and those of the commons, I think in the very short run, it would cut some of your workload. The two templates (in final overhaul proofing--so usage is 'skimpy') take the same syntax. Basically, if there are no 'Wikipedia Article pages' that apply (or guidelines or Help pages) just put a pipe exclaimation in the braces. If the cat name is different, give that as (({2))}. Additional Cats and article links can also be given (2A= ..., 3A=... and 2C= ..., 3C= ...), etc. [It's set up for minimal typing on generic category pages, where (hopefully) there is some kind of main article page on the topic.] No reason they can't reinforce image guidelines and such. The more questions we focus onto a text page, the less we have to deal with mistakes and miscatting, and so forth. Don't want to get into a big thing--just want to understand. You pulled [13] on the grounds that it is unfree despite a clear rationale . Just interested in your opinion of this issue as you did not post to the discussion page as instructed by the tag you apparently posted ("Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed). The rationale was there: it is a publicity picture and no free replacement is available that accurately represents the subject. Did I place this is the wrong part of the image entry? Are you aware of a free alternative that I missed? Looks like your an expert on this so I could use your help-- particularly as the image had been proposed in the talk section as a replacement for over a week with no comment or objection.Mediathink 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that you are doing things in good faith and that is why I'm taking this up with you in a civil manner. You have posted said for deletion and I have added the rationale behind the posting of the same. I have removed the "tag" which claims that the image was orphaned because it is a false claim, the image was not orphaned as claimed, it was posted on Angel Ramos (educator)'s artilce. The image has been added once more until a consensus in regard to it's copyright status is reached. Take care. Tony the Marine 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The image of John Bender on the Judd Nelson page is intended to protray Nelson in the role of Bender, as specified by the text right next to the image. The image of Nelson in the role of Bender can only be replaced with another fair use one as filming of the movie ended some time ago and the character of Bender does not actually exist as a living person. TheQuandry 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Abu, you can help. I have a couple of people who are willing to grant Wiki permission for the use of their images on their articles. What would be the proper way for them to phrase this? After I recieve their e-amils, I'll get in touch with you so that these permissions are properly stored. Tony the Marine 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You understood my question wrong about keeping the images. I may have selected the wrong licenses, and I meant, can't we change them to the Correct one released by the holder. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
Hey, here's a photograghers barnstar for your good work on images and license tagging, thank you for helping me anyway. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
Khan's appearance on the cover of National Geographic magazine was a very rare occurance. Celebrities of most kinds from the movie or song world are not a cover choice for this magazine. However Khan got this rare honour when his image appeared on their Asian edition for a article on Bollywood. I had neglected to mention this in the article, since I felt it was self explanatory. I have since made this mention under Other recognitions. Hence I feel Image:Shahrukhkhan_200502_ng.jpg should be retained.--PremKudvaTalk 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu, I followed your instructions and today I received the first e-mail from ORTS in regard to Image:Cumpianoatwork.jpg. In the e-mail they also sent this: Ticket#2007052110016369. So, is that it or am I supposed to do something else? Tony the Marine 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to get rid of the image. The images of the COA being linked are now PNG. Snickerdo 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I have fairly addressed the issues and hope you are satisfied, or if not will comment on, my suggestions? SGGH speak! 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up; it's often considered bad form to communicate in templates to long-time users. You'll likely get some people mad at you if you keep it up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought a 1908 photograph was assumed to be in the public domain. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I found the specific source for you, now noted in the photo. It is not readily possible to get a "free" photo of the ballpark, as it no longer exists. Baseball Bugs 18:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes i'll chat about english stuff. Regards.
--Anglo67 20:06,26 May 2007 [UTC]
The image was not fairuse at the time of upload. It was tagged PD-Soviet, which was considered a valid license. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Abu, how are you? I'll be returning from my trip tomorrow. I dropped by Wiki to take a look at things. The Maurice image that you mentioned came from here: www.mdx-way.com/about/ images/Ferre_Maurice_A.jpg. That was uploaded some time ago and definitely the tag is wrong. I'm not sure if the image is free. Take a look at it and do the right thing.
In regard to the cropping, I will be willing to upload a cropped version of the same image. I just don't want it to be cropped yet by someone else because it will interfer with the galery that I have. When I get back tomorrow, I will crop a another version of the same image and then upload it to the article. Take care. Tony the Marine 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you tagged this image to nominate for deletion. Even though Image uploadder provided sources on the image that I am mentioning right now, but you nominated this image for deletion. Before you nominated this image for deletion, you said that nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material. Could you please explain to me why nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material in my talk page? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response will be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel 5127 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu, what would be a proper tag for a press release? Tony the Marine 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I'm refering to this press release where I'm mentioned and which is my copy: Image:Press Release2.jpg. Now, I know that I tagged it wrong and I would like to fix it. Tony the Marine 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought you'd like to review the images on this article. Some are clearly not fair-use, and you have much more experience on this issue than me. Regards. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Abu,
I read that Pageant, in frustration, referred to you as a "bozo" in an edit summary, and I read your response. I just wanted to let you know that in the U.S., "bozo" is considered a very mild insult, usually used in a joking way. It's like calling someone "silly". (I wouldn't call my boss a bozo to his face, but I'd rather call him a bozo than an idiot, for instance.)
Wikipedians still shouldn't call each other names, including "bozo" -- but I just wanted to let you know that it's not as rude as calling someone an "incompetent fool", as a dictionary definition might suggest.
By the way, what's your native language? Arabic, maybe? (I know "abu" means "father" in Arabic; are you the father of someone named "badali"?) – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)