This image is still about to be deleted, since it does not fit into any of the tags available. Requesting permission is a good idea, only if the site has rights of authorship over it. If not, it could be spared by tagging it as fair use, with an adequate rationale. In any case, the original tag implied a user holds authorship, and this is not the case. Dahn 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thx, i see others are not that tolerated with a small picture like this; And YES, the site has the ownership, it's the property of the Hungaryan national Széchényi library (where is hosted in HU version)
( web of the EN version>>
http://www.oszk.hu/frame_en.htm )
Elmao
17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
a public library has public informations usually.... Elmao 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So which one? If it's free for everyone? hmm? .. (in any case i sent a letter to the library management, and will see if i can use this "treasure". (exactly this is how it's named the section). Elmao 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And the GNU licence does not mean, that you have to be the creator of the image .. Elmao 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure it's free (or i can get the right to post here), and i will wait a response from the library. I also asked admins. Until they respond i will wait and see how to modify it. thx Elmao 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Elmao: you take responsibility for the rationale you provide, and I cannot author one for you. What you wrote there does not strike one as an adequate rationale (you have a template to use here), and you are still posting comments in namespace. I have half a mind to delete it, because, in this form, it is misleading - consider rephrasing it to something logical. Dahn 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Elmao, I did not and will not give you my consent to remove my comments on this page, making their removal an instance of vandalism (though I will assume good faith on your part). Charging me with personal attacks is absurd: I pointed out that your edits in mainspace contain spelling errors (not to say "are riddled with"), which harms this project in more ways than one. I have also told you thatr, in this case, I cannot simply correct them, since you take responsibility for the fair use rationales you provide. Let's not make this into a mountain, and please don't make me report you to AN/I. Dahn 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
To readers: Elmao's comments I was replying to above, which he has since deleted himself, can be picked from this page's history. Dahn 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This image is still about to be deleted, since it does not fit into any of the tags available. Requesting permission is a good idea, only if the site has rights of authorship over it. If not, it could be spared by tagging it as fair use, with an adequate rationale. In any case, the original tag implied a user holds authorship, and this is not the case. Dahn 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thx, i see others are not that tolerated with a small picture like this; And YES, the site has the ownership, it's the property of the Hungaryan national Széchényi library (where is hosted in HU version)
( web of the EN version>>
http://www.oszk.hu/frame_en.htm )
Elmao
17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
a public library has public informations usually.... Elmao 18:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So which one? If it's free for everyone? hmm? .. (in any case i sent a letter to the library management, and will see if i can use this "treasure". (exactly this is how it's named the section). Elmao 19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And the GNU licence does not mean, that you have to be the creator of the image .. Elmao 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm 90% sure it's free (or i can get the right to post here), and i will wait a response from the library. I also asked admins. Until they respond i will wait and see how to modify it. thx Elmao 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Elmao: you take responsibility for the rationale you provide, and I cannot author one for you. What you wrote there does not strike one as an adequate rationale (you have a template to use here), and you are still posting comments in namespace. I have half a mind to delete it, because, in this form, it is misleading - consider rephrasing it to something logical. Dahn 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Elmao, I did not and will not give you my consent to remove my comments on this page, making their removal an instance of vandalism (though I will assume good faith on your part). Charging me with personal attacks is absurd: I pointed out that your edits in mainspace contain spelling errors (not to say "are riddled with"), which harms this project in more ways than one. I have also told you thatr, in this case, I cannot simply correct them, since you take responsibility for the fair use rationales you provide. Let's not make this into a mountain, and please don't make me report you to AN/I. Dahn 11:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
To readers: Elmao's comments I was replying to above, which he has since deleted himself, can be picked from this page's history. Dahn 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)