The Wikipedia Fair-use guidelines permit only very restricted use of logos on Wikipedia (or see exemptions) and specifically caution against using such non-free images in non-article namespace. To wit, in this edit { diff), you added this copyrighted and trademarked logo of the UCLA Bruin Athletic Department to the Userbox titled Template:User ucla. This addition conflicts with Wikipedia policy. Would you be kind enough to repair this please? – Newportm ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's live. I just bowed down and did everything requested in the last FAC. If you want to be a co-nom, that'd be A'OK with me. I didn't add the Satchel Paige image back. We'd need direct commentary on the photo itself to easily justify it. If you want, we could look for non-free images after the FAC as well. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite the nature of the image consisting of text, none of the images you have added to any of the templates are considered public domain. Refrain from changing templates like this in the future.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have found that you have done this to way too many templates. There is no way that this can be fixed easily, so if you ever do this again, you may be blocked for it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If we want to include some non-free images, our best bet is to let reliable sources pick them. The image needs some sourced text that says why it's important, and then we would need to come up with a good rational why it can't be described with just text. The easiest thing probably would be to find some commentary on the visual aspects of a statue of him. I'm thinking a game action shot would be the best, though. I haven't looked much, but "iconic+image"+jackie+robinson this google search might be one way. Apparently there are some iconic images of him sliding into home. [1] I think that would be pretty sweet to add to the article. I'd like to find the one they used for his shoe. "iconic+image"+jackie+robinson+sliding&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Anyways, something to think about. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
YOu fired some e-mail to ZScout with regards to copyrights/trademarks. Any chance you could send me a copy too?
I know that image is free, but not every MLB cap logo is. So, for uniformity's sake, could we please keep it as is? Thank you, Tom Danson ( talk) 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BMCHS logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source, I have now added a fair use rationale so the image can be kept. The logo on the website you gave is different to the one which has been uploaded, I assume this is because the website has changed it since you uploaded it. Could you let me know if this assumption is correct, or please give a specific place on the website where the uploaded version of the logo can still be found? Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the logo File:BMCHS logo.png. I have lowered the resolution as necessary for copyrighted images to comply with the WP:NFCC, and converted it from .jpg to .png as the latter is the preferred file format for logos on Wikipedia. As File:BMCHS logo.jpg is copyrighted and no longer used it is now scheduled for deletion within seven days unless a reason to retain is given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page. — teb728 t c 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, my friend. I think there simply is a misunderstanding as to how the userboxes function. I responded on the page and I think you two have more in common than disagreement. If you want to help put together a guideline page, let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that JR is going to pass. Do you have any other articles that you'd like to take to FA? JR is such an icon, that I decided to do another, Abraham Lincoln, but it's really hard to do by oneself. I'd like to team up with someone, and I know you are about as good a teammate as one can get. I don't know if you're a baseball guy, or a civil rights guy, or that you just like JR. I'm not particular about the article, other than I want it to be someone/something important. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
On
User talk:BlastOButter42,
BillTunell said:
BOB, you may be interested in the request for commentary discussion
here. It relates to
User:Tom Danson's deletion of userbox images for MLB teams. I think you've run into this issue with him in the past.
BillTunell (
talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This was originally posted here, but since issues like this crop up all the time, I'm saving it here for future reference:
Opposition to the use of images on wikipedia usually focuses on the interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO, the last section of which reads:
This part of WP:MOSLOGO speaks to copyrighted images, as opposed to trademarked images. The standards for use of trademarked images on wikipedia are different than for copyrighted images. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment.
For purposes of wikipedia policy (which can be, and usually is, more stringent than what U.S. law allows), one of the rules is that a copyrighted image can be used under a claim of "fair use" on wikipedia to identify its subject matter, but it can only be used on "article namespace" pages (i.e., the regular articles on wikipedia, not the behind-the-scenes type pages such as userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like). See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, Rule #9 (which you will often see referred to as "NFCC #9" for "Non-Free Content Criterion #9).
These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on wikipedia. Most logos are copyrights. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright status -- this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. So basically, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrights; typically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyright protection.
These types of simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on wikipedia. The Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.
For wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a Non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like.
Identifying what is a copyright, trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® denotes a "registered trademark," which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this as a copyright. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
On wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular "tags" that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyright, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on wikipedia. A copyright image should have a tag attached to it that looks like this:
{{Non-free logo}}
The code you would insert on the image page to insert this tag is: {{ Non-free logo}}
An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{ Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.
Similarly, a trademark image should contain the following tag:
This work contains material which may be subject to
trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos. |
code: {{ Trademark}}
And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify for copyright protection should be tagged:
This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for
copyright alone because they are
not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the
public domain. See
Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts or
Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information. Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo. |
code: {{ PD-textlogo}}
An example of an image page with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{ Trademark}} and the {{ PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{ PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale," because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on wikipedia.
However, just because an image page is tagged as {{ Non-free logo}}, {{ PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinitive. Like everything else on wikipedia, such tags are subject to change by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in principle, a qualified {{ PD-textlogo}} image should be freely usable on wikipedia in any context, as long as it does not misidentify its subject. Images that are tagged as {{ PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional indicator of being public-domain ("free") images – although again, this is not determinitive.
If editors have a disagreement about whether an image qualifies under the {{ PD-textlogo}} stadard or any other standard, it is highly suggested that, instead of engaging in revert wars, that the editors use each others' talk page and submit the issue to the relevant noticeboard. Disputes about the qualifications of an allegedly public-domain image can be submitted to the possibly unfree images noticeboard. Disputes about the appropriate use of non-free content can be submitted to the non-free content review noticeboard. In other cases the request for commentary (RFC) procedure can also be used. Any questions can always be directed to the media copyright desk. Use of incident noticeboard is discouraged unless one of the above processes have been tried first, and/or an editor is clearly acting in bad faith. Referral of an editor to this primer may also help avoid any misunderstandings.
Wow. Nice summary! I think there may be a few more nuances that need to be tweaked (I'll try and get to it over the next week or so).
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your tenacious work in greatly improving Jackie Robinson and bringing it to featured article status. Your work is a credit to Wikipedia. BRMo ( talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." —Jackie Robinson |
In appreciation Your work is bound to make an impact on many: there were over one million views of Jackie Robinson in the past year. Thank you for turning a good article into a great one, for staying calm and friendly throughout my nitpicking, and for bravely (if ever less eagerly) running the gauntlet of FAC til the job was done. I am so very pleased to have come along for the journey. It has truly been a pleasure working with you. Maralia ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
On Honest Abe. I think it's doable. User:Rjensen has been working on it a bit, too. I think he has a PhD in History or something, and he seems to be able to find refs for anything he wants. He doesn't do a ton, but when I've asked him for a page number or a reference, he's come through. Just so you know.
I never realized how appreciative people would be about the Jackie Robinson FA. Kinda makes me feel good. I can't imaging what people would say about a Lincoln FA. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Great job! The Honest Abe article's edit history has blown up! I've been kinda busy painting some buildings, so could you give a short summary of what you've been doing, for maximum coordination? I see you've created links between the refs and their books. Very nice. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you guys want a peer review on Lincoln, I'll go through and give it comments on style and readability. Let me know when you think you're ready. You can do it in sections or all at once. I may call in my ringer for comprehension and sources. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe add an image to the Abraham lincoln health article. Just an idea. Regards - BennyK95 - Talk 17:48, October 2009 (UTC)
Hi - no, IMO that doesn't qualify as a text logo, due to the positioning and colour. It isn't clear text. The rule of thumb that I always use is - could you recreate that logo perfectly and consistently in 30 seconds using Microsoft Paint, if you weren't given sight of it first? This one - no, I don't think you could. Black Kite 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't mean to step in. But doesn't it give you an "edit conflict" screen with all of your edits on it? I always seem to get one when it happens to me... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Bill, do know you have a number of circular references in this article? I started to remove them, but was not sure if I was stepping on a master plan you have to fix them. Let me know... ttonyb ( talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wisconsin motion w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Fair-use guidelines permit only very restricted use of logos on Wikipedia (or see exemptions) and specifically caution against using such non-free images in non-article namespace. To wit, in this edit { diff), you added this copyrighted and trademarked logo of the UCLA Bruin Athletic Department to the Userbox titled Template:User ucla. This addition conflicts with Wikipedia policy. Would you be kind enough to repair this please? – Newportm ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's live. I just bowed down and did everything requested in the last FAC. If you want to be a co-nom, that'd be A'OK with me. I didn't add the Satchel Paige image back. We'd need direct commentary on the photo itself to easily justify it. If you want, we could look for non-free images after the FAC as well. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite the nature of the image consisting of text, none of the images you have added to any of the templates are considered public domain. Refrain from changing templates like this in the future.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have found that you have done this to way too many templates. There is no way that this can be fixed easily, so if you ever do this again, you may be blocked for it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If we want to include some non-free images, our best bet is to let reliable sources pick them. The image needs some sourced text that says why it's important, and then we would need to come up with a good rational why it can't be described with just text. The easiest thing probably would be to find some commentary on the visual aspects of a statue of him. I'm thinking a game action shot would be the best, though. I haven't looked much, but "iconic+image"+jackie+robinson this google search might be one way. Apparently there are some iconic images of him sliding into home. [1] I think that would be pretty sweet to add to the article. I'd like to find the one they used for his shoe. "iconic+image"+jackie+robinson+sliding&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Anyways, something to think about. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
YOu fired some e-mail to ZScout with regards to copyrights/trademarks. Any chance you could send me a copy too?
I know that image is free, but not every MLB cap logo is. So, for uniformity's sake, could we please keep it as is? Thank you, Tom Danson ( talk) 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:BMCHS logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a source, I have now added a fair use rationale so the image can be kept. The logo on the website you gave is different to the one which has been uploaded, I assume this is because the website has changed it since you uploaded it. Could you let me know if this assumption is correct, or please give a specific place on the website where the uploaded version of the logo can still be found? Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the logo File:BMCHS logo.png. I have lowered the resolution as necessary for copyrighted images to comply with the WP:NFCC, and converted it from .jpg to .png as the latter is the preferred file format for logos on Wikipedia. As File:BMCHS logo.jpg is copyrighted and no longer used it is now scheduled for deletion within seven days unless a reason to retain is given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page. — teb728 t c 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, my friend. I think there simply is a misunderstanding as to how the userboxes function. I responded on the page and I think you two have more in common than disagreement. If you want to help put together a guideline page, let me know. — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that JR is going to pass. Do you have any other articles that you'd like to take to FA? JR is such an icon, that I decided to do another, Abraham Lincoln, but it's really hard to do by oneself. I'd like to team up with someone, and I know you are about as good a teammate as one can get. I don't know if you're a baseball guy, or a civil rights guy, or that you just like JR. I'm not particular about the article, other than I want it to be someone/something important. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
On
User talk:BlastOButter42,
BillTunell said:
BOB, you may be interested in the request for commentary discussion
here. It relates to
User:Tom Danson's deletion of userbox images for MLB teams. I think you've run into this issue with him in the past.
BillTunell (
talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This was originally posted here, but since issues like this crop up all the time, I'm saving it here for future reference:
Opposition to the use of images on wikipedia usually focuses on the interpretation of WP:MOSLOGO, the last section of which reads:
This part of WP:MOSLOGO speaks to copyrighted images, as opposed to trademarked images. The standards for use of trademarked images on wikipedia are different than for copyrighted images. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment. Generally speaking, copyright protection is pretty broad, and it prohibits sale, use, manipulation, or even copying of someone else's work (hence the name). One of the narrow exceptions of use is "fair use" – which, in an oversimplified nutshell, allows the use of copyrights in order to identify the subject matter for purposes of public comment.
For purposes of wikipedia policy (which can be, and usually is, more stringent than what U.S. law allows), one of the rules is that a copyrighted image can be used under a claim of "fair use" on wikipedia to identify its subject matter, but it can only be used on "article namespace" pages (i.e., the regular articles on wikipedia, not the behind-the-scenes type pages such as userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like). See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy, Rule #9 (which you will often see referred to as "NFCC #9" for "Non-Free Content Criterion #9).
These rules about copyrights/fair use either may or may not apply to any particular logo you see on wikipedia. Most logos are copyrights. Some are not. Most logos are trademarks, but a few are not. In many cases they will be both. But in a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law. Simple letter/color/font combinations do not qualify for copyright status -- this includes "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim." See the U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. So basically, mere letter or word elements, even if they look fancy, are not copyrights; typically, a logo has to have a "pictorial" element within it to qualify for copyright protection.
These types of simple logos are considered "public domain," meaning that anyone can use it – although the way that people can use a public domain logo may still be restricted by trademark law. Most basically, if a logo is used to identify a business/organization/product, then you are not allowed to use that logo to identify or refer to another business/organization/product. In general, this is not much of an issue on wikipedia. The Coca-Cola logo (the quintessential example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo) is used on the Coca-Cola page, but not the Pepsi Cola page – so no trademark problems result.
For wikipedia purposes, a "public domain" image does not need a Non-free content rationale in order to be used. Among other things, this means that public-domain images can be used in non-article namespace pages – userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like.
Identifying what is a copyright, trademark, or both has some cues to it. If you see an image bearing the notation ® or ™, that means that someone (but you don't know who) claims that this is a trademark (® denotes a "registered trademark," which many people often confuse as a copyright claim). If you see an image with the notation ©, then that means that someone (again, you don't know who) is claiming this as a copyright. These claims may or not be correct, and people need to use their own judgment. If you see an image without such a notation, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
On wikipedia, every image, including logos, that you see will have been uploaded to a specific page that describes the picture. These should (but not always do) contain particular "tags" that describe whether the image is a (fair-use) copyright, is a (public-domain) trademark, or has some other rationale for its use on wikipedia. A copyright image should have a tag attached to it that looks like this:
{{Non-free logo}}
The code you would insert on the image page to insert this tag is: {{ Non-free logo}}
An example of such an image page would be the Apple Computer logo. Image pages with the {{ Non-free logo}} tag should also contain some additional (often lengthy) explanations known as a "non-free media use rationale" that justify their use on wikipedia – this information is required because of Non-free content criterion #10.
Similarly, a trademark image should contain the following tag:
This work contains material which may be subject to
trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos. |
code: {{ Trademark}}
And a trademark image that is simple enough that it does not qualify for copyright protection should be tagged:
This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for
copyright alone because they are
not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the
public domain. See
Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts or
Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information. Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo. |
code: {{ PD-textlogo}}
An example of an image page with these kinds of tags include: the IBM logo image page. Normally the {{ Trademark}} and the {{ PD-textlogo}} tags are placed together. Also, under normal circumstances, a {{ PD-textlogo}} image would not contain any "non-free media use rationale," because as a public-domain image, this explanation is unnecessary for use on wikipedia.
However, just because an image page is tagged as {{ Non-free logo}}, {{ PD-textlogo}}, or anything else, does not mean that this is determinitive. Like everything else on wikipedia, such tags are subject to change by any editor with an opinion – right or wrong. Often the tags are changed by editors subsequent to their uploading because of a difference of opinion. But in principle, a qualified {{ PD-textlogo}} image should be freely usable on wikipedia in any context, as long as it does not misidentify its subject. Images that are tagged as {{ PD-textlogo}} which have also been moved to the Wikimedia Commons have an additional indicator of being public-domain ("free") images – although again, this is not determinitive.
If editors have a disagreement about whether an image qualifies under the {{ PD-textlogo}} stadard or any other standard, it is highly suggested that, instead of engaging in revert wars, that the editors use each others' talk page and submit the issue to the relevant noticeboard. Disputes about the qualifications of an allegedly public-domain image can be submitted to the possibly unfree images noticeboard. Disputes about the appropriate use of non-free content can be submitted to the non-free content review noticeboard. In other cases the request for commentary (RFC) procedure can also be used. Any questions can always be directed to the media copyright desk. Use of incident noticeboard is discouraged unless one of the above processes have been tried first, and/or an editor is clearly acting in bad faith. Referral of an editor to this primer may also help avoid any misunderstandings.
Wow. Nice summary! I think there may be a few more nuances that need to be tweaked (I'll try and get to it over the next week or so).
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your tenacious work in greatly improving Jackie Robinson and bringing it to featured article status. Your work is a credit to Wikipedia. BRMo ( talk) 14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." —Jackie Robinson |
In appreciation Your work is bound to make an impact on many: there were over one million views of Jackie Robinson in the past year. Thank you for turning a good article into a great one, for staying calm and friendly throughout my nitpicking, and for bravely (if ever less eagerly) running the gauntlet of FAC til the job was done. I am so very pleased to have come along for the journey. It has truly been a pleasure working with you. Maralia ( talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
On Honest Abe. I think it's doable. User:Rjensen has been working on it a bit, too. I think he has a PhD in History or something, and he seems to be able to find refs for anything he wants. He doesn't do a ton, but when I've asked him for a page number or a reference, he's come through. Just so you know.
I never realized how appreciative people would be about the Jackie Robinson FA. Kinda makes me feel good. I can't imaging what people would say about a Lincoln FA. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Great job! The Honest Abe article's edit history has blown up! I've been kinda busy painting some buildings, so could you give a short summary of what you've been doing, for maximum coordination? I see you've created links between the refs and their books. Very nice. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If you guys want a peer review on Lincoln, I'll go through and give it comments on style and readability. Let me know when you think you're ready. You can do it in sections or all at once. I may call in my ringer for comprehension and sources. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe add an image to the Abraham lincoln health article. Just an idea. Regards - BennyK95 - Talk 17:48, October 2009 (UTC)
Hi - no, IMO that doesn't qualify as a text logo, due to the positioning and colour. It isn't clear text. The rule of thumb that I always use is - could you recreate that logo perfectly and consistently in 30 seconds using Microsoft Paint, if you weren't given sight of it first? This one - no, I don't think you could. Black Kite 00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't mean to step in. But doesn't it give you an "edit conflict" screen with all of your edits on it? I always seem to get one when it happens to me... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Bill, do know you have a number of circular references in this article? I started to remove them, but was not sure if I was stepping on a master plan you have to fix them. Let me know... ttonyb ( talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wisconsin motion w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)