This page 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. |
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Hi, thanks for the link to the previous discussion about the Searle biography! Seems to me that FreeKnowledgeCreator has an agenda here to cast aspersions upon a philosopher he dislikes. I'm not sure how to conclusively demonstrate to this user (who has explicitly stated their intent to add more details) that Searle is relatively unknown (and thus inclusion of allegations not in accord with wikipedia policy) when every time I have explained to them that outside of academia, the ordinary person has no idea who he is, I am simply met with petulant insistence and personal attack (apparently this user is a long time editor and since I am fairly new, he dismisses my argumentation out of hand. Any insight or help resolving this issue would be appreciated, but either way, thanks for linking the previous discussion, it was very useful to see the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly: Thank you very much, Marchjuly, for reviewing my draft for formatting. It was very helpful that you included links so that I could see examples of what I needed to do. I think I have made all of the needed changes. Thank you very much for your help.
My draft is now part of the Eugene, Oregon Wikipedia page. I am very grateful to you and to the community for so much help in managing this project! Silver Water ( talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey.. Would want to know you more Melissa5695 ( talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, I want to respond to the dispute you have raised, but am not sure whereabouts on the file to begin writing. Could you please advise. Thanks Beryl reid fan ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Beryl reid fan ( talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you comment on this deletion? The explanation for the file's license includes this statement:
However, it is believed that the use of this work:
- To illustrate the subject in question
- Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
- On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use…
The use of the image in the List of map projections article meets all these qualifications. Strebe ( talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello darling!!
I saw your major edit notification and so stopped editing to leave room for you. May I be so bold to ask you not to remove my beloved festivals' table / to not to convert it into text?
I know some festivals may seem a bit obscure, however from the POV of a genre film or just short film fan it is but a complete source for information (and it took ages to make, hehe).
Thank you so very much,
MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy ( talk) 05:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the fair use rationale for History of boxing in the Philippines. Pls. check the File's rationale if it works and if it doesn't then I'll delete the said file in the article. Thanks. Pacphobia ( talk) 07:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Like you, I saw the picture of Gough's portrait on the Archibald page, and thought "that can't be right". But unlike you, I don't know enough about the subject. I looked at the rationale, and it seemed reasonable, but again, I don't know enough about the subject. I am unsurprised and unperturbed by your action; just incredibly ignorant.
May I bother you to explain to me why the rationale is/was inadequate? Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
09:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Marchjuly. I have just read what you said on my talk page, and I was just wondering whether it matters or not to my case that I essentially copied the image in question ( File:BBC Balloon over Cley.jpg) from the BBC One 'Balloon' idents page and that prior to me using it, it was on this wiki page. I am just a little unsure at the moment whether it is OK or not for me to use existing images on assorted Wikipedia pages for use on my page. Nonetheless, thank you for informing me of this and I will remember this for the future. -- Porridge ( talk) 13:40, 19 April 2017 (GMT)
Thank you for finding my error in using an inappropriate image in User:Teblick/Pierre Andre (announcer). I apologize for my mistake, and I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick ( talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit of 30-sec samples, my question is, it is only allowed on the song's article? the license suggest "the sample contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articleS in which it is used (listed under the heading "File usage" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media;". If the sample contributes explaining the Artistry section, shouldn't it be used there too? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
if you feel that non-free use of the file can be justified in the Timberlake article, then please provide an appropriate reationale per WP:NFCCE before re-adding the file to the article. My suggestion is that you try and be as specific as possible as to how you think the use complies with relevant policy. Please don't just simply copy-and-paste an existing rationale for the same or another file with some minor tweaking (e.g., changing only the name of the article), which is unfortunately something many people seem to do. It also would be a good idea to improve the article is a way tied into your rationale to better strengthen the case for non-free use. How do that is up to you and whether others contributing to the page or watching it thinks its OK is up to them. Copyright licensing issues aside, adding files to an article is like adding content: you can be bold, but if reverted then you should discuss per WP:BRD unless there are serious policy related issues which take precedance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the image which was in my sandbox that you have reverted here, when I do creaete the page and move it out of the user namespace, will I be allowed to use that image? Or is it only permitted to be used as a representative cover for the page of the book itself? Thanks. -- NikolaiHo ☎️ 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning.
You have marked a page pertaining to me as without source. Please note (and tell me, if you would be so kind) how to correctly attribute the content. All biographical data can be found in "Seduced by The Muse" ISBN 978-1312031951, which can be checked at https://www.amazon.com/Seduced-Muse-Harry-George-Pellegrin/dp/1312031956. Also, another party has removed a photographic reproduction of my first CD. This is not a great loss, as I would prefer to have my latest (5th) CD image on the page. Can you tell me how I can do this as well?
Thanks for any input you can offer,
Best regards,
Harry G. Pellegrin recitalguitarist@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry George Pellegrin ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)
@ George Ho: I'm not sure how to answer your question or how I can possibly help without knowing what you would like to discuss. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the {{
subst:proposed deletion}}
is updated to allow tagging on "File:" namespace. Also,
WP:PROD is updated based on the passed proposal to implement that. You may use the template now. --
George Ho (
talk)
17:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have done that most of the time, especially at one talk page. Well... sometimes it's unnecessary to contact an inactive uploader. Nevertheless, in the case of one file, at least it's still used in one article. About the remark... I hope no more bad terms between us, okay? But I won't preach to you too much if you don't like it. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I know that it's used in the MSU article without rationale, but that's not sufficient reason for the deletion template — we don't delete nonfree images just because they're used in an article without having a rationale for that article. If you want to address that issue, just remove it from the MSU article: do not re-restore the template, because it already has a rationale for the Sparty article. Moreover, because all photos of this subject will be nonfree, the copyright of the source image is irrelevant; university-owned images, images from Flickr with cc-by licenses, images from Flickr with no licenses, and uploader-photographed images are no different for this purpose. Of course, if it comes from something like Reuters that's making money off the image itself, that's different, but that's not an issue with this image, since the photographer uploaded it here and can thus have no objection to its appearance on Wikipedia. Nyttend ( talk) 11:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjb72 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This page 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. |
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
Hi, thanks for the link to the previous discussion about the Searle biography! Seems to me that FreeKnowledgeCreator has an agenda here to cast aspersions upon a philosopher he dislikes. I'm not sure how to conclusively demonstrate to this user (who has explicitly stated their intent to add more details) that Searle is relatively unknown (and thus inclusion of allegations not in accord with wikipedia policy) when every time I have explained to them that outside of academia, the ordinary person has no idea who he is, I am simply met with petulant insistence and personal attack (apparently this user is a long time editor and since I am fairly new, he dismisses my argumentation out of hand. Any insight or help resolving this issue would be appreciated, but either way, thanks for linking the previous discussion, it was very useful to see the dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly: Thank you very much, Marchjuly, for reviewing my draft for formatting. It was very helpful that you included links so that I could see examples of what I needed to do. I think I have made all of the needed changes. Thank you very much for your help.
My draft is now part of the Eugene, Oregon Wikipedia page. I am very grateful to you and to the community for so much help in managing this project! Silver Water ( talk) 21:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey.. Would want to know you more Melissa5695 ( talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, I want to respond to the dispute you have raised, but am not sure whereabouts on the file to begin writing. Could you please advise. Thanks Beryl reid fan ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Beryl reid fan ( talk) 12:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you comment on this deletion? The explanation for the file's license includes this statement:
However, it is believed that the use of this work:
- To illustrate the subject in question
- Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
- On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use…
The use of the image in the List of map projections article meets all these qualifications. Strebe ( talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello darling!!
I saw your major edit notification and so stopped editing to leave room for you. May I be so bold to ask you not to remove my beloved festivals' table / to not to convert it into text?
I know some festivals may seem a bit obscure, however from the POV of a genre film or just short film fan it is but a complete source for information (and it took ages to make, hehe).
Thank you so very much,
MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy ( talk) 05:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed the fair use rationale for History of boxing in the Philippines. Pls. check the File's rationale if it works and if it doesn't then I'll delete the said file in the article. Thanks. Pacphobia ( talk) 07:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Like you, I saw the picture of Gough's portrait on the Archibald page, and thought "that can't be right". But unlike you, I don't know enough about the subject. I looked at the rationale, and it seemed reasonable, but again, I don't know enough about the subject. I am unsurprised and unperturbed by your action; just incredibly ignorant.
May I bother you to explain to me why the rationale is/was inadequate? Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
09:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Marchjuly. I have just read what you said on my talk page, and I was just wondering whether it matters or not to my case that I essentially copied the image in question ( File:BBC Balloon over Cley.jpg) from the BBC One 'Balloon' idents page and that prior to me using it, it was on this wiki page. I am just a little unsure at the moment whether it is OK or not for me to use existing images on assorted Wikipedia pages for use on my page. Nonetheless, thank you for informing me of this and I will remember this for the future. -- Porridge ( talk) 13:40, 19 April 2017 (GMT)
Thank you for finding my error in using an inappropriate image in User:Teblick/Pierre Andre (announcer). I apologize for my mistake, and I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick ( talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this edit of 30-sec samples, my question is, it is only allowed on the song's article? the license suggest "the sample contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articleS in which it is used (listed under the heading "File usage" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media;". If the sample contributes explaining the Artistry section, shouldn't it be used there too? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
if you feel that non-free use of the file can be justified in the Timberlake article, then please provide an appropriate reationale per WP:NFCCE before re-adding the file to the article. My suggestion is that you try and be as specific as possible as to how you think the use complies with relevant policy. Please don't just simply copy-and-paste an existing rationale for the same or another file with some minor tweaking (e.g., changing only the name of the article), which is unfortunately something many people seem to do. It also would be a good idea to improve the article is a way tied into your rationale to better strengthen the case for non-free use. How do that is up to you and whether others contributing to the page or watching it thinks its OK is up to them. Copyright licensing issues aside, adding files to an article is like adding content: you can be bold, but if reverted then you should discuss per WP:BRD unless there are serious policy related issues which take precedance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the image which was in my sandbox that you have reverted here, when I do creaete the page and move it out of the user namespace, will I be allowed to use that image? Or is it only permitted to be used as a representative cover for the page of the book itself? Thanks. -- NikolaiHo ☎️ 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Good morning.
You have marked a page pertaining to me as without source. Please note (and tell me, if you would be so kind) how to correctly attribute the content. All biographical data can be found in "Seduced by The Muse" ISBN 978-1312031951, which can be checked at https://www.amazon.com/Seduced-Muse-Harry-George-Pellegrin/dp/1312031956. Also, another party has removed a photographic reproduction of my first CD. This is not a great loss, as I would prefer to have my latest (5th) CD image on the page. Can you tell me how I can do this as well?
Thanks for any input you can offer,
Best regards,
Harry G. Pellegrin recitalguitarist@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry George Pellegrin ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)
@ George Ho: I'm not sure how to answer your question or how I can possibly help without knowing what you would like to discuss. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the {{
subst:proposed deletion}}
is updated to allow tagging on "File:" namespace. Also,
WP:PROD is updated based on the passed proposal to implement that. You may use the template now. --
George Ho (
talk)
17:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have done that most of the time, especially at one talk page. Well... sometimes it's unnecessary to contact an inactive uploader. Nevertheless, in the case of one file, at least it's still used in one article. About the remark... I hope no more bad terms between us, okay? But I won't preach to you too much if you don't like it. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I know that it's used in the MSU article without rationale, but that's not sufficient reason for the deletion template — we don't delete nonfree images just because they're used in an article without having a rationale for that article. If you want to address that issue, just remove it from the MSU article: do not re-restore the template, because it already has a rationale for the Sparty article. Moreover, because all photos of this subject will be nonfree, the copyright of the source image is irrelevant; university-owned images, images from Flickr with cc-by licenses, images from Flickr with no licenses, and uploader-photographed images are no different for this purpose. Of course, if it comes from something like Reuters that's making money off the image itself, that's different, but that's not an issue with this image, since the photographer uploaded it here and can thus have no objection to its appearance on Wikipedia. Nyttend ( talk) 11:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjb72 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)