![]() | 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 archive page covers comments 1801-1850, from roughly December 10, 2007 to December 21, 2007. |
Quadell, I noticed a user with many copyright violations in their uploaded images, Jbloun1 ( t c). I have listed 5 of his uploads for deletion, where I have been able to find copies on the web. However, I think that all of his images are probably copyvios, and he has uploaded them claiming PD-Self. The exif tags show that many different cameras were used, and the quality of the images vary from mediocre to somewhat professional. This all suggests to me that the images were found on the web somewhere, but I can't prove it. I tried to talk with this guy about it, but have received no response. He also seems to be agressively pushing these photos into articles, e.g. [1]. Can you advise how to proceed?
Example images (w/ camera):
Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain how de minimis applies to this image? It seems to me that the use of BBC News' logo, logotype, headlines and abstracts are clearly legible and identifiable, and fulfil a major rôle in the image. EdC ( talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you happen to read the talk page about the content or did you just delete? I forwarded the email from the artist himself who was also the author of the website in question with permission to use the content. I'll wait for you to undo what you did. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 04:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back. Wiggy! ( talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A little strongly worded, but I'm very glad for the support. Much obliged. [2] Durova Charge! 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Quadell ... you deleted the articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) but did not Close the AfD ... also, the PROD on Jazz Curtis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has expired ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.199 ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you are deleting pages from the characters of Home and Away?. Screechy 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are working from, put you've fixed several of the problems at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 26/Articles. If you are working from that list, would you mind marking them as fixed (via <s></s> there? John Reaves 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Fair Use is Permitted
Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for non-commercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download or print text and image files from this Web site for such uses may do so without the Smithsonian Institution’s or FONZ's express permission, provided that they comply with the following conditions:
1. The content may only be used for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes; 2. Users must cite the author and source of the content as they would material from any printed work; 3. The citation must include all copyright information and other information associated with the content and the URL for the Smithsonian Institution website; 4. None of the content may be altered or modified; 5. Users must comply with all other terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file, image, or text."
See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikco ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the heads up - I could swear I read that somewhere once (that admins could check if articles were unwatched or not). It seems like a useful tool to have, but not one for everyone (I'm sure vandals would love to know what no one is watching). Perhaps I can suggest it... In any case, I am a bit embarrassed - do you think I should strike that in my statement or just leave it? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with your arbitrary deletion of Image:Salvatore_Lo_Piccolo.jpg and consider it a violation of you admin powers. Without any warning you deleted the image, while the discussion was not closed. As I explained several times the image was relevant and there is a reference in the article to the image, in combination with the other images. By removing the image this make no sense anymore, while it is a relevant issue in relation to his arrest. I restored the image and would appreciate that you refrain from removing it again. You overstepped your athorities here and any further discussion should be handled by another admin. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this image replacable?
My understanding is that a picture of a toy would be a derived work, and thus copyright of the original copyright holder. Taemyr ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment about Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami's FA. NancyHeise ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell. It looks like we both made a mistake on this image. The uploader originally puloaded his own image, and someone else came along and replaced it with a fair use image. Please undelete it. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for both your kind words and your lascivious speculation. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But in truth I had very little to do with it. The article was almost done when I got involved; I just tidied it up a bit. Still, I'm happy the next stage in the Solar Systme project is now in sight. :-) Serendipod ous 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think you accidentally deleted
The Work Permit page exists, and there was a lot of useful material on the talk page. Thanks, 67.168.65.207 ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy message. I think we've been through enough of these cycles/rituals of picture deletion so that I think everyone knows their part. If you think the pic is replaceable is fine with me. Thanks again. Dr.K. ( talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is my pleasure. I have taken many photos such as that one - I intend to add pics wherever possible when I have time. Paulba Legend ( talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is for a $20,000 amp - thus unlikely to be available to just anyone to take a photo of. I have added even more fair use rational to the article. Fosnez ( talk) 11:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg ( talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually struggled to come up with a better heading. The problem is, that's the only thing Stoller's known for: making specious claims of trademark infringement. The "Vexation litigation" phrase is not subjective; that was a finding by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He made his living, such as it was, by making false claims of trademark infringement, and accepting settlements as a nuisance.
He's certainly not in the Internet or Software business as currently classified.
I'll remove his entry (which I believe was placed by Stoller himself) unless anyone can come up with a better categorization. -- TJRC ( talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your support, my
request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Could you please undelete the following images? We got an OTRS GFDL license for all images from Bloggingheads.tv (details here, Riana confirmed the license). When they're undeleted, I'll correctly tag them and move them out to Commons.
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for requesting a glance-over for this article. While it shows some significant improvement, I believe that it has some statements which don't adhere to WP:NPOV. The most obvious ones include "curiously" and "it should be noted". Small statements like that reflect a media bias, and should be removed.
On another note, it might just be me, but is the title of the article somewhat misleading? At first look, I thought it was a biographical article, but upon reading it it's clear that it's an article about an event, not a person. The name also places undue emphasis on Davis.
Hope that some of that helps. I'll cross post at the talk page. Jame § ugrono 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Guy Verhofstadt 2007.jpg was uploaded for insertion in the article Europe Book Prize. The source of the image file and the web link authorizing use of the image elsewhere was also provided. In my understanding it is usable in Wikipedia within its policy standards. Such a speedy deletion was unwarranted and disheartening. Notably I am registered with the European Commission for downloading and using this image. -Faizul Latif Chowdhury, Brussels, 16 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We need a kind of final ruling on [3]. See also [4]. We respect Getty's copyfraud most of the time, why not this company's? - Nard 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi There, First of all this is not a complaint! I just uploaded the above mentioned file, which is a film poster. I really struggle figuring out how to upload a file without it being deleted straight away. There is no awailable option to choose when uploading a file like ours that reflects the licence we hold. Its our poster. We hold the licence. But because it is promotional material we do support the distribution on the internet. And in this case we really want to have the official poster next to the article about the film. So I'm a bit confused what to do...any ideas? Thanks The Black Balloon ( talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I tried reasoning with the uploader on other issues, & he just won't go through OTRS to get "proof" of the claims! SkierRMH ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to update the license and fair use statements Image:Pure Potential Logo.jpg There is one problem that still remains, and that is the source of the image. The listed source does not seem to contain the exact image that was uploaded. It does have a flash version of the image. Any idea how to determine the true source of the image? Dbiel ( Talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Quadell,
Thankyou for sorting out the situation with those images expediently :-) I've notified the uploader, article talk, WP:CP and WP:PUI of the deletion, and removed the inlines of these images from the article. Here's hoping those working on that article can re-upload one or two of them, this time with the right Copyright info. — digitaleon • talk @ 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:AEL1964-Crest.svg - would Polbot swallow that OK now? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell. You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Too_many_redundant_stubs Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm positive that pic was deleted from the commons. Whoever did it said something along the lines of "copyvio. Obviously not Mcrazychick". Anyway it's back now - weird. The pic on en.wiki still needs deleting though -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome :)-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Polbot recently added a fair-use rationale to
Image:HR Block logo.png. It's a very nice rationale, but I do note the image is not actually tagged as being fair use; rather, it is tagged as {{
PD-ineligible}} (since it is just a square with a line of text next to it) and {{
Trademark}}. While I like the "
wikt:belt and suspenders" approach, I'm not sure if you intended your bot to perform that sort of edit. Also, BTW, it used &
in the edit summary which ended up as a redlink.
Anomie
⚔
12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words :), however I can't take all the credit. User:Marmelad was creating a vector version of Image:Alosizes(v2).png by User:Dropzink. It was started by Marmelad and I finnished it off. But Anyway, once agian thanks :) cheers. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the compliment, and have a great day! J. Spencer ( talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For creating a bot (Polbot) that adds "correct" fair-use rationales to images and creating a bot that actually helps the user, I award you this barnstar. Good work! :) - NeutralHomer T: C 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for kind words, I've responded on the review page. Jimfbleak ( talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a fair-use rationale for an image I missed. I didn't fully understand rationale templates when I started uploading them. Thanks again. :) Man from the Ministry ( talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I didn't do a merger of the two explanations but I did expand the ending. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
your bot is making a huge mess and butchering rationales, its adding wrong rationales. βcommand 23:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not the best place for this, but due to the complex nature of fair use rationale and the multiple ways they have been done, it is impossible to create a bot that will run unattended without making for too many mistakes. The way the bot has been working, it looks like a great tool for a semi automatic fuction, BUT each page needs to be reviewed in detail before any automatic edit is saved. I have already posted problems related to the bot on its talk page such as adding the article name multiple times in a single FUR while ignoring the additional FUR's on that same page. Creating a duplicate FUR simply because the previous one was of a different format both being unacceptable edits. Dbiel ( Talk) 03:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad about it, Quadell. We all make mistakes sometimes. :D Maser ( Talk!) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it really even practical to add blanket, automated rationales to images? If this made sense from a legality standpoint, wouldn't it be more practical to select from a FUR list when uploading, similar to the licensing list? Adding blanket FURs to images without a knowledge of each image and its use is not only a bad idea, but also opens a can of worms of many images being uploaded with these blanket FURs put on them, when they may very well be far from valid. Don't get me wrong, Quadell - I applaud your effort with your bot, but in this instance it may be ill-advised. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've opened a bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Let's take any new discussion there. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks good on you. See now though, I suck at the whole <div style/> blah, blah, blah... But aren't you a computer scientist?!? <grin/>-- DO11.10 ( talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
at Talk:Western painting please reply there: Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Thanks Johnbod ( talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please revisit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_30#Image:Mart-Sander-and-Swing-Swind.jpg Do you know how to reinstate the QE II image? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you undelete the local copy of this file? It is PD-US but not PD in Germany, and I want the local copy restored before commonsdelinker gets ahold of it. - Nard 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Quadell (or your Quadell, whichever you prefer ;-) ),
I just wanted to let you know that an edit war may be brewing in
Blu-ray Disc#Corporate Support. The topic is a poster from a pornographic video released in Germany that
User:Fairseeder keeps putting back. Myself and at least two other people agree that this potentially scandalous image has no place in an article about an optical disc format and could potentially turn away casual users of Wikipedia. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly feel that this picture has no place in that article. I don't know if it is standard policy to notify an admin before an edit war starts (I'm still kind of new here), but I felt that it couldn't hurt to let someone know about it. I just removed the image from the page and I would like to request that Fairseeder be temporarily blocked if he keeps putting it back.
Thanks,
Thingg (
talk)
00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell, permission has been sent to the OTRS system about Image:Zac Efron 2007.jpg, stating that I have permission to upload it as CC-3.0-BY. -- Dan Leveille TALK 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Quadell,
I just wanted to say thanks for your help in the whole Blu-ray edit war. I also want to apologize for starting an edit war in that article. I wasn't trying to do so, but I very strongly feel that that image is not relevant to the article and should be removed. (also, I just found out that the premise for including it, that it was the first porn movie released on bluray, may be inaccurate. I read in a few places that the first porn bluray movies were released in Japan.) Anyway, if you remove the block and someone puts the pic back in, I will not revert it. (I think that kind of counts as a consensus: I gave up) So, again, if you want to remove the block, I think it would be ok. Just a comment: I don't understand why no one cares about 12 year old kids accidently stumbling across that pic. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I think there should be some kind of guideline for putting explicit content in pages that are not about subjects that may relate to explicit content. I know that may sound weird, but I know that Wikipedia already gets a lot of flack for letting anyone off the street edit it, and I don't thnk having that kind of content in pages that have no relation to an explicit subject is going to help Wikipedia's image in the wider world.
I now that comment thing probably sounds weird, but I just really needed to put my concern out there... Anyway, thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.
Thingg (
talk)
16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 archive page covers comments 1801-1850, from roughly December 10, 2007 to December 21, 2007. |
Quadell, I noticed a user with many copyright violations in their uploaded images, Jbloun1 ( t c). I have listed 5 of his uploads for deletion, where I have been able to find copies on the web. However, I think that all of his images are probably copyvios, and he has uploaded them claiming PD-Self. The exif tags show that many different cameras were used, and the quality of the images vary from mediocre to somewhat professional. This all suggests to me that the images were found on the web somewhere, but I can't prove it. I tried to talk with this guy about it, but have received no response. He also seems to be agressively pushing these photos into articles, e.g. [1]. Can you advise how to proceed?
Example images (w/ camera):
Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain how de minimis applies to this image? It seems to me that the use of BBC News' logo, logotype, headlines and abstracts are clearly legible and identifiable, and fulfil a major rôle in the image. EdC ( talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you happen to read the talk page about the content or did you just delete? I forwarded the email from the artist himself who was also the author of the website in question with permission to use the content. I'll wait for you to undo what you did. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 04:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back. Wiggy! ( talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A little strongly worded, but I'm very glad for the support. Much obliged. [2] Durova Charge! 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Quadell ... you deleted the articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) but did not Close the AfD ... also, the PROD on Jazz Curtis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has expired ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.199 ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you are deleting pages from the characters of Home and Away?. Screechy 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you are working from, put you've fixed several of the problems at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 26/Articles. If you are working from that list, would you mind marking them as fixed (via <s></s> there? John Reaves 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Fair Use is Permitted
Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for non-commercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, and news reporting. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download or print text and image files from this Web site for such uses may do so without the Smithsonian Institution’s or FONZ's express permission, provided that they comply with the following conditions:
1. The content may only be used for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes; 2. Users must cite the author and source of the content as they would material from any printed work; 3. The citation must include all copyright information and other information associated with the content and the URL for the Smithsonian Institution website; 4. None of the content may be altered or modified; 5. Users must comply with all other terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file, image, or text."
See here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikco ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the heads up - I could swear I read that somewhere once (that admins could check if articles were unwatched or not). It seems like a useful tool to have, but not one for everyone (I'm sure vandals would love to know what no one is watching). Perhaps I can suggest it... In any case, I am a bit embarrassed - do you think I should strike that in my statement or just leave it? Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with your arbitrary deletion of Image:Salvatore_Lo_Piccolo.jpg and consider it a violation of you admin powers. Without any warning you deleted the image, while the discussion was not closed. As I explained several times the image was relevant and there is a reference in the article to the image, in combination with the other images. By removing the image this make no sense anymore, while it is a relevant issue in relation to his arrest. I restored the image and would appreciate that you refrain from removing it again. You overstepped your athorities here and any further discussion should be handled by another admin. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 12:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this image replacable?
My understanding is that a picture of a toy would be a derived work, and thus copyright of the original copyright holder. Taemyr ( talk) 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comment about Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami's FA. NancyHeise ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell. It looks like we both made a mistake on this image. The uploader originally puloaded his own image, and someone else came along and replaced it with a fair use image. Please undelete it. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for both your kind words and your lascivious speculation. :-) Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But in truth I had very little to do with it. The article was almost done when I got involved; I just tidied it up a bit. Still, I'm happy the next stage in the Solar Systme project is now in sight. :-) Serendipod ous 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think you accidentally deleted
The Work Permit page exists, and there was a lot of useful material on the talk page. Thanks, 67.168.65.207 ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy message. I think we've been through enough of these cycles/rituals of picture deletion so that I think everyone knows their part. If you think the pic is replaceable is fine with me. Thanks again. Dr.K. ( talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is my pleasure. I have taken many photos such as that one - I intend to add pics wherever possible when I have time. Paulba Legend ( talk) 16:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is for a $20,000 amp - thus unlikely to be available to just anyone to take a photo of. I have added even more fair use rational to the article. Fosnez ( talk) 11:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg ( talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually struggled to come up with a better heading. The problem is, that's the only thing Stoller's known for: making specious claims of trademark infringement. The "Vexation litigation" phrase is not subjective; that was a finding by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He made his living, such as it was, by making false claims of trademark infringement, and accepting settlements as a nuisance.
He's certainly not in the Internet or Software business as currently classified.
I'll remove his entry (which I believe was placed by Stoller himself) unless anyone can come up with a better categorization. -- TJRC ( talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> Thanks for your support, my
request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
---|
Could you please undelete the following images? We got an OTRS GFDL license for all images from Bloggingheads.tv (details here, Riana confirmed the license). When they're undeleted, I'll correctly tag them and move them out to Commons.
Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 01:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for requesting a glance-over for this article. While it shows some significant improvement, I believe that it has some statements which don't adhere to WP:NPOV. The most obvious ones include "curiously" and "it should be noted". Small statements like that reflect a media bias, and should be removed.
On another note, it might just be me, but is the title of the article somewhat misleading? At first look, I thought it was a biographical article, but upon reading it it's clear that it's an article about an event, not a person. The name also places undue emphasis on Davis.
Hope that some of that helps. I'll cross post at the talk page. Jame § ugrono 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Guy Verhofstadt 2007.jpg was uploaded for insertion in the article Europe Book Prize. The source of the image file and the web link authorizing use of the image elsewhere was also provided. In my understanding it is usable in Wikipedia within its policy standards. Such a speedy deletion was unwarranted and disheartening. Notably I am registered with the European Commission for downloading and using this image. -Faizul Latif Chowdhury, Brussels, 16 December 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizul Latif Chowdhury ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
We need a kind of final ruling on [3]. See also [4]. We respect Getty's copyfraud most of the time, why not this company's? - Nard 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi There, First of all this is not a complaint! I just uploaded the above mentioned file, which is a film poster. I really struggle figuring out how to upload a file without it being deleted straight away. There is no awailable option to choose when uploading a file like ours that reflects the licence we hold. Its our poster. We hold the licence. But because it is promotional material we do support the distribution on the internet. And in this case we really want to have the official poster next to the article about the film. So I'm a bit confused what to do...any ideas? Thanks The Black Balloon ( talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I tried reasoning with the uploader on other issues, & he just won't go through OTRS to get "proof" of the claims! SkierRMH ( talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to update the license and fair use statements Image:Pure Potential Logo.jpg There is one problem that still remains, and that is the source of the image. The listed source does not seem to contain the exact image that was uploaded. It does have a flash version of the image. Any idea how to determine the true source of the image? Dbiel ( Talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Quadell,
Thankyou for sorting out the situation with those images expediently :-) I've notified the uploader, article talk, WP:CP and WP:PUI of the deletion, and removed the inlines of these images from the article. Here's hoping those working on that article can re-upload one or two of them, this time with the right Copyright info. — digitaleon • talk @ 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:AEL1964-Crest.svg - would Polbot swallow that OK now? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell. You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Too_many_redundant_stubs Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm positive that pic was deleted from the commons. Whoever did it said something along the lines of "copyvio. Obviously not Mcrazychick". Anyway it's back now - weird. The pic on en.wiki still needs deleting though -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome :)-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Polbot recently added a fair-use rationale to
Image:HR Block logo.png. It's a very nice rationale, but I do note the image is not actually tagged as being fair use; rather, it is tagged as {{
PD-ineligible}} (since it is just a square with a line of text next to it) and {{
Trademark}}. While I like the "
wikt:belt and suspenders" approach, I'm not sure if you intended your bot to perform that sort of edit. Also, BTW, it used &
in the edit summary which ended up as a redlink.
Anomie
⚔
12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words :), however I can't take all the credit. User:Marmelad was creating a vector version of Image:Alosizes(v2).png by User:Dropzink. It was started by Marmelad and I finnished it off. But Anyway, once agian thanks :) cheers. Steveoc 86 ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the compliment, and have a great day! J. Spencer ( talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For creating a bot (Polbot) that adds "correct" fair-use rationales to images and creating a bot that actually helps the user, I award you this barnstar. Good work! :) - NeutralHomer T: C 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for kind words, I've responded on the review page. Jimfbleak ( talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a fair-use rationale for an image I missed. I didn't fully understand rationale templates when I started uploading them. Thanks again. :) Man from the Ministry ( talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I didn't do a merger of the two explanations but I did expand the ending. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
your bot is making a huge mess and butchering rationales, its adding wrong rationales. βcommand 23:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not the best place for this, but due to the complex nature of fair use rationale and the multiple ways they have been done, it is impossible to create a bot that will run unattended without making for too many mistakes. The way the bot has been working, it looks like a great tool for a semi automatic fuction, BUT each page needs to be reviewed in detail before any automatic edit is saved. I have already posted problems related to the bot on its talk page such as adding the article name multiple times in a single FUR while ignoring the additional FUR's on that same page. Creating a duplicate FUR simply because the previous one was of a different format both being unacceptable edits. Dbiel ( Talk) 03:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad about it, Quadell. We all make mistakes sometimes. :D Maser ( Talk!) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it really even practical to add blanket, automated rationales to images? If this made sense from a legality standpoint, wouldn't it be more practical to select from a FUR list when uploading, similar to the licensing list? Adding blanket FURs to images without a knowledge of each image and its use is not only a bad idea, but also opens a can of worms of many images being uploaded with these blanket FURs put on them, when they may very well be far from valid. Don't get me wrong, Quadell - I applaud your effort with your bot, but in this instance it may be ill-advised. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've opened a bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Let's take any new discussion there. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks good on you. See now though, I suck at the whole <div style/> blah, blah, blah... But aren't you a computer scientist?!? <grin/>-- DO11.10 ( talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
at Talk:Western painting please reply there: Your claim that " Each non-free image which is truly useful in the article needs to be mentioned in the text (not just the image's caption)" is new to me. I understand that just giving a title and artist name in a caption does not amount to discussion, but see no reason why a longer caption commenting on the work should not do so. Please clarify what you are saying, and produce policy references if you are indeed saying this. Thanks Johnbod ( talk) 13:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please revisit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_November_30#Image:Mart-Sander-and-Swing-Swind.jpg Do you know how to reinstate the QE II image? Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you undelete the local copy of this file? It is PD-US but not PD in Germany, and I want the local copy restored before commonsdelinker gets ahold of it. - Nard 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Quadell (or your Quadell, whichever you prefer ;-) ),
I just wanted to let you know that an edit war may be brewing in
Blu-ray Disc#Corporate Support. The topic is a poster from a pornographic video released in Germany that
User:Fairseeder keeps putting back. Myself and at least two other people agree that this potentially scandalous image has no place in an article about an optical disc format and could potentially turn away casual users of Wikipedia. I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly feel that this picture has no place in that article. I don't know if it is standard policy to notify an admin before an edit war starts (I'm still kind of new here), but I felt that it couldn't hurt to let someone know about it. I just removed the image from the page and I would like to request that Fairseeder be temporarily blocked if he keeps putting it back.
Thanks,
Thingg (
talk)
00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Quadell, permission has been sent to the OTRS system about Image:Zac Efron 2007.jpg, stating that I have permission to upload it as CC-3.0-BY. -- Dan Leveille TALK 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Quadell,
I just wanted to say thanks for your help in the whole Blu-ray edit war. I also want to apologize for starting an edit war in that article. I wasn't trying to do so, but I very strongly feel that that image is not relevant to the article and should be removed. (also, I just found out that the premise for including it, that it was the first porn movie released on bluray, may be inaccurate. I read in a few places that the first porn bluray movies were released in Japan.) Anyway, if you remove the block and someone puts the pic back in, I will not revert it. (I think that kind of counts as a consensus: I gave up) So, again, if you want to remove the block, I think it would be ok. Just a comment: I don't understand why no one cares about 12 year old kids accidently stumbling across that pic. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I think there should be some kind of guideline for putting explicit content in pages that are not about subjects that may relate to explicit content. I know that may sound weird, but I know that Wikipedia already gets a lot of flack for letting anyone off the street edit it, and I don't thnk having that kind of content in pages that have no relation to an explicit subject is going to help Wikipedia's image in the wider world.
I now that comment thing probably sounds weird, but I just really needed to put my concern out there... Anyway, thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.
Thingg (
talk)
16:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)