This is an alternative account of ShakespeareFan00. |
These are fair use images. I don't understand what the problem is
I redid the images with the Fair Use Rationale for the images you tagged for deletion.I hope that is what you wanted. Worldatlas1989
You posted me a share of messages, while most of the images are posters. Posters are always permitted. What's the matter? They don't have to be free. -- Shahid • Talk2me 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You tagged a couple of files I uploaded as not supplying a fair use rational, but in both cases I put the {{ Non-free book cover}}, which I thought had covered the use of the images. What am I doing wrong? I had thought that book covers could be used only on their own pages without requiring the full GFDL release. Should I alter it, should the image be deleted?
Thanks,
How 'bout if I paste the following onto each of the images?
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
I corrected the images with the Fair Use Rationale Use you tagged for deletion.Can you please take Speedy Deletion Off. Thanks Djmckee1 - Talk- Sign 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The website is (c) ARK, but the data is made freely available [1]. The only restriction on derived works is that they "should acknowledge it [NILT] using the appropriate bibliographic citation" -- as I have done. If you still think that "public domain" is an inappropriate licence then I'd be grateful if you would suggest one more appropriate. -- Duncan Keith 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is your bot trying to mark my images that have the GFDL-self tag on their description pages? I took the photos, and I added the appropriate template when uploading. What's the deal? It's highly annoying, and it's polluting my talk page. -- Lyght 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the website belongs to me and i have all the permission to use it so don't mind. Yourdeadin 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)yourdeadin
I'll have it done by tomorrow -- Yourdeadin 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin
It looks to me as if the image is free. ISD 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted the image that was there and put up the Pointer Sisters image instead, Grrr. Benjiboi 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i've added a rationale, which is as I understand it. On one level, this is preserving a record of an ongoing thing, on the other it is of no impact to the copyright holder. If I'm misunderstanding concepts can you let me know? 2yellowcards 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you assitance, were the changes I made this afternoon acceptable? 2yellowcards 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If i have uploaded an image that already includes minimal fair use justification and is obviously an album cover, why do you slap a template for deletion on when you could just as easily slap on a template that provides additional fair use justification? Save us all some time and just add the info you feel it needs. Either that or go contribute something productive. -- Entoaggie09 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i managed to get most of them up on the commons (after about half an hour) and into their category, but i went back and checked the full list; some of my older maps aren't there and i'll get to them eventually. But at the moment im sick of uploading maps so if you want you can upload any more that you find, or let me know which ones are missing. Anyway, from now on, i'll upload to the commons only. Cheers Kare Kare 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi User_Sikkim.png is my original artwork, I created this for my website sikkimonline.info.. but i forgot to include copyright notice, I uploaded it in wiki to make User Tamplate called user Sikkim
This User lives with breathing the fresh air of Sikkim. |
I've removed the deletion notice.. i hope there's nothing more to discuss about that image. thanks for letting me know. -- Sikkimonline 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
An example is Image:Glen Osmond, around 1869.jpg
This image was created in Australia and is now classified as being in the
public domain because its term of copyright has now expired. According to the
Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (Aug 2014), generally copyright has expired as follows: In 2015, 70-year copyrights under the AUSFTA start expiring.
needs update
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This tag specifies public domain Australian images, yet the bot is still asking for fair use rationale for non-free content. Could you please look into this? Muzzamo 13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi thr! Thanks for the warning message [:(]. I am not too sure if I had given the info needed for the Image:Jaya Group logo.jpg. Can you please let me know if what I'v done is enough to avoid deletion or should I go through the pain of recreating the logo? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have provided the fair use rationale in the Image:TV9.jpg and removed the tag. -- Naveen ( talk) 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sfan. I've taken care of the fair-use templates for the following images:
when tagging images for removal please ensure resultant img syntax is correct, your tags on karin (manga) were (a) invisible (so it wasn't evident they were up for removal) and (b) screwed up the page layout, changing the size or position of the images - I had to edit all of them to repair the page.
Okay, I've included a fair-use rationale. Have a look. -- Curt Woyte 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
i gave it a F.U.R. Please review and remove tagging if appropriate, if not, please contact and explain, thanks. ThuranX 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When you are tagging images in their captions (like [2]), can you make sure you do it so it doesn't mess up the page? -- DrBat 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When you tagged two of the images in Dark Phoenix Saga for deletion, you have accidentally removed a large portion of text from the page.
I've restored that, but please be a little more careful when editing. -- The Fifth Horseman 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?
Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see fair-use rationale at Image:Patriot Mace.PNG. -- Tenebrae 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not having provided a ratiuonale before, I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. Let me know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Finally got around to creating a correct fair use rationale template for this image I uploaded and used. Please inspect it because this is the first time I have done such a template. Let me know of any mistakes and I will correct them. I hope it meets the requirements though. -- Maphisto86 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You are an anal M.F. if I ever saw one; it is people like you who are ruining Wikipedia. Apostle12 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that this is appropriate? How do you expect an editor to respond to one hundred rationale requests at once? Twinkle is an excellent tool, but it is not an instrument for marauding. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering how those nearly hundred images were uploaded by me over a period of years, and long prior to the adoption of the "detailed fair use rationale" policy, your suggestion that the rationales should have been included in the first place is obviously misplaced. I happen to have been a rather prolific contributor (and uploader) in the past, all in compliance with policies then in place, for which I now am thanked in this manner. I don't spend as much time on here as I used to, but this weekend I wanted to make sure that work I had put into illustrating articles (all of which were about copyrighted works, obviously not replaceable with free images) would not have to be redone. It should have raised some kind of red flag to you when you posted so many notices to one user's page, or when you noticed the range of dates that the images were uploaded.
One compliment—I'm glad that you're tagging each article that uses the image. Not all image taggers do, which means that many images will be deleted effectively without notice. One can't assume that just because someone uploaded an image at any given time that they are still involved with the project, let alone that they still have the time or interest to take care of it. Uploaders don't own images, and they certainly aren't paid to maintain responsibility for them.
But I consider this process unacceptable. Using automated software to tell others to fix hundreds of images in a matter of days, which had been uploaded over years, is not constructive. It is wasteful and it encourages frustration and resentment with current policies (which are already of questionable utility). By doing this en masse, you've indiscriminately tagged images for speedy deletion regardless of whether the fair use is prima facie acceptable, simply because the formality of a detailed fair use rationale has not been added. If the problem is fixable, there shouldn't be such a mad rush to delete the image. We don't delete articles that are lacking sources or that have typos. We either fix it ourselves or just tag it for others to notice and fix, however long it takes.
And you obviously could more constructively contribute by taking the time to post such rationales yourself when you see that they are missing. If the use is a standard one (a book cover in an article on that book, a movie poster in an article on that movie), then you could even fill in the detailed fair use rationale automatically.
Compare the work involved: If you were to actually help, there's one step--1) you post a missing fair use rationale for an image. Instead, the steps are 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the uploader posts the missing fair use rationale, 4) the uploader removes the speedy deletion warning from the article. Or, if it is not caught in time, 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the image is deleted, 4) the tag for the image is removed from the article, 4) a copy of the image is again scanned or otherwise located, 5) the image is re-uploaded with a proper fair use rationale, 6) the image is replaced in the article. Which process is more constructive? Which is more wasteful? Postdlf 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here for your personal crusade against non-descript, valid, fair use images. Users are encouraged to point out content that is not allowed, but your sole mission is to rid Wikipedia of images that clearly fall under fair use, while providing them with little time to add a description. Please provide worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia rather than running a bot that is of no use to anyone. - 76.110.238.95 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
merely ensure they are properly sourced and justified. Sfan00 IMG 13:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What Sfan00 is doing is not a personal crusade, but carrying out a much needed policy change. He is not the first to carry out such change and I can assure you he will not be the last to do it. He will take into consideration tagging methods, such as Twinkle, but everything else he is doing is legit and within policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
writes for each 1, Checking over recent contribs you will notice something in summaries as 'message collapse'. Essentially what this is collapsing say 50 verbose messages saying the same thing, into a single message + list. Sfan00 IMG 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You've tagged an image in Culture of Canada to announce that it is up for deletion, but in doing so you messed up the code for image size and made the image giant. Please double-check that your deletion warning are not messing up the page in the process. Thank you. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you going to delete Wendy's image? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'll have you know that I personally think you're deliberately doing that to be anti-contributive the well-fare and prosperity of this encyclopedia. The nerve!!! Wilhelmina Will 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about Wendy Testaburger's image. (No offense, but I thought that was pretty obvious!)
Wilhelmina Will
20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of a set number of warnings per day, if you come across dozens of problem images, you have to actively communicate with each user to determine the best course of action. Check to see if they are active and ask them how long it would take for them to address all the rationale requests. If a user is no longer active, then notifications are nothing but a formality to deletion, so you might as well use scripted tools. If the user is active and willing to cooperate, then give them some leeway in adding rationales, add a list of all problem images and determine how many you should nominate each week. Many active and knowledgeable users may just say "bring it on", at which point you just tag the images and don't have to worry about it. Some may be pressed for time, they may say that 20 (arbitrary number) rationales per week is all they can handle. Respect that. If the user ignores your message completely, or if they are rude, then by all means just tag and forget.
This isn't so much of a strict guide as a sort of framework of suggestions to alter your methods. Please stay away from mass spammings and I promise not to give you any more grief about the issue :) ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have received a number of suggestions based on my tagging of images, not all of them anatomically pleasant. I hope you don't mind if I ask where your suggestion is coming from. Is there a new guideline or discussion somewhere, or is this just something you are recommending? ~ Bigr Tex 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As with all previous 2000AD-related images, the fair use rationale is provided on the page I have previously pointed you to. Unfortunately, somebody decided to change the page link, which means that all old 2000AD-related images now do not have the proper fair use rationale. You and I have previously discussed this. Now, I don't care enough to bother finding all previous images and redoing the tags, nor to upload new images. Since you clearly do care about this sort of thing, and care a great deal, do please either reload the image, with the corrected fair use rationale, or at least clean up the article to which it was attached. Vizjim 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I thought we had some kind of understanding about the image AngelOfDarkness. Namely, that you removed your "deletion pending" tag to replace it by a "please find better" one. I am surprised to see you coming to my talk page to delete stuff there, which I found of the most profound uncivility, bordering on vandalism. And I would like to know why this image has been deleted while its tag wasn't there anymore.-- SidiLemine 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I took the photos myself, I was planning on moving them, or placing them in Wikimedia Commons in the first place. However, when I went to the Commons upload page to download the first of these images under the tab for "I created the image" or what not, there was a box to the right that specifically stated that photos of artwork and statues were forbidden from being loaded. I was somewhat perplexed by this, since I've seen tons of artwork and statues in Commons that were uploaded to Commons using the same license that I'm using. However, I did not want to take chances and did not want my work to be deleted, so I decided to load them on wikipedia instead, where this is not an issue.
Can you please tell me why Commons is so strict about downloading artwork and statues?-- PericlesofAthens 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Suspect image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. cohesion 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sfan,
Thanks for your note on my talk page about Wikimedia Commons. I've thought about uploading there, and already have a user name there, but I can't think of any reason why any other part of Wikimedia would want the pictures I take of local sites. That makes me think I'd just waste time linking there. Any thoughts? If I had a reason to think any other non-Wikipedia would be interested in pics of local schools or buildings, I'd want to upload at Commons. If I upload there, I'm also unsure about how to put the picture into a Wikipedia article. Can you tell me how to do that? Do I have to create a WikiPEDIA image page after I create the WikiCOMMONS image page before using it in an article?
Instead of putting that massive pic on my talk page, if you could put a colon in front of the name but within the brackets, like this: Image:SilvermineMarket08042007.JPG, you can give me the link to the image you're talking about without adding a huge amount to my talk page. Thanks! Noroton 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You suggested that Image:MilfordCtOutnlineMap.png and Image:NewHavenCtOutlineMap.png would be better rendered as SVG's. They both are indeed derived from an SVG provided by Libre Map Project. I downloaded InkScape and tried to create an SVG from the Libre version that fills New Haven. I was unable to do so because the way the stroke-map is constructed, the individual towns do not appear to be separate objects. Any tips you can give me on this?? Karl Hahn ( T) ( C) 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, apparently you submitted Image:Harry Harrison Deathworld 2 copyright 1964 JPG format.JPG to WP:CSD. May I ask what your reason was?. I stated its purpose, for illustrating a book of a trilogy. And gave the proper rationale (I think). A response on my talk would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nateland 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. I've uploaded the three Highway shields (Highway 129, 144, and 407), and they are in the pubic domain as it has been over 50 years since the shield type was first made (March 1, 1930). I've also made them in Photoshop myself, and i have no issues with anyone using them for whatever reason they see fit. I highly doubt they are a violation of copyright. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I forgot the rationale. Thanks for the reminder. It's all been taken care of. Later. the_undertow talk 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the polite heads up - I'm new at working with images, and I'm not surprised that I missed a bit! I've added the requested info now.
I wonder if you could explain how a link to an external website is a copyright violation. Nothing is being copied to Wikipedia, and YouTube is accessible to the public. Your wrote "Remove link to potential copyvio." It either is or is not a copyright violation (in this case, it is not). Please don't remove links unless you know for sure that there is a legal problem with the link. Thank you. Ward3001 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
eould you rather i just delete all the links? I didnt understand all that technical stuff BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
they are already gone :,( cry cry. I just really didnt understand what you said. it was very technical! BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the Electricity Council contract in PDF format and, I believe, you will find it usefull and revealing. How do I sent it to you? Constantine Adraktas 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, but it has been a month since I reverted the re-insertion of the YouTube links. NHRHS2010 Talk 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear whoever you are. The picture you are referring to was taken by me, using my camera, and I am thus the copyright owner. Should I choose to release on Wikipedia, it is my choice. My camera info can be found at the bottom of the page. Please remove your complaint. Happy Evil Dude 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Please DO NOT link to copyvios on You Tube from your user page, The links concerned are commented out currently, Should you wish to reinstate them, please confirm the (C) status of them before doing so. Sfan00 IMG 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You recently tagged Uri Geller as {{ POV}} - can you go into more detail about your concerns on it's talk page, so the issue can be fixed? Thanks -- h2g2bob ( talk) 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps you don't realize this, but the IMSLP is only on temporary hold. There's no need to delete the links yet, especially the templated ones. Check out http://imslpforums.org/ and especially http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=717, for more info on the status. It WILL be back, and it'd be easily to not have to reinsert all the links. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Your last 300 plus edits of the past few days have been marked as minor edits in contravention of Help:Minor edit. You state "(C) Status unclear)" which indicates no consensus. Please read the WP help page and correct your edits. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor. Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. -- John ( Daytona2 · talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
hi :) - it wasn't my intention to be harsh. about six months ago there was a major cull of youtube links on wikipedia. the reason for this is that the copyright status of youtube links is essentially in limbo - may be copyrighted, might not, essentially we don't know. this is not acceptable material to link to, as per WP:EL...
as regards your other edits, i am indifferent (and in fact haven't even looked) - the only reason i caught this one was because the article is on my watchlist. hope this helps -- Kaini ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have spent an awful lot of time changing direct YouTube links to specific videos to a mention and a simple link to the YouTube main page. I've noticed that you have been removing these as "non-specific". Is there a reason for this? It can't be copyvio! TINYMark ( Talk) 15:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to post on my talk page at least try and spell properly Paul210 ( talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You added this image to the list of possible unfree images and added a note on my talk about it. Following my explanation of the background to the image, you struck-through your note on my talk page and added "See explanation given by author at WP:PUI, (and hopefully on image?)". I'm not sure if you're expecting me to do something else or if my explanation is acceptable to you. If it is could you remove the image from the WP:PUI list. -- DavidCane ( talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall exactly which links I removed, but could you please clarify how the copyright status is unclear, especially when the actual creator of the video is noted on the video description page on YouTube...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've found out your notice about copyright on the file. I've uploaded new versions and given more explanations. I just emailed to the source website and I got the permission right away to realease it on the wikipedia. I don't know what the problem is all about. Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In these edits to Zork I, you deleted several links with a summary of "Per disscussion at Wikiproject:Videogames - remove link". I'm assuming you're talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, since there is no Wikiproject:Videogames. Checking the page in question and the associated talk page, I'm not seeing any discussion of the websites in question. Could you please direct me to the discussion, so that I could review the deletions in the appropriate context? At the moment, I'm prone to re-add them, as some were valuable links. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I am sure you are acting in good faith, let me explain my reverts. Despite whatever agreement might have been reached in the unliked to WikiProject Videogames discussion you referenced, the links are not used as external links but as references. I can understand why those sites would be inadvisable for elink section; however per WP:V and WP:CITE if they are used as references they should not be removed. Not unless you are willing to provide inlince citation to the entire article from alternate sources - than I will have no problem about removing the discussed sites. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to read the discussion you refer to in your recent edit of Might and Magic Book One: The Secret of the Inner Sanctum. Please would you put a link to it on either the article's talk page or mine? Many thanks. BreathingMeat ( talk) 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I support your removal of HOTU links in many cases, as they typically contribute nothing of value and are therefore just pointers to warez. The link you removed from Sorcerer (computer game), however, is an exception. As my edit summary indicated, there is a legitimate review of Sorcerer there. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works says, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The link was certainly not to the infringing copy of the game. The policy doesn't say, "no external links to websites that violate copyright". A rule like that would eliminate a great many useful and legal links. I just think external links should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ntsimp ( talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {currency} tag you placed on the image ( Media:FiveDollarBillInfrared.png) that I uploaded in favor of the {Money-US} tag. Feel free to revert my change if you believe it did not address the concerns you had with licensing. -- Kbidd ( talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would load them into commons. How do I do that? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this project. How can I help? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a full permision of Editor-In-Chief of Advances in Production Engineering & Management journal for publishing of cover page of journal on Wikipedia. This can be verified by contacting Editor-In-Chief. Mail address is on the journals web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimcyco ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have. However I reached the conclusion after previous experiences with commons that it has a very user unfriendly interface, which discouraged me from trying to upload more images there.
I do eventually intend to (try to) upload most of my images to commons, but I'm planning to do it in a mass operation rather than doing them one at a time. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
deletion via CSD I8. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an image of Javad Khan's handwritten letter to Pavel Tsitsianov.The original letter is a historical document in Iranian archive of foreign office Bureau for Publication of Documents .The translation of the letter to English is available here in Javad Khan's page.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the scan of all Wikipedia images now done, or will there be more tagging? If another run is necessary, when will it be done? -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You tagged Image:050820 GrandPortageNationalMonument.jpg with {{Di-no source|date=17 March 2008}} even though the uploader put {{PD-self}} on the image. With that tag, the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder and is releasing the image to the public domain. The metadata shows the date and type of camera used. Why are you tagging it?-- Appraiser ( talk) 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have labeled the picture with the
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
This template should only be used on file pages. |
If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
now. There should be no copyright Issues it is self made. Can you please remove the tag and treat this as a fair image accordingly. Thank you.
( talk) 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're not a bot... You tagged an image I have just uploaded before I've even finished inserting it into an article. Rather annoying. Again, presuming you're not a bot... Richard001 ( talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate your help on this one. I'm hoping through contacting the RAF Museum that the copyright status of Charles E Brown images can be clarified. Cheers Minorhistorian ( talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh? I made this picture. I said so in the original description. I said I released it to Public Domain. A minute ago I said so again in the image description. What more must I do? Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here? I also marked this one as Public Domain, and then you marked it for deletion. Everyone may use all my pictures for all purposes. I said so. What's going on? Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your addition of the {{ no source}} template to this image. The extended data (Metadata) information on the image description page provides information to show the uploader quite possibly took the photograph themselves. -- Longhair\ talk 10:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I have reverted you edit to this page, when you removed a YouTube link. The photos on the film the link points to are all copyright of the Sunderland Echo, as are the pics on the Murton, County Durham page - all licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.-- seahamlass 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Greetings,
What exactly does "Remove link (C) Status unclear" mean and which WP does it imply contravention of?
-Arb. ( talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In order to avoid linking to copyvios, it's best practice not to link to pages or material with uncertain status. See Wikipedia :External Links. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Start of a solution? Well, I'm not an expert, but something like this might work... If there was a bot that could get approved to start on this page and either replace all instances of http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 (where X and Y are wildcards character of some sort) with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?pagename=PAGENAME¶ms=X_N/S_Y_W/E (where N or S are options contingent on whether "X" is a positive or negative number and W/E are options for "Y" and PAGENAME is replaced by the pagename itself) OR you could replace http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 with {{coord|X|N/S|Y|W/E|display=title}} again, with N/S and W/E determined by the values in the URL. Does that make any sense? The bad news is, I cannot make those bots myself and I do not know what kind of issues might arise with this kind of replacement. Let me know if you think I can be of further assistance, and if you have a response, please post on my talk. - Justin (koavf)? T? C? M? 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
some jursidictions, and as I indicated could be a copyright grey area, something generally discouraged in respect of external links..
by itself, but in my view becomes an issue, when it's used as a source for mass tagging(owing to database rights), non commercial use clauses are generally incompatible with 'free' licenses like Wikipedia.
in some circumstances may be borderline with respect to the policy on reliable sources.
Since the GeoHack page includes WikiMapia, I don't think there's any ground for removing links based on possible copyright issues. It's certainly a good idea to replace them with templated links to GeoHack though. -- NE2 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your edit today? If we remove the youchoob citation, that leaves it too open for some other editor to come along and question whether he ever claimed that "the face" was symmetrical. Please consider restoring the link. Thanks. -- El Ingles ( talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the image Vakarai was deleted? Could somebody explain this to me? This picture was taken by me of the first page of the newspaper I am editing. Monika Bonckute 17:53, 19 April 2008 (CT)
Why not? I'm asking in reference to your recent edit to the Peterloo massacre. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing Google Books links. Until a policy consensus makes it clear they are a copyvio (which is unlikely to happen) they are a perfectly valid referencing tool.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Sfan00 IMG aka User:ShakespeareFan00, please self-revert your own hasty deletions of links to books.google.com especially in all Poland related articles. Your pretentious and misinformed idea of "provider-duality" sounds preposterous. Hence, your unilateral actions stemming from probable lack of understanding of what copyright is, can only be seen as disruptive. -- Poeticbent talk 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. What changed your mind so drastically? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry because I uploaded a lot of images at the same time, I do not have enough time to add the descriptions or define it's categories. TheBigGap ( talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So you've deleted my entire page (I'm a bit of a novice at this so it took me over an hour) over the dispute over ONE photograph. This, quite frankly, is appallingly unfair. I have posession over that image because I'm in it and I am friends with the photographer in question (which, by the way, I said in the copyright information section). But thankyou, with very, VERY heavy sarcasm. --Alex. 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite you being very unclear about how to actually obtain that considering he doesnt possess a wikipedia account, here: www.myspace.com/harrowdownbanduk That would a myspace that I, Alex Block, run myself, and this is clearly shown as my profile is on there, as is the photographers (Daniel Laskey). So please put my page back. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjblock ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Elaborate: A logo, with given permission from owner for display, for a publicEuropean Union project, stated in the Source tag has what copyright status? Feel free to update as necessary. - Michael.Fercu ( talk) 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I used your suggestion and I have created a template for all future uploads out of the CoS/IRS archive: Template:CoS-IRS. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. Geo1967 ( talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've recently tagged a number of images in the Porgy and Bess article. I'm not the original uploader, and I can't quite get my head round what's missing from these particular cases. However, I would point out that since George Gershwin died in 1937, the music is presumably now out of copyright in any case, copyright could subsist in the typesetting of the extracts, and the uploader states that they were his own work - the uploader hasn't contributed since February. The libretto, largely by Ira Gershwin is presumably still in copyright, so I usppose there might be a problem with quoting that still, but the extracts given are a tiny part of the whole work. Again with recordings of short extrcts, the original uploader says these were auto-generated as midi from his typesetting. David Underdown ( talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You want to delete the PBS idents images. This isn't fair because it's an article about the idents for which images are very appropriate. Georgia guy ( talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an alternative account of ShakespeareFan00. |
These are fair use images. I don't understand what the problem is
I redid the images with the Fair Use Rationale for the images you tagged for deletion.I hope that is what you wanted. Worldatlas1989
You posted me a share of messages, while most of the images are posters. Posters are always permitted. What's the matter? They don't have to be free. -- Shahid • Talk2me 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You tagged a couple of files I uploaded as not supplying a fair use rational, but in both cases I put the {{ Non-free book cover}}, which I thought had covered the use of the images. What am I doing wrong? I had thought that book covers could be used only on their own pages without requiring the full GFDL release. Should I alter it, should the image be deleted?
Thanks,
How 'bout if I paste the following onto each of the images?
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
I corrected the images with the Fair Use Rationale Use you tagged for deletion.Can you please take Speedy Deletion Off. Thanks Djmckee1 - Talk- Sign 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The website is (c) ARK, but the data is made freely available [1]. The only restriction on derived works is that they "should acknowledge it [NILT] using the appropriate bibliographic citation" -- as I have done. If you still think that "public domain" is an inappropriate licence then I'd be grateful if you would suggest one more appropriate. -- Duncan Keith 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is your bot trying to mark my images that have the GFDL-self tag on their description pages? I took the photos, and I added the appropriate template when uploading. What's the deal? It's highly annoying, and it's polluting my talk page. -- Lyght 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the website belongs to me and i have all the permission to use it so don't mind. Yourdeadin 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)yourdeadin
I'll have it done by tomorrow -- Yourdeadin 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Yourdeadin
It looks to me as if the image is free. ISD 16:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted the image that was there and put up the Pointer Sisters image instead, Grrr. Benjiboi 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i've added a rationale, which is as I understand it. On one level, this is preserving a record of an ongoing thing, on the other it is of no impact to the copyright holder. If I'm misunderstanding concepts can you let me know? 2yellowcards 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you assitance, were the changes I made this afternoon acceptable? 2yellowcards 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If i have uploaded an image that already includes minimal fair use justification and is obviously an album cover, why do you slap a template for deletion on when you could just as easily slap on a template that provides additional fair use justification? Save us all some time and just add the info you feel it needs. Either that or go contribute something productive. -- Entoaggie09 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i managed to get most of them up on the commons (after about half an hour) and into their category, but i went back and checked the full list; some of my older maps aren't there and i'll get to them eventually. But at the moment im sick of uploading maps so if you want you can upload any more that you find, or let me know which ones are missing. Anyway, from now on, i'll upload to the commons only. Cheers Kare Kare 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi User_Sikkim.png is my original artwork, I created this for my website sikkimonline.info.. but i forgot to include copyright notice, I uploaded it in wiki to make User Tamplate called user Sikkim
This User lives with breathing the fresh air of Sikkim. |
I've removed the deletion notice.. i hope there's nothing more to discuss about that image. thanks for letting me know. -- Sikkimonline 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obsolete NC images without rationales such as Image:Captain norton.png, Image:Norton_commander.png and Image:Norton_Commander_5.0.png are not needed in article, because modern NC 5.51 for DOS image with rationale already added and modern NC 2.01 for Windows image with rationale already added are enough to illustrate Norton Commander in DOS and Windows versions. Wikinger 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
An example is Image:Glen Osmond, around 1869.jpg
This image was created in Australia and is now classified as being in the
public domain because its term of copyright has now expired. According to the
Information Sheet G023v17 (Duration of copyright) (Aug 2014), generally copyright has expired as follows: In 2015, 70-year copyrights under the AUSFTA start expiring.
needs update
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This tag specifies public domain Australian images, yet the bot is still asking for fair use rationale for non-free content. Could you please look into this? Muzzamo 13:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi thr! Thanks for the warning message [:(]. I am not too sure if I had given the info needed for the Image:Jaya Group logo.jpg. Can you please let me know if what I'v done is enough to avoid deletion or should I go through the pain of recreating the logo? Would really appreciate the help. Thanks. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have provided the fair use rationale in the Image:TV9.jpg and removed the tag. -- Naveen ( talk) 17:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sfan. I've taken care of the fair-use templates for the following images:
when tagging images for removal please ensure resultant img syntax is correct, your tags on karin (manga) were (a) invisible (so it wasn't evident they were up for removal) and (b) screwed up the page layout, changing the size or position of the images - I had to edit all of them to repair the page.
Okay, I've included a fair-use rationale. Have a look. -- Curt Woyte 08:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
i gave it a F.U.R. Please review and remove tagging if appropriate, if not, please contact and explain, thanks. ThuranX 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When you are tagging images in their captions (like [2]), can you make sure you do it so it doesn't mess up the page? -- DrBat 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
When you tagged two of the images in Dark Phoenix Saga for deletion, you have accidentally removed a large portion of text from the page.
I've restored that, but please be a little more careful when editing. -- The Fifth Horseman 13:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is the problem with this photo? It's been up for years with no objection whatsoever?
Seems overzealous to tag it. However, please inform how tag can be removed, as it would be a shame to lose it. Apostle12 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see fair-use rationale at Image:Patriot Mace.PNG. -- Tenebrae 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not having provided a ratiuonale before, I guess I am not understanding what you are looking for. Let me know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Finally got around to creating a correct fair use rationale template for this image I uploaded and used. Please inspect it because this is the first time I have done such a template. Let me know of any mistakes and I will correct them. I hope it meets the requirements though. -- Maphisto86 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You are an anal M.F. if I ever saw one; it is people like you who are ruining Wikipedia. Apostle12 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that this is appropriate? How do you expect an editor to respond to one hundred rationale requests at once? Twinkle is an excellent tool, but it is not an instrument for marauding. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 05:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering how those nearly hundred images were uploaded by me over a period of years, and long prior to the adoption of the "detailed fair use rationale" policy, your suggestion that the rationales should have been included in the first place is obviously misplaced. I happen to have been a rather prolific contributor (and uploader) in the past, all in compliance with policies then in place, for which I now am thanked in this manner. I don't spend as much time on here as I used to, but this weekend I wanted to make sure that work I had put into illustrating articles (all of which were about copyrighted works, obviously not replaceable with free images) would not have to be redone. It should have raised some kind of red flag to you when you posted so many notices to one user's page, or when you noticed the range of dates that the images were uploaded.
One compliment—I'm glad that you're tagging each article that uses the image. Not all image taggers do, which means that many images will be deleted effectively without notice. One can't assume that just because someone uploaded an image at any given time that they are still involved with the project, let alone that they still have the time or interest to take care of it. Uploaders don't own images, and they certainly aren't paid to maintain responsibility for them.
But I consider this process unacceptable. Using automated software to tell others to fix hundreds of images in a matter of days, which had been uploaded over years, is not constructive. It is wasteful and it encourages frustration and resentment with current policies (which are already of questionable utility). By doing this en masse, you've indiscriminately tagged images for speedy deletion regardless of whether the fair use is prima facie acceptable, simply because the formality of a detailed fair use rationale has not been added. If the problem is fixable, there shouldn't be such a mad rush to delete the image. We don't delete articles that are lacking sources or that have typos. We either fix it ourselves or just tag it for others to notice and fix, however long it takes.
And you obviously could more constructively contribute by taking the time to post such rationales yourself when you see that they are missing. If the use is a standard one (a book cover in an article on that book, a movie poster in an article on that movie), then you could even fill in the detailed fair use rationale automatically.
Compare the work involved: If you were to actually help, there's one step--1) you post a missing fair use rationale for an image. Instead, the steps are 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the uploader posts the missing fair use rationale, 4) the uploader removes the speedy deletion warning from the article. Or, if it is not caught in time, 1) you post an uploader talk page warning, 2) you post a speedy deletion warning in every article that uses the image, 3) the image is deleted, 4) the tag for the image is removed from the article, 4) a copy of the image is again scanned or otherwise located, 5) the image is re-uploaded with a proper fair use rationale, 6) the image is replaced in the article. Which process is more constructive? Which is more wasteful? Postdlf 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here for your personal crusade against non-descript, valid, fair use images. Users are encouraged to point out content that is not allowed, but your sole mission is to rid Wikipedia of images that clearly fall under fair use, while providing them with little time to add a description. Please provide worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia rather than running a bot that is of no use to anyone. - 76.110.238.95 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
merely ensure they are properly sourced and justified. Sfan00 IMG 13:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What Sfan00 is doing is not a personal crusade, but carrying out a much needed policy change. He is not the first to carry out such change and I can assure you he will not be the last to do it. He will take into consideration tagging methods, such as Twinkle, but everything else he is doing is legit and within policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 14:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
writes for each 1, Checking over recent contribs you will notice something in summaries as 'message collapse'. Essentially what this is collapsing say 50 verbose messages saying the same thing, into a single message + list. Sfan00 IMG 14:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You've tagged an image in Culture of Canada to announce that it is up for deletion, but in doing so you messed up the code for image size and made the image giant. Please double-check that your deletion warning are not messing up the page in the process. Thank you. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you going to delete Wendy's image? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'll have you know that I personally think you're deliberately doing that to be anti-contributive the well-fare and prosperity of this encyclopedia. The nerve!!! Wilhelmina Will 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about Wendy Testaburger's image. (No offense, but I thought that was pretty obvious!)
Wilhelmina Will
20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of a set number of warnings per day, if you come across dozens of problem images, you have to actively communicate with each user to determine the best course of action. Check to see if they are active and ask them how long it would take for them to address all the rationale requests. If a user is no longer active, then notifications are nothing but a formality to deletion, so you might as well use scripted tools. If the user is active and willing to cooperate, then give them some leeway in adding rationales, add a list of all problem images and determine how many you should nominate each week. Many active and knowledgeable users may just say "bring it on", at which point you just tag the images and don't have to worry about it. Some may be pressed for time, they may say that 20 (arbitrary number) rationales per week is all they can handle. Respect that. If the user ignores your message completely, or if they are rude, then by all means just tag and forget.
This isn't so much of a strict guide as a sort of framework of suggestions to alter your methods. Please stay away from mass spammings and I promise not to give you any more grief about the issue :) ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have received a number of suggestions based on my tagging of images, not all of them anatomically pleasant. I hope you don't mind if I ask where your suggestion is coming from. Is there a new guideline or discussion somewhere, or is this just something you are recommending? ~ Bigr Tex 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As with all previous 2000AD-related images, the fair use rationale is provided on the page I have previously pointed you to. Unfortunately, somebody decided to change the page link, which means that all old 2000AD-related images now do not have the proper fair use rationale. You and I have previously discussed this. Now, I don't care enough to bother finding all previous images and redoing the tags, nor to upload new images. Since you clearly do care about this sort of thing, and care a great deal, do please either reload the image, with the corrected fair use rationale, or at least clean up the article to which it was attached. Vizjim 19:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I thought we had some kind of understanding about the image AngelOfDarkness. Namely, that you removed your "deletion pending" tag to replace it by a "please find better" one. I am surprised to see you coming to my talk page to delete stuff there, which I found of the most profound uncivility, bordering on vandalism. And I would like to know why this image has been deleted while its tag wasn't there anymore.-- SidiLemine 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Since I took the photos myself, I was planning on moving them, or placing them in Wikimedia Commons in the first place. However, when I went to the Commons upload page to download the first of these images under the tab for "I created the image" or what not, there was a box to the right that specifically stated that photos of artwork and statues were forbidden from being loaded. I was somewhat perplexed by this, since I've seen tons of artwork and statues in Commons that were uploaded to Commons using the same license that I'm using. However, I did not want to take chances and did not want my work to be deleted, so I decided to load them on wikipedia instead, where this is not an issue.
Can you please tell me why Commons is so strict about downloading artwork and statues?-- PericlesofAthens 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Template:Suspect image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. cohesion 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sfan,
Thanks for your note on my talk page about Wikimedia Commons. I've thought about uploading there, and already have a user name there, but I can't think of any reason why any other part of Wikimedia would want the pictures I take of local sites. That makes me think I'd just waste time linking there. Any thoughts? If I had a reason to think any other non-Wikipedia would be interested in pics of local schools or buildings, I'd want to upload at Commons. If I upload there, I'm also unsure about how to put the picture into a Wikipedia article. Can you tell me how to do that? Do I have to create a WikiPEDIA image page after I create the WikiCOMMONS image page before using it in an article?
Instead of putting that massive pic on my talk page, if you could put a colon in front of the name but within the brackets, like this: Image:SilvermineMarket08042007.JPG, you can give me the link to the image you're talking about without adding a huge amount to my talk page. Thanks! Noroton 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You suggested that Image:MilfordCtOutnlineMap.png and Image:NewHavenCtOutlineMap.png would be better rendered as SVG's. They both are indeed derived from an SVG provided by Libre Map Project. I downloaded InkScape and tried to create an SVG from the Libre version that fills New Haven. I was unable to do so because the way the stroke-map is constructed, the individual towns do not appear to be separate objects. Any tips you can give me on this?? Karl Hahn ( T) ( C) 21:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, apparently you submitted Image:Harry Harrison Deathworld 2 copyright 1964 JPG format.JPG to WP:CSD. May I ask what your reason was?. I stated its purpose, for illustrating a book of a trilogy. And gave the proper rationale (I think). A response on my talk would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nateland 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya. I've uploaded the three Highway shields (Highway 129, 144, and 407), and they are in the pubic domain as it has been over 50 years since the shield type was first made (March 1, 1930). I've also made them in Photoshop myself, and i have no issues with anyone using them for whatever reason they see fit. I highly doubt they are a violation of copyright. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I forgot the rationale. Thanks for the reminder. It's all been taken care of. Later. the_undertow talk 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the polite heads up - I'm new at working with images, and I'm not surprised that I missed a bit! I've added the requested info now.
I wonder if you could explain how a link to an external website is a copyright violation. Nothing is being copied to Wikipedia, and YouTube is accessible to the public. Your wrote "Remove link to potential copyvio." It either is or is not a copyright violation (in this case, it is not). Please don't remove links unless you know for sure that there is a legal problem with the link. Thank you. Ward3001 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
eould you rather i just delete all the links? I didnt understand all that technical stuff BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
they are already gone :,( cry cry. I just really didnt understand what you said. it was very technical! BEATLES RULE!!! go fonz! 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the Electricity Council contract in PDF format and, I believe, you will find it usefull and revealing. How do I sent it to you? Constantine Adraktas 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, but it has been a month since I reverted the re-insertion of the YouTube links. NHRHS2010 Talk 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear whoever you are. The picture you are referring to was taken by me, using my camera, and I am thus the copyright owner. Should I choose to release on Wikipedia, it is my choice. My camera info can be found at the bottom of the page. Please remove your complaint. Happy Evil Dude 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Please DO NOT link to copyvios on You Tube from your user page, The links concerned are commented out currently, Should you wish to reinstate them, please confirm the (C) status of them before doing so. Sfan00 IMG 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You recently tagged Uri Geller as {{ POV}} - can you go into more detail about your concerns on it's talk page, so the issue can be fixed? Thanks -- h2g2bob ( talk) 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Perhaps you don't realize this, but the IMSLP is only on temporary hold. There's no need to delete the links yet, especially the templated ones. Check out http://imslpforums.org/ and especially http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=717, for more info on the status. It WILL be back, and it'd be easily to not have to reinsert all the links. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 17:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Your last 300 plus edits of the past few days have been marked as minor edits in contravention of Help:Minor edit. You state "(C) Status unclear)" which indicates no consensus. Please read the WP help page and correct your edits. The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor. Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. -- John ( Daytona2 · talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
hi :) - it wasn't my intention to be harsh. about six months ago there was a major cull of youtube links on wikipedia. the reason for this is that the copyright status of youtube links is essentially in limbo - may be copyrighted, might not, essentially we don't know. this is not acceptable material to link to, as per WP:EL...
as regards your other edits, i am indifferent (and in fact haven't even looked) - the only reason i caught this one was because the article is on my watchlist. hope this helps -- Kaini ( talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have spent an awful lot of time changing direct YouTube links to specific videos to a mention and a simple link to the YouTube main page. I've noticed that you have been removing these as "non-specific". Is there a reason for this? It can't be copyvio! TINYMark ( Talk) 15:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to post on my talk page at least try and spell properly Paul210 ( talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You added this image to the list of possible unfree images and added a note on my talk about it. Following my explanation of the background to the image, you struck-through your note on my talk page and added "See explanation given by author at WP:PUI, (and hopefully on image?)". I'm not sure if you're expecting me to do something else or if my explanation is acceptable to you. If it is could you remove the image from the WP:PUI list. -- DavidCane ( talk) 00:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall exactly which links I removed, but could you please clarify how the copyright status is unclear, especially when the actual creator of the video is noted on the video description page on YouTube...? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've found out your notice about copyright on the file. I've uploaded new versions and given more explanations. I just emailed to the source website and I got the permission right away to realease it on the wikipedia. I don't know what the problem is all about. Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In these edits to Zork I, you deleted several links with a summary of "Per disscussion at Wikiproject:Videogames - remove link". I'm assuming you're talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, since there is no Wikiproject:Videogames. Checking the page in question and the associated talk page, I'm not seeing any discussion of the websites in question. Could you please direct me to the discussion, so that I could review the deletions in the appropriate context? At the moment, I'm prone to re-add them, as some were valuable links. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I am sure you are acting in good faith, let me explain my reverts. Despite whatever agreement might have been reached in the unliked to WikiProject Videogames discussion you referenced, the links are not used as external links but as references. I can understand why those sites would be inadvisable for elink section; however per WP:V and WP:CITE if they are used as references they should not be removed. Not unless you are willing to provide inlince citation to the entire article from alternate sources - than I will have no problem about removing the discussed sites. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to read the discussion you refer to in your recent edit of Might and Magic Book One: The Secret of the Inner Sanctum. Please would you put a link to it on either the article's talk page or mine? Many thanks. BreathingMeat ( talk) 09:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I support your removal of HOTU links in many cases, as they typically contribute nothing of value and are therefore just pointers to warez. The link you removed from Sorcerer (computer game), however, is an exception. As my edit summary indicated, there is a legitimate review of Sorcerer there. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works says, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The link was certainly not to the infringing copy of the game. The policy doesn't say, "no external links to websites that violate copyright". A rule like that would eliminate a great many useful and legal links. I just think external links should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Ntsimp ( talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {currency} tag you placed on the image ( Media:FiveDollarBillInfrared.png) that I uploaded in favor of the {Money-US} tag. Feel free to revert my change if you believe it did not address the concerns you had with licensing. -- Kbidd ( talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would load them into commons. How do I do that? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this project. How can I help? Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a full permision of Editor-In-Chief of Advances in Production Engineering & Management journal for publishing of cover page of journal on Wikipedia. This can be verified by contacting Editor-In-Chief. Mail address is on the journals web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimcyco ( talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have. However I reached the conclusion after previous experiences with commons that it has a very user unfriendly interface, which discouraged me from trying to upload more images there.
I do eventually intend to (try to) upload most of my images to commons, but I'm planning to do it in a mass operation rather than doing them one at a time. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
deletion via CSD I8. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 12:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an image of Javad Khan's handwritten letter to Pavel Tsitsianov.The original letter is a historical document in Iranian archive of foreign office Bureau for Publication of Documents .The translation of the letter to English is available here in Javad Khan's page.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the scan of all Wikipedia images now done, or will there be more tagging? If another run is necessary, when will it be done? -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You tagged Image:050820 GrandPortageNationalMonument.jpg with {{Di-no source|date=17 March 2008}} even though the uploader put {{PD-self}} on the image. With that tag, the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder and is releasing the image to the public domain. The metadata shows the date and type of camera used. Why are you tagging it?-- Appraiser ( talk) 19:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have labeled the picture with the
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the
GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
This template should only be used on file pages. |
If this file is
eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help. |
now. There should be no copyright Issues it is self made. Can you please remove the tag and treat this as a fair image accordingly. Thank you.
( talk) 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're not a bot... You tagged an image I have just uploaded before I've even finished inserting it into an article. Rather annoying. Again, presuming you're not a bot... Richard001 ( talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate your help on this one. I'm hoping through contacting the RAF Museum that the copyright status of Charles E Brown images can be clarified. Cheers Minorhistorian ( talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh? I made this picture. I said so in the original description. I said I released it to Public Domain. A minute ago I said so again in the image description. What more must I do? Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What's going on here? I also marked this one as Public Domain, and then you marked it for deletion. Everyone may use all my pictures for all purposes. I said so. What's going on? Jim.henderson ( talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your addition of the {{ no source}} template to this image. The extended data (Metadata) information on the image description page provides information to show the uploader quite possibly took the photograph themselves. -- Longhair\ talk 10:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I have reverted you edit to this page, when you removed a YouTube link. The photos on the film the link points to are all copyright of the Sunderland Echo, as are the pics on the Murton, County Durham page - all licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.-- seahamlass 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Greetings,
What exactly does "Remove link (C) Status unclear" mean and which WP does it imply contravention of?
-Arb. ( talk) 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In order to avoid linking to copyvios, it's best practice not to link to pages or material with uncertain status. See Wikipedia :External Links. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Start of a solution? Well, I'm not an expert, but something like this might work... If there was a bot that could get approved to start on this page and either replace all instances of http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 (where X and Y are wildcards character of some sort) with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?pagename=PAGENAME¶ms=X_N/S_Y_W/E (where N or S are options contingent on whether "X" is a positive or negative number and W/E are options for "Y" and PAGENAME is replaced by the pagename itself) OR you could replace http://wikimapia.org/#lat=X&lon=Y&z=13&l=9&m=h&v=2 with {{coord|X|N/S|Y|W/E|display=title}} again, with N/S and W/E determined by the values in the URL. Does that make any sense? The bad news is, I cannot make those bots myself and I do not know what kind of issues might arise with this kind of replacement. Let me know if you think I can be of further assistance, and if you have a response, please post on my talk. - Justin (koavf)? T? C? M? 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
some jursidictions, and as I indicated could be a copyright grey area, something generally discouraged in respect of external links..
by itself, but in my view becomes an issue, when it's used as a source for mass tagging(owing to database rights), non commercial use clauses are generally incompatible with 'free' licenses like Wikipedia.
in some circumstances may be borderline with respect to the policy on reliable sources.
Since the GeoHack page includes WikiMapia, I don't think there's any ground for removing links based on possible copyright issues. It's certainly a good idea to replace them with templated links to GeoHack though. -- NE2 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your edit today? If we remove the youchoob citation, that leaves it too open for some other editor to come along and question whether he ever claimed that "the face" was symmetrical. Please consider restoring the link. Thanks. -- El Ingles ( talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the image Vakarai was deleted? Could somebody explain this to me? This picture was taken by me of the first page of the newspaper I am editing. Monika Bonckute 17:53, 19 April 2008 (CT)
Why not? I'm asking in reference to your recent edit to the Peterloo massacre. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing Google Books links. Until a policy consensus makes it clear they are a copyvio (which is unlikely to happen) they are a perfectly valid referencing tool.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Sfan00 IMG aka User:ShakespeareFan00, please self-revert your own hasty deletions of links to books.google.com especially in all Poland related articles. Your pretentious and misinformed idea of "provider-duality" sounds preposterous. Hence, your unilateral actions stemming from probable lack of understanding of what copyright is, can only be seen as disruptive. -- Poeticbent talk 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. What changed your mind so drastically? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry because I uploaded a lot of images at the same time, I do not have enough time to add the descriptions or define it's categories. TheBigGap ( talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So you've deleted my entire page (I'm a bit of a novice at this so it took me over an hour) over the dispute over ONE photograph. This, quite frankly, is appallingly unfair. I have posession over that image because I'm in it and I am friends with the photographer in question (which, by the way, I said in the copyright information section). But thankyou, with very, VERY heavy sarcasm. --Alex. 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite you being very unclear about how to actually obtain that considering he doesnt possess a wikipedia account, here: www.myspace.com/harrowdownbanduk That would a myspace that I, Alex Block, run myself, and this is clearly shown as my profile is on there, as is the photographers (Daniel Laskey). So please put my page back. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjblock ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Elaborate: A logo, with given permission from owner for display, for a publicEuropean Union project, stated in the Source tag has what copyright status? Feel free to update as necessary. - Michael.Fercu ( talk) 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I used your suggestion and I have created a template for all future uploads out of the CoS/IRS archive: Template:CoS-IRS. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. Geo1967 ( talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice you've recently tagged a number of images in the Porgy and Bess article. I'm not the original uploader, and I can't quite get my head round what's missing from these particular cases. However, I would point out that since George Gershwin died in 1937, the music is presumably now out of copyright in any case, copyright could subsist in the typesetting of the extracts, and the uploader states that they were his own work - the uploader hasn't contributed since February. The libretto, largely by Ira Gershwin is presumably still in copyright, so I usppose there might be a problem with quoting that still, but the extracts given are a tiny part of the whole work. Again with recordings of short extrcts, the original uploader says these were auto-generated as midi from his typesetting. David Underdown ( talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You want to delete the PBS idents images. This isn't fair because it's an article about the idents for which images are very appropriate. Georgia guy ( talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)