/Archive1

May 2007

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:ST47/Archive16 may be offensive or unwelcome. I also ask that you revert similar edits to other users' archives. Thank you. -- ST47 Talk 18:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

All that can be easily done so reverted.

Thanks for being 'on the ball', andhope that one 'crazy-day' won't sour relations. ShakespeareFan00 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the removals, all is forgiven ;) -- ST47 Talk 20:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

See Talk:AACS encryption key controversy for a detailed discussion. davidwr ^09f9( talk) 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding your tagging of several OGG files on May 11: Of the three that I randomly checked, the uploader did actually type in a rationale. For example, on Image:Blancmange - Living On the Ceiling excerpt.ogg, the uploader entered, "This audio sample is used for illustrative purposes within the linked article(s) and is of a reduced length and quality from the originally-published recording. Where known, the source and copyright owner are credited."

That might not be a great rationale, but it is a rationale, and thus your tag that it has no rationale is improper. I'm assuming all of the OGG files in Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 11 May 2007 are yours; as such, could you please revisit all of them and remove your tag from the ones that actually contain rationales?

Thanks! -- Spike Wilbury 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate the effort, awesome work. -- Spike Wilbury 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you please remove your fair use tags from the artwork boxes for LSW2 and The Movies. A description stating they where uploaded with consent of the original publishers. Add the fact that they are displayed and used on websites without issue as they are an image of what the product looks like I cannot see why the fair use is any why being breached. Finally it is with the Mac publishers express permission.

Fixed and sorted thanks! Edwin

How would you like to have a shot at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I've seen your contributions around the place - especially when clearing image backlogs - and I've been impressed. It would be an honour to write up an RfA nomination for you. Thoughts? Moreschi ^Talk 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on. You've got 14000 edits, that's way more than me, and this guy didn't have a clue what the hell a wheel war was months after he was sysopped. You need more experience like a hole in the head.

But if you won't be persuaded now, please let me know when you feel you're ready. It will be a privilege to nominate you. In the meantime, I'll go and clear those fair use no-rationale backlogs you have a habit of creating :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

WikiProject Domesday

Description

Me and ShakespeareFan00 have been looking at the BBC Domesday Project and have found that it could be quite useful of improving geographical stubs. ShakespeareFan has already been able to expand a one line stub, Maughold (parish) (which he knew nothing about), into a bigger article using just the Domesday project. This is potentially a very valuable source to geography articles on Wikipedia and the WikiProject would aim to get people dedicated to using the source and expanding Geo-Stubs using the data provided. — Taggard ( Complain) 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. — Taggard ( Complain) 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. - User:ShakespeareFan00

Comments

the copyright issue with Image:Noguchi-Detroit1.jpg. i took the picture and I posted it there in the summary, that much is mentioned on the picture and I also did the copyright release tht produces the water buffalo head. A user created GFDL image I think is what it is called that is in the licencing section. I have perhaps 500 (this is not a math question) other such images and and if they all get removed then it must be my destiny. Carptrash 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for getting back to me with such dispatch. I am not sure what the issue that you refer to is, nor am I interested in finding out. I've posted a bunch of images on wikipedia, mostly mine, but those that I didn't take were from pre-1923 publications and I always wrote up a rationale for them. For my pictures I picked the copyright tag that seemed the best at the time, though they have, I seem to remember, changed over time. I think that I have perhaps two dozen in the United States section of this article alone, [ [1]]. But I am no longer interested in expending any effort in maintaining any of them. These were a gift to wikipedia, licensed as best I could, and, as with all gifts, they can be turned down. Carptrash 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for telling me about the lack of fair use rationale on Image:Stanstatue.JPG, I'd completely forgot about the image and didn't realise I hadn't added a fair use rationale. Dave101→ talk  14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I updated the fair use description at Image:DarkSunRevisedCampaignCover.jpg, but I'm honestly not sure if it's really an improvement, because it's not different than what was already there. Is there supposed to be something more? It might help if you provided examples of sufficient rationales with your boilerplate message, as I'm not really sure what's necessary there and the fair use guidelines aren't that helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

As you can see at CAT:CSD, it's been requested that I6 deletions be suspended until 1 July while rationales are provided after Betacommand's big bot run. At the moment, there's not so much urgency with this problem. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Done and i've removed the no rationale tag. thanks Chaerani 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for telling me, we did this at the project but some slipped through the cracks. I believe I did it right. Momentai. trainra 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note and fix to the fair-use description ShapespeareFan00. I'd forgotten I'd uploaded this one - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've included a Fair Use rationale for the images you alerted me about. Can you check them and see if what I've done is OK? Deltaneos 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I get the images from other wikipedia pages and do not scan them myself. If you look you can see where they come from. I am also not interested in helping global anti-counterfeiting efforts, thats what my taxes are for. But thankyou anyway for the information. Enlil Ninlil 03:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your two messages. This currency note was demonetised in 2006. Prior to this it had a value of around $1 U.S. Furthermore, the image is purposely a low resolution one from which it would be very difficult to make convincing copies. All in all, I think the world economy can continue to sleep safely. Let me know if you disagree. -- John 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No, I don't mind in the least. Sorry if my initial reply was a little waspish. -- John 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was thinking that. Good point. -- John 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Done already. We should really come up with a standard rationale that automatically adds a rationale for film posters. It would save a lot of trouble for everyone. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm confused by some of your recent edits. Why did you tag Image:Disneyland Hotel (California) logo.png as not having a fair use rationale? And why did you leave warnings on a bot's talk page instead of on the original uploader's talk page? — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

(replying to message on my talk page) — OK, that's fine. But in the future, instead of demanding that other users write rationales, why not just write them yourself? — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I strongly agree. While I admire your industriousness, it seems that instead of tagging all of these images for deletion, you efforts would be more productive if you simply added the fair use rationales yourself. It's really not that difficult - please my recent contribution history for some examples. Thanks,  Satori Son 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! You tagged Image:Pti.gif as not having a fair use rationale. As I understand it, this image has a fair use rationale listed under the licensing. The rationale is listed in the Template:Tv-program-logo which includes:

It is believed that the exhibition of low-resolution images of logos
    * to illustrate the television program in question
    * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Is this not considered a valid rationale? - Ektar 21:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You have incorrectly tagged Image:RadioDisney1260logo.png. Your tag indicates that the image was uploaded after 4 May 2006, it was, in fact uploaded on 17 April 2006. I don't know if this makes any difference, but it has been incorrectly tagged for deletion. Either an explanation is required, or the image should not be deleted. Hillrhpc 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've done them both but I don't know if your going through my backlog or what but you are going to find an awful amount of images from my film articles. Please do me a favor and help me be adding the standard rationale - the time it takes to notify one image could be sorted and you could be on to the next. Maybe it should have been done when I uploaded but it would help if you could do this. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC). reply

Seriously we must come up with a way that the license tag automatically provides a full detailed rationale. If this could be done automatically every time an image is uploaded it would save time and effort of all involved. What do you think about this idea?. -this way we would have a standard rationale system for film posters and saving a lot of effort chasing them up. The only thing would be to regulate the number of images uploaded. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm certain it can be done with a natural template. I don;t like to see too many fair use images per article but I also absolutely agree with you that if we are using the images we have an obligation to professionally state the legal usage. However for the main posters and selected screenshots which significantly contribute to the article - If you like I can create a template for film posters which you can insert into film posters you come across. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have created one which can be used on all film related media.

I hope this helps. Template:Filmrationale . Please add: Filmrationale with the {{ }} . All it needs then is to enter the title of the page into it. It would be great if you could notify others who are sorting out the images - it can be done much quicker this way and save a lot of time. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes it needs some moderation - it would incorporate the source details etc and also leave blank a place to write the name of the article it should be used in without affecting the template. Repetitive editing need not have to be done by either of us if it is automated. Keep up the good work with the tagging though. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes - it should be standardized and generalized. Really a bot could and should add the rationale tag itself -saving time and effort again. I'd like to see some kind of standard rationale for all of the fair use images. -there are far too many inconsistencies on wikipedia - if wikipedia is to become as professional as possible rationales should really be automated on uploading rather than leaving a huge task for editors tagging and images which don't give adequate usage criteria -I am guilty of this clearly but I am very busy on building articles!!! This should be proposed at the council or image council if there is one -it is definately an important topic ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC). reply

Thanks for your diligence in policing the proper documentation of this non-free content; all of these samples are very short, very low quality (I think I resampled them to 22k mono, high compression), and otherwise fall fully within the rationale supplied by the "non-free audio sample" template used. -- LDC

Please check back later to make sure that User:Lee Daniel Crocker hasn't removed the missing rationale tags again without providing the rationales. — Moe ε 23:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't delete any existing rationales, only the debate templates. -- LDC 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I never said you removed rationales, I said you removed the tags. — Moe ε 01:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The answer to your question is on my talk page. Fourohfour 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have tagged Image:Imogen_Heap-Speak_For_Yourself-Hide_and_Seek.ogg as {{ no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We've already been over this — beat your head against someone else's wall (or better yet no one else's). ¦ Reisio 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Shakespearefan, if you had bothered to look at the images in question, youi would see that they are covered under the historic photo rationale. Seriously, I do not know why you bother removing images from pages when you don't even view the pages. Do you get brownie points or something? Seriously, get a life mate. -- ansbachdragoner 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You may have a different interpretation than I, but I believe the images are fair use according to:

Images

Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

   * Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.

If this isn't sufficient rationale, please let me know.

Rascilon 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

fixed Renmiri 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

ShakespeareFan00, I thought about what I recently said to you, and an administrator named J Milburn also spoke to me about this. I know what I said was wrong, and I will admit that at the time I wasn't in a very happy mood (it's something personal, at home). It was just that my images (and by that I mean to say "the images I uploaded) had been on Wikipedia for so long I thought you were just taking the Mickey out of me, but J Milburn explained the situation to me, and I would now like to apologize for my pointlessly rude behaviour.

Send me a message accepting my apology, alright?

P. S: Tell me more about this "fair rationale" so I can maybe fix the images and stop them getting deleted. Jienum 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If you care to explain this revert without comment, there's discussion on the talk page. So far nobody has a reason why this channel would be beneficial. Friday (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Noted. It also seem you have a POV with respect to IRC. ShakespeareFan00 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yep. As with any suggested new procedure, it should be thought out a bit before being used. Friday (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm noticing that you've got a lot of edits challenging the fair-use rationale of images. While that's all fine and good, there was a fair-use rationale already present on the image I uploaded that you tagged. It was above the templates. I went into greater detail anyway, but it was largely unnecessary. Please be a little more careful in your edits. Thank you. – Bodhisattvaspath 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Take a look at the rationale now. Does this satisfy you? Aditya Kabir 06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Now that you mention it, I guess, I need to pull off something like this for all of my uploads and other uploads that I'd care for. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks for the help on that, I tried my best to add a rational and reduce it to lower resolution. Would you let me know if it still needs any improvements? Thanks again.

Thanks for your note. The image came from the Cuban Central Bank's website, so I guess they aren't worried about forgeries. The image quality is not really good enough to copy, and anyway 3 pesos are worth about 13.5 cents US money, so it would probably cost more to forge one than it is worth. -- Beardo 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

DOnt you ever talk anything to me.......................................................................... Ramil10anton 6:53 26 June 2007 (PTC)

er... I'm confused... you have tagged image:wurzel.jpg as {{no source|month=June|day=29|year=2007}}, but it clearly states "photographer: kate stratford" and license GFDL. What is not sufficient about this? Poobarb 11:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Boy, that was fast! No contact. But you might try the phone number at Duck Press: http://www.duckpress.com/ Pepso2 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there,

I see you added a comment there. Just wanted to clarify, I did make that image myself. I don't do much related to images, you seem to be more knowledgeable - should I add in a line about the uploader (me) being the creator of the image, or is the tag included for licensing enough for that?

Thanks in advance, xC | ☎ 13:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Whoa, fast reply!

Thanks for telling me. I'll definitely keep that in mind. Happy editing, xC | ☎ 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The bot you run, or perhaps you yourself, was VERY quick to spot that I had uploaded the image for Phillip Aspinall Image:Phillip_Aspinall_20070629.JPG; and you can read my response at my Talk page. Happy tweaking! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but please answer my follow-up, too. Cheers, - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I was working through CSD and saw that you tagged Image:Ali cimen.jpg for deletion. What does 'CV' mean? When not using an actual speedy tag, could you provide enough detail so that the deleter doesn't need to try and decipher a code? For example, if CV means "copyvio", I'd expect to see a URL or supporting explanation. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In this instance - CV== resume... As far as I knew WP:NOT an agency... ShakespeareFan00 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In the future, could you please be more specific in your tagging? - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have improved upon the fair-use rationale. could you see if it is enough. Tommy Stardust 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, changed it. Now? Tommy Stardust 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've expanded the attribution at Image:Derry.Shield.png and provided explanation on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This rendition of the crest of Derry is my own work and I've licensed it under the GFDL licence. zoney ♣ talk 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've provided further explanation on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If you're quite finished wasting my time I'd be happy if you would see clear to remove the listing. zoney ♣ talk 08:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I think there is not a category for this kind of uploading. I am not the author of this image, but I have the author's permission to upload it to the WP. The author's Email is: atoro912@hotmail.com
• Use of this image in the WP should have an attribution tag to Alejandro Toro-Camacho, so I am going to indicate this in a new edit of it. Any help would be welcome. Thanks. -- Fev 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Attribution 2.5 states both author and licensor may upload any image. Maybe I didn't understand what is all about uploading. It is very clear Alejandro Toro Camacho is the image's author and Fev is the licensor. -- Fev 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Let me ask Alejandro Toro if he allows to change another License uploading image. Just give me a couple of days. -- Fev 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not really upload the image myself. In fact I reverted a messy case of WP:POINT by User:Deathwatch2006. It may very well be that all of these images need to be deleted although the user you should notify is User:Sarahdarling. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We got our signals crossed. I suggest tagging all of these images for ifd as it seems that their copyright status is disputed by User:Deathwatch2006. However, from what I've seen, Deathwatch2006 seems to be, how shall I put this, a difficult editor... So I'm not quite sure what to think. Pascal.Tesson 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok. What I'll do is contact both users first and try at least to figure out what they claim is the story behind these pictures. But I'm afraid Deathwatch2006 is a complete nut! (see his website) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You may have a different interpretation than I, but I believe the images are fair use according to:

Images

Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

   * Screenshots from software products: For critical commentary.

If this isn't sufficient rationale, please let me know.

Rascilon 06:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

how do i fix it? i looked on that page and i cant make heads or tells of it. Im kind of a newbie sorry. can you help? BlueShrek 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well how do i explain it? BlueShrek 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Added requested info, anymore problems with the image let me know. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've got a question about the fair use rationale. I went and looked at the box art for another game and basically mimiced that. I thought the tag that says it's a videogame box art is enough. I'm not trying to fight the decision - I honestly don't understand it. I seriously thought the use of the tag I used was enough - that videogame/cd/dvd cover art is automatically covered under fair use. Please explain, so I don't have to do this again in the future. Thank you. Dopefish 16:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If you can give me a link to a page that uses a videogame cover tag the way that it should be done, lay it on me, so I can use that as a guideline. Thank you. BTW, I posted this before you posted your last update on my talk page  :) Dopefish 16:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Image:Dukenukem3d.jpg is an example as to why I'm confused. This has the same deal that I put on mine, and this isn't flagged. So I copied that figuring it was OK. I genuinely don't get it with why I have to provide extra meaning. It's game box art. All I'd be doing is repeating what is in the boilerplate. Again, please do not think I'm fighting the decision, I genuinely do not understand it. Please help me to understand. Dopefish 16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I employed the "PD-self" tag on the three images that I have uploaded today. Velocicaptor 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to make this image just for wikipedia only... What is the proper tag? Giggity Giggity GOO! 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, i am the maker and i hold all copyrights

Hi you mentioned this image i uploaded, and im not sure how to edit it to show the licensing. I got it from a friend and just uploaded it, dont have any more information on it. What do i need to change?

Thanks for your input. I have studied the various Wikipedia guidelines and added a lot more information. Please let me know your thoughts. Edwardx 10:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you're tagging images of corporate logos I'm uploading as non-fair-use-rationale. After reading your message and the entire guideline for fair use, I have still to understand how you want me to formulate myself. All the logos are without doubt within the domain of fair use, since they only appear on the page concerning the company. How do you want me to formulate the description/licence tag? I have tried to rephrase myself, but it doesn't seem to help. Please by very specific. Thanks. Arsenikk 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You know, I would have thought that an "upload wizard" would have looked after the tagging, especially after I "told" the "wizard" that yes, I made the picture all by myself. What a PITA. I see the "wizard" is about as inept as those packaged with most software. I will fix my pictures so that some zealot doesn't blow them away. -- Wtshymanski 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding User talk:Dane wiki Unspecified source for Image:Charles_denham_sm.gif

I work for Texas Medical Institute of Technology TMIT/HCC (and CEHI is one of our sites). Dr. Denham is my boss (CEO of TMIT/HCC), and I am creating this Wiki page at his urging.

I am unclear as what you need. Can you please explain furthur.

Thanks,

Dane Rougeau HCC/TMIT dane_rougeau@tmit1.org

The logo of AAB is designed by myself. I am a member of this firm and assure you that there is no copyrights violation whatsoever. You may also visit the firm's website www.aabaig.com to verify that the logo is displayed there as it is being dispayed here.

Thanks and regards

Hi, I assumed you were a robot! Please see [2] There must be some mistake???( Sarah777 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)) reply

Hi again. Surely the Licence Tag is pretty explicit about the "creator" of the photos on "release all rights" and it shouldn't be necessary to repeat it? Have uploaded over 600 pics and never came across this as an issue before. Regards ( Sarah777 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)) reply

If you look at the description page then you will find that there actually is a fair use rational. Please do not misuse warning templates. D4g0thur 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I am adding these images to the relevant singles articles which exist about them. One example is Arrival (song). I was under the impression that artwork such as this is acceptable, when there is already an article for it. TubularWorld 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok.... give me an example...

I do not see how my F-U-R is any worse than a random album piece of artwork which i have looked up on wikipedia. "Cover of Bon Jovi's self-titled album" on Image:Bon Jovi Album.jpg . TubularWorld 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah right, Thanks...

I've been on wikipedia for a year and a half (on a different account) and never seen that though. Oh well, it shall be fixed. :) TubularWorld 10:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale is provided with upload but template was not used. Please check the facts before bothering to pester actual contributors -- Anthony S 08:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've tried adding the appropriate information to my images. Beg pardon, but I honestly don't know how, as I've seen few images lacking this information that have been tagged, even if they have been uploaded for a long period of time. Could you give me an appropriate citation on how to label this sort of image? Starkiller 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I assume you are referring to the Toa Metru images when you ask if I can name the source. I'm afraid that I can't, as I did not upload them and the original uploader did not provide his source. I have near-identical pictures that I downloaded from Bionicle.com, though; I would upload them instead but they're in .bmp format. Would that be all right, or do pictures have to be .jpg or .png? Drakhan 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

As I've stated in the summary, the picture was taken by me. I've uploaded it under GFDL. What information is missing here? Regards, Hús ö nd 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. Keep up the good work. :-) Regards, Hús ö nd 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I added rationale for this image as per you suggestion. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and let me know if I need more info. If the template I've used is good, I'll start using it on all future image uploads. Konczewski 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

These are symbols of the local governments within the state itself, and are used on official documentations of the towns and cities that they belong to. Therefore they can be considered government symbols which the seal template covers

I have added explanations of that the picture are, and what they are being used for.

I have removed the tags, so tell me if theres anything else wrong!

Oh I See, if you mean the table of showing why I'm using it, I'll add it to both pics then.

I added an explanation cleary depicting why it is allowed. Explaining the fair use statement and qouting the rules of the fair use policy. I expect this is acceptable. Lex94 09:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply: The image Image:Cherian_philip.JPG is taken from http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/kcphilip.html and allowed to be used by User:tinucherian at Wikipedia Please see http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/copyright.html Hence Kindly dont delete the image. Thanks

Tinucherian 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Possibly unfree Image:Cherian_philip.JPG

Reply : Please see http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/copyright.html
It explictly says " The site and webmaster allows the use of the contents /images given in ayrookuzhiyil.org to User:tinucherian to publish the contents of this site at the wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakalomattom_Ayrookuzhiyil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherian_Philip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cherian_philip.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriyani_Christians_of_Kerala "

I am the webmaster of the same website ( family website )and this famous personality speciified is a part of this family.

Hope this clarifies Thanks Tinucherian 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

{{Americanfilmlist}} I'd be glad to help but as you can see I am currently constructing a mammoth project on American films!!!! When I need a break I may start a few!!! Any help you could return in helping fill in the lists would be more than welcome. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

If you haven't already noticed I have updated the Kingston Transit Logo with a explanation of fair use and have done the same on all other transit company logos I have uploaded. Sorry for the confusion I was never aware of this crucial step but I will always ensure now my images include an explanation if they are fair use. Xtreme racer 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you may have gotten caught in the PUI page restructuring, because a couple of your listings were not added to the PUI log page. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 4. Oh, and do a force reload to get new updates to quickimgdelete that I did today. Thanks. howcheng { chat} 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You have just left me with a notification that I did not specify the creator of Image:Fancy_Lala.jpg, however, it clearly states in the image's description that it was by Akemi Takada. I believe you may have made a mistake. Elric of Grans 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It looks like theres a rationale there to me.

What more needs to be said?

Go ahead and delete Image:13694 0005.jpg now. -- Mrlopez2681 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi

I received your notification regarding the ogg files that I just uploaded. Apart from adding the tag

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. GFDL GNU Free Documentation License //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License 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.

(which I have done) is there anything else I should do? If so where do I go? Thanks for your help.

(PS although I mark each page with "watch this page" I never get any notifications of changes in my email - should I do something to enable this?) Dwsolo 09:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo reply

I think there's a glitch in your program, you tagged an image I uploaded with a {{PD-self}} tag as having no source. I think that tag makes it clear who the source is. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

btw: Is CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 directly wikipedia friendly by itself, so i can just drop the fair use thing? -- Zache 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Just what are "Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts"? One really needs to be a lawyer to do anything useful on Wikipedia!! Gillian Condy provided a photo to be used in the article on her. Now I have to go back to her and tell her that Wikipedia is full of legalese and perhaps she should get an expert to understand Wiki policy and wording. These are ordinary people you are dealing with, and you are destroying their goodwill by involving them in an unnecessarily elaborate web of requirements!!! This is no way to gain support. Simplify!!!!!!!! Paul venter 11:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello dear ,this image [ [3]] is very small and it is download from newspaper,you can see,we are allowed to upload images from news papers,you can see this image in newpaper link i given. Khalidkhoso 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi ShakespeareFan00. In the warning template you left about the image I uploaded, it indicates that there is no fair use rationale or explanation of fair use. There is one, below the licensing template, but are you indicating that this is insufficient? I can write a rationale that uses the {{ non-free media rationale}} template, but it will say generally the same thing. Thanks for your input. Leebo ^T/ C 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply