Please read every field before you tag an image. File:Fall of Porcupine cover.jpg already linked to the HTML page where it was found, and the copyright info was already easily viewable. It was right there in the "other information" field, labeled as coming from the GOG.com store, and I provided a link for you to click. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, when working on Wikipedia, follow the rules and recommendations developed by the community for correct work on Wikipedia. — Ирука1302:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the page before tagging it. Aren't you blocked on multiple projects for disruption and sock puppetry? I think maybe you should be on your best behavior here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, actually read the rules and recommendations of the Project. Do you always check your neighbors' trash when they complain to the police about your loud music? I think maybe you should learn the rules for 140k edits. — Ирука1303:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable non-free images
Hi Iruka13. When you come across files like File:Austin Swift 2019.jpg which feel clearly fail WP:FREER, there are two better ways to deal with them than tagging them with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} template that you used. The first is {{rnfu}}: this template can be used for pretty much any image that fails FREER, but works particularly well with images that fail item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. The other template is {{db-f7}}: this template works well with images that not only fail FREER but also WP:NFCC#2 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI. Both of these templates tend to be reviewed much faster that the one you used (two days and asap, respectively) and images tagged with "db-f7" might even be deleted within a few minutes of tagging depending upon whether there's an admin reviewing file tags at the time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't think the alternatives you suggested are better. First of all, because FREER expresses exactly what I mean - without nuances. Secondly, WP has files with license violations lying around for years, and an extra day or two won't make a difference here. — Ирука1306:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the whole point of the Marvel Premiere Classic book line - now defunct - is that every release had two covers. It's the third paragraph, and a large part of the explanatory table.
The image clearly shows this for illustrative purpose. The article is essentially complete with the image, because there's been no new release for years. It also had a 'needs image' tag for a long time, which I've tried to address. There's no point in editors trying to complete pages if someone else comes along, pays no attention to the subject matter, and drive-by tags. It's ridiculous. There's no difference between this and any other book cover on the site. Peterspeterson (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better if, instead of deleting the file due to lack of permission to relicense it as a non-free file so it could continue to be used in the article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found any infor confirming that this image can be relicensed as free.
Thanks for uploading File:SWBCfreda1a.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Orphaned non-free image File:Indian Bank logo 2023.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Indian Bank logo 2023.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, you tagged File:CHA23100-TheStarsAreRight!-cover.jpg as missing clear and verifiable source information. For licensing I used the standard book cover flag when uploading the file on Upload file page and the source text that specifically states its free use rationale. Could you please tell me what specifically is missing, so it can be made clearer for you. Thanks Sciencefish (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just uploaded a file as a cover. This is what I got. And the uploader wouldn't let me click "upload" until I filled in the "source" field.
There is no information about where you got the file from.
However, in this case, this is not a reason to install such a tag. My apologies. — Ирука13
Tagging of two images
Hi Iruka! I was wondering why you tagged File:Tanner F5 Vehicle Damage.png and File:Cleanup in Limestone County after F5 tornadoes.png with "better sources requested", that's exactly where the image is from and where it was published. Thanks! :) EF519:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Open the video, click on the description so that it enlarges, scroll to the comments. There will be a line "license". — Ирука1320:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I thought the .png format would be better. Should I upload it as a .jpg instead? I did not take the photo. The JFKRocket.jpg page says the uploader took the photo, and they release all copyright. So freedom of panorama wouldn't apply here, would it? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, according to some objective parameters, the file should have been saved in a different format, then you are, of course, right. However, yesterday I saw exactly the same case, and the participant wrote the file over: this option has its own advantage - you do not need to mark the previous file for deletion.
No, the first answer is correct. Freedom of panorama does not apply to sculptures. The question is whether it is a sculpture or a "rocket on a stand". To prevent this photo from suddenly disappearing, should either ask a question on WP:MCQ or post the file on WP:FFD. — Ирука1310:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ирука! I will ask at WP:MCQ and also post the file on WP:FFD, and once I know the status of the image I will either overwrite the original .jpg and submit my .png for speedy deletion, or just submit mine for that. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the file should be indicated on the file description page as accurately as possible. This will make it easy for other participants to verify the information provided. If the file was taken from the Internet, a link to the page where the file is located should be given. I have formatted the two pages of the file you uploaded accordingly, please take a look. — Ирука1319:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Star Mississippi. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. StarMississippi02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13, your words and actions are confusing me. On the talk page of File_talk:Zuni_wolf_fetish_with_medicine_bundle_and_heartline,_carved_by_Stuart_Lasiyoo.jpg you gave me a hard time about the licensing, and your words were difficult to understand. Regarding the Zuni wolf fetish file, I made the changes you suggested and I also provided a great deal of information on the fair-use rational on both the file page and the talk page. An administrator, Explicit, came by and approved it. Then on the talk page you told me to add a different license and provided an example, "Golden Lion". I did that (change the license from what Explicit approved.) Then you told me not to use the PD license which was exactly what was on the Golden Lion file. This is extremely confusing! I went ahead and changed it back to the version I had when Explicit approved it. I am not sure if the problem is that your English comprehension is not good enough to communicate clearly and politely, or if you are repeating the very behaviors that got you indefinitely blocked from Commons, and several other language Wikipedias (Russian, Ukrainian) - for wiki-lawyering about images and bad faith contributions, and tangential nonsense. What is your purpose here on en-WP? Courtesy ping to Star Mississippi for insight. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator Explicit didn't approve anything. He only rejected my specific request. Now another administrator will come here and explain everything else. Or ban me.
And I didn't say you have to use a different license. I said you can use any other free license. — Ирука1316:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically said Netherzone: add a photo license to the file description page using this example.Honestly, I do not think you should be giving people advice on how to license photos. Perhaps it's because, according to your user box, you only have a en-1 basic level of English. I don't say that to offend you, but to simply point out that the communications have not been helpful - at all. These discussions have been a waste of editors time, and maybe you should wait until your English is more competent before giving "advise" on something so complex as photo licensing. (It is already complicated enough, without adding to the complexity.) I'd like to assume good faith, but this behavior seems to be exactly why you were blocked on Commons, RU-WP and UK-WP. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this time I said and did everything correctly. It's not because of my English.
I gave you the shortest way to issue a file license. And I gave you extended information on your request. — Ирука1316:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13 I warned you, and the disruption has continued which is why you are now blocked. When the block expires, you will need to change your manner of engaging with other editors or your en wiki block will match that of the other projects. This is your last warning. StarMississippi16:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose here is to work with files according to the rules. is not how you speak to fellow editors especially when given the discussion with experienced editor (courtesy ping @Explicit, @Netherzone) have varied opinions on the license. Regardless of whether you were correct in this instance, please treat your fellow editors as you would like them to treat you. StarMississippi13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does a low-quality still from a critical documentary conflict with the documentary’s market role? Would appreciate an explanation of your rationale. ꧁Zanahary꧂15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. It is very clearly low-quality—have you seen it? I downscaled the image without changing its actual size in pixels. Moving to delete it rather than further discuss downscaling comes across as a tantrum. ꧁Zanahary꧂15:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged this as needing permission, and that the creator needs to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. However, the creator does not have email; the word was spoken into WhatsApp. Even if they did have an email account, it would have no connection with the website that published it. However, everyone along the way says that there's no copyright. How should we precede? — kwami (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to either contact VRT yourself via email, or ask this question on WP:MCQ, because I don’t see any option other than deleting the file. — Ирука1307:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this account is blocked for one week by Star Mississippi, but when they return, I feel the need to ask why they're spending such an enormous amount of time nominating images for deletion (especially when many of these seem so flimsy and when they seem to do barely anything else here). Moreover, I feel the need to ask how this is even permissible behavior; it feels like a variant of Brandolini's law, where the amount of time required to refute a nomination is exponentially greater than the time required to make one. That is, it genuinely feels like the amount of deletion nominations being created about unrelated topics ought to be impermissible without prior administrator approval, because it takes up so much editor time to review each of these. I would almost think in light of this behavior that it'd be valid to hold an RfC about expressly limiting the amount of pages a single editor can nominate in a given time period without prior administrative approval – although I've genuinely never seen anyone do something like this before now. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this thread, they honestly seem to be behaving – I know it's bad conduct to say this – like a colossal jackass. Even I'm not that bitterly confrontational at my absolute pettiest. That said, "wrapping a rock in a basketball"(TM) and throwing it at a backboard to recreate a backboard smash is priceless and will live rent-free in my head for the rest of time. TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that, they're not even familiar with file deletion rationale. They nominated for deletion a file I uploaded with the one-line nom "is CC-BY-ND". I don't know where they got that from, since it's not at the file nor the source, and they seem to refuse to accept that they either read it wrong or made it up. There may be a file problem in that it needs a different tag elsewhere, but this is not something they mention. It's giving if you're gonna be SPA, at least be CIR. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule against being a single-purpose account focused on one specific topic area, especially one like file deletion which is neglected by most of the editorship. There is no rule against being a free-content maximalist, and Iruka13 is not the first person to hold that opinion, and they won't be the last. I'm not even convinced this block was justified (but I won't be using my own admin tools to push the unblock button). Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits, mainly in the file namespace, so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted as well, which is generally thankless. * Pppery *it has begun...20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits [...] so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted – aren't deleted edits, edits that Iruka13 has made and which have been reverted? Isn't that suggesting they've messed up in file namespace 3000 times or have I got that wrong? Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A deleted edit in this context is an edit to a page that has since been deleted. So that means they've made 3000 edits to pages which were later deleted, mostly files, which is (IMO) a good thing. * Pppery *it has begun...02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I think where they are facing resistance are cases where they say animation or a 3D editor should be used as a replacement, or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free. Are there any guidelines or precedents on these specific topics?—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my impression. I think Iruka13's position on non-free content is within the Overton window, and they're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others (possibly due to lack of English skills). or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free - This seems like a misinterpretation - the idea of asking photo authors to consider releasing their photos under a free license is supported by policy before resorting to a non-free image is reasonable and supported by policy where it makes sense (i.e. see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) (but money usually isn't involved in that process). Finally, some closing advice - if you return to editing, it would be wise to accept that your standards for when a non-free image is warranted are much higher than consensus, and thus not push so hard to enforce them over others' objections, and not bludgeon the process with multiple comments when you are disagreed with. Holding counter-consensus positions isn't a bad thing - I have several myself but I know they're counter-consensus and don't try so hard to push for them. * Pppery *it has begun...06:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PpperyThey're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others: I'm not active at FFD. So I'm willing to consider aninmation and 3D editors if that's an established practice, but those specifics were never forthcoming. Regarding "misinterpretation" over donations, their comment was:
And of course, anyone can buy the rights to one of these photos and relicense it as free.
Yeah, that one quoted comment is downright bizarre. Even the most stringent non-free image people I've come across have never expected any such thing. I'm not particularly active at FfD either - I just noticed a backlog had accumulated so cleared it. * Pppery *it has begun...07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to you lifting the block if you think it was incorrect @Pppery. Mine was less for the file disruption and more for wikilawyering around their incivility which has been a cross project issue so I unfortunately think we may be back here again. StarMississippi02:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iruka13, this edit [1] seems like targeted retaliation. It also does not make any sense whatsoever, and I will be reverting your edit. Why did you add it when the article, Zuni fetishes does indeed include free images, and it also has the fair-use image which I added. The Fair-use photograph provides important visual/aesthetic details that cannot be seen whatsoever in the free images. These small details are culturally important to the Zuni people.
I as the the uploader released my rights to the photograph which I took, and although the object itself might be subject to copyright (although no evidence of copyright can be found), its use for educational/encyclopedic purposes is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: 1. This is a historically significant work containing specific visual and material qualities that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows a major type of work produced by a specific tribal culture. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. The image has no commercial value whatsoever. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
I am not Iruka, but it is generally preferred to have links to pages that contain the image in context rather than the URL of the image file itself (which offers no information as to content or provenance). This is also what the tag applied by Iruka says, so I consider the tag perfectly appropriate. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does show a blurrier version of the current file, so it is certainly better than nothing. Ideally, you could just link to the post from which the original file has been taken. If that isn't possible, then from my point of view the current link is better already. Felix QW (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Generally preferred to have links to pages that contain the image in context rather than the URL of the image file itself (which offers no information as to content or provenance). — Ирука1311:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krug Park
Hello, I noticed that you nominated for deletion a file that I added for Krug Park (amusement park). Well, here’s the thing. If a picture was published in the U.S. before 1978 and lacks a copyright notice, then it should be in the country’s public domain. In the case of the postcard image that I added for the article, the picture was published when the amusement park was relevant. But the place closed in 1940. Also, the postcard has no copyright notice. Mickey in a Dress (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iruka13, i noticed you wrongly marked the image of the U.S. Army CID DUI for deletion, i properly put the licensing information in the description that specifies the creator of the image as the U.S. Army institute of Heraldry. As such it is in the public domain and can be sourced per both the U.S Army CID official site of https://www.cid.army.mil/The-Agency/Our-Mission/ which shows the DUI on that page and the from the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry official website.Rukia8492 (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this image. I have marked this image for deletion due to lack of attribution of where this image was taken from. We should always cite the source of an image. If other files you have uploaded are missing attribution, please provide the source. — Ирука1304:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-20241115174200-About_File:Aesculapian_Club_badge.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
