I'm confused - you tagged the Category:Anime and manga characters by series with a copyright problem tag. Isn't that to be put on articles? Did you go through the articles and decided the entire category had a problem? I just want to know why you did that.
While there may be a lot of images without fair-use rationale on articles in this cat, a lot of them aren't, and editors are making an effort to provide them with rationales. Just tagging the whole lot is pretty demotivating and seems a bit overkill. Ninja neko 13:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was to much work to tag all the articles. Rettetast 13:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. I checked and he is not retired like I thought he is. If he is still playing darts then feasably a free altertative could indeed be created. i speedy deleted it but as yet it hasn't been cleared ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I forgot about that one. Are you watching my images or something? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New image patrol. Nothing personal. Rettetast 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deliberately look for images to delete. I don't like that, I don't like that at all... and especially that one of those images was created by me, they are not restricted images. The sunder king 20:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. But I don't like images with false license templates. Rettetast 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, one of them was allowed for any purpose except advertising which is what I read on BBC. The sunder king 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but that is not a a free license. I have reverted your edits. You can discuss this at WP:PUI, but please don't remove the nominations. Rettetast 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just leave the images alone, after all one of them was created by me. The sunder king 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake. 86.153.34.199 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NP. I was very puzzled. Rettetast 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged two images today that I uploaded in 2006. The note you left -- did you draft it? Or was it the result of a substitution of a template?
It states:
"...it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information."
I didn't just upload this image. I spent a considerable effort looking for a free equivalent before I uploaded it last year.
I took another look for a free equivalent today.
If the wording of your note is the result of the instantiation of a substituted template, I would like to suggest it should be reworded. Should the test really be whether someone thinks the image could reasonably be replaced? I guess if the tag placer really KNEW the image could be replaced with a free image, they should just replace it. I dunno. I think there is something seriously wrong with this wording. It seems to imply that you know you can find a free equivalent. If you can, my hats off to you. But since I have looked myself -- at least twice now -- I am skeptical.
So, am I missing something? If there are no free equivalents isn't the use of this image compliant with policy?
Couldn't I create a free equivalent to this image?
- Couldn't I find a high-end electronics shop that sells this phone?
- Well, the Thuraya network only covers the middle east, the caucuses, and nearby areas -- not North America, where I live. So, I think it is likely this would be a wild goose chase.
- Suppose I could find a high-end electronics shop that sells this phone -- even though it is only used half a world away? Couldn't I convince the salesman to take one of these expesive phones out of its box, or display case, and let me take a picture of it with my digital camera?
- Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't -- except I don't have a digital camera.
- Couldn't I go buy a digital camera first?
- No, sorry, I am on a budget. No can do.
Now maybe I am simply unfamiliar with the policies and conventions around images -- maybe it is considered "reasonable" to ask volunteers to make this level of effort?
Whose responsibility is it to look fro free equivalents? I thought I had fulfilled my responsibility to look for free equivalents last year, when I searched for them, prior to uploading these images. How often should I feel obliged to go look for new free euqivalents? Once a month? Once a year? Anytime someone comes along and thinks "a free equivalent could reasonably be found"? What obligation, if any, do you think the people challenging the {{fair-use}} tag have to do some kind of search to test their notion of the reasonableness of finding a free equivalent before they place the challenge tag?
Cheers! Geo Swan 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I answered you questions on Image talk:SolarPort ThurayaCharging 306346.jpg
P.S. You are an administrator, correct? I guessed you might be. But I thought everyone who was an administrator included themselves in Category:Administrators. You don't seem to have done so. Am I missing something here too? Geo Swan 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am an administrator. It is just a temp userpage. You could try to click the smiley to understand why. Rettetast 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done some more thinking about our conversation, and the policy documents I consulted after correpsonding with you.
- I have come around. I self-nominated a screenshot I had uploaded recently of [[Angela Campbell] based on coming around. Can I ask your opinion of this image someone else uploaded that I just came across? Does it qualify for fair use because it captures an unreproduceable moment? Image:CIAagent Dave.jpg I take no stand on it myself. I am just trying to get the rules sorted out. Cheers! Geo Swan 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again. It is great that you are getting familiar with the policy. It makes it much easier for the small number of users who do image cleanup.I see several problems withImage:CIAagent Dave.jpg but let me think about it. Rettetast 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Thomas Kincade image you mentioned here (File:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg) was adapted from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/articles.html and if contributed today, would be marked as {{PD-USGov-Military}} and not fair use. If I've misunderstood the issue, please clarify, otherwise please restore the image. Thanks. Kayaker 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC). (A similar comment was posted at User talk:Quadell because the deletion log identifies that user as actually doing the deletion...)[reply]
In response to your tag, I've updated the page, I hope satisfactorally. But let me know if more needs to be done. I'm pretty sure this image can be legitimately used under fair use as a promotion. --Cdogsimmons 01:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You left me a message concerning whether or not the picture used in the William Sledd article was fair use. I might have put the wrong terms on the photo but we do have permission from William Sledd himself in use of the photo. How do you advise labeling the photo? Do I need to make the email he wrote me about the photo part of the documentation? I'm at a loss for what to do. thanks!
AngielaJ 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi AngielaJ. The image was tagged as non-free and therefore have comply with WP:NFCC even though you had permission to use it on wikipedia. It clearly fails criteria #1. If you get the copyright holder to release the image under a free license you can reupload it. You can find instructions on how to do this correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for permission#How to ask for permission. It is important that the copyright holder explicitly says what license the image is released under. Rettetast 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained the fair use rationale for Image:Heather higgins.gif in light of WP:NFCC. Please refer to the image page. DickClarkMises 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the indiscretion; I uploaded this image a long time ago, before I learned of Wikipedia’s fair use guidelines and the rationale that has to be specifically laid out for each image. I have corrected the problem and removed the NFUR template; hopefully, my update to the image page has been satisfactory. Thanks for letting me know about it! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 10:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've tagged this image twice as non-irreplaceable. I can approach Camilo José Vergara (the gentleman featured in the photo, and the provider of same) about licensing it under some CC variant. To my knowledge no CC licensed photographs of Mr. Vergara exist. Pixel23 12:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. do that, you can find tips at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permission. Rettetast 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've exchanged emails with Mr. Vergara and he has selected a CC Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license for his self-portrait. I have updated the license on the image page and added an explanation. I will forward the permission email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Pixel23 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is great. Rettetast 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you removed all the images from various List of minor EastEnders characters pages. How about contacting the EastEnders Wikiproject (of which I am a member) and letting us know how many images can be used on each page and letting us decide which images we want to use, before they all get deleted for being orphaned (if they haven't already been). — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. List like this should not have images of the characters because that violates our non free content policy. For a good explanation abput this see: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation#Q: Including one image for each character on a "List of ..." type article IS minimal use; it's one image per character!. Rettetast 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to delete an image because it is on the Commons, it would be good if you would replace it in articles with the image in the Commons. Although it appears the image was deleted in the Commons as well, so now it's completely gone. Vidor 19:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The image was at commons with the same name so it showed up in the article when i deleted it. It was deleted from commons after this deletion request because it lacked a source. If this had been noticed here it would have been deleted anyway. Rettetast 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for making my personal image gallery correct by removing the non-free ones' thumbnails. I was just wondering - the policy you have been using: "it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information.", well, bands such as Meg and Dia are not as big as other bands, who tour extensively, have many followers who take many pictures of the band. This means there are hardly any images of Meg and Dia online, nevermind information. Does this policy still apply, even if free images are scarce? Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does. The reasoning is that if we disallow unfree images, it will be much easier to get images released under a free license. Have you tried looking at Flickr. You might get lucky. Rettetast 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, we can take images from Flickr? I was never aware of this, as I thought the person who took the picture would need to give permission. Is this the case? — jacĸrм (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ñot every image, but Flickr has a licensing system that allows photographer to license their image under free licenses. There are very many images licensed like this. Just make sure the license allows commercial use and derivative works like CC-BY-SA. Rettetast 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can search only for such images. Just go to advanced search and at the bottom you click all boxes in the Creative commons section. Rettetast 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks alot, I'll try and replace the images with free ones. Thanks for your help and advice. — jacĸrм (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NP. Rettetast 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.104.61 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there something specific you want to confront me with? Rettetast 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is that? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't use fair use images to illustrate subjects where a free equivalent could be created. See WP:NFCC#1. Rettetast 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show these free equivalent images? Regards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's buildings that someone can take an image of. Therefore a free equivalent 'can be created per WP:NFCC#1. You could try looking for a free image at Flickr. Rettetast 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, can be created. But who will create this? And in the Flickr, images of these buildings, aren't available. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they can be created we can not allow them on wikipedia. If we did that we would never get a free image. Rettetast 19:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna have to explain this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Ben_10&action=history
It doesn't meet the criteria for removal.--Marhawkman 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The images fail WP:NFCC criteria number 3 and 8. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. In list articles like this we don't allow non free images of each subject. See User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation#Q: Including one image for each character on a "List of ..." type article IS minimal use; it's one image per character! for a thorough explanation. Rettetast 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read those. This DOESN'T fit Durin's example. The current version only has images for the first three characters not all of them. As for NFCC#3, whether it is acceptable of not is determined by your definition of "necessary". IMO it benefits the article to have a few. And that is the Crux of NFCC#8.--Marhawkman 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern and agree that it doesn't fit Durins example. I can agree that having images of the three main characters are OK. I have reverted myself. Rettetast 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you. :)--Marhawkman 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rettetast. So we meet again. What do you feel is wrong with or how the images are used within this article? I don't see the problem there, as all of those images are appropriately tagged and significantly contribute to that article. I really cannot see getting rid of one of those images yet. Flyer22 22:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Flyer. There are to many images. You can't say that the reader will have problems understanding the article if the were not there. Not that policy is that strict, you should only use those non free images that you feel that it is difficult to write an article without. Take the kissing-image. You say it in the text that it is a passionate kiss. Why is it important to have an image of it? Rettetast 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back that I cannot see removing any of those images. I can see removing two. If I remove two, will you be fine with me removing the tag you put there in that section? As for the passionate kiss image, I still feel that it's needed. LOL. But it will be one of the ones removed, unless I change my mind and take out another image in its place. I'm going to hate these images being orphaned back to me, though, with that annoying orphan message on my talk page. Flyer22 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :-). Try to fix it and I will look into it. If you tag the orphaned images with {{db-author}} you wont get the ugly warning. Rettetast 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about to remove two images, of course. The two I feel that this article can do without. And that tag above that you suggested I use works for images as well? Hmm. Well, I'm off to do what must be done. Flyer22 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rettetast, I don't know if you forgot to remove that tag or felt that it still belonged, but I went ahead and removed it, considering that I don't see that article as having unnecessary use of non-free images anymore. And especially not excessive use. Of course, if you still feel that that tag belongs there, add it back. I'll see you around. Flyer22 03:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What images do you think violate a copyright on Warhawk?--Playstationdude 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is just to many non free images and the total clearly fails WP:NFCC#3 about minimal use. Also remember that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8. The images in the Development section clearly fails this criteria. Try to trim down the non free image use and I'll can have a look when you are done. Rettetast 17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just randomly clicking on other people's user pages and ended up here. YAY CHAINSAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (don't ask) Ichliebezuko 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the displayed fictional characters in Minor characters in the Ranma ½ manga, Minor characters of the Ranma ½ anime and List of Ranma ½ minor characters why is it deemed necessary to remove all of them, rather than demanding that the display should be thinned down?
I would generally argue that removing images displaying what an entertainment character looks like, turns the descriptions virtually useless, but accept the rationale that these should simply be thinned down to the 30-50% most relevant. However, as I understand it User:Derekloffin and User:BrokenSphere (along with myself) already had this 'thinning' process well under way, so why the need for such drastic measures? We would very much appreciate if it would be possible to keep at least a reasonable amount. Many thanks for any help in the matter. Dave 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFCC#8 non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. If a character is not significant enough to have their own article, their status within the universe of the depicted series is minor, and it becomes exceptionally hard to justify violating our core m:Mission by having a non free image for such a minor character. It's not crucial to a reader's understanding of the overall series; they can gain such understanding via the main character and main universe articles. It not about how many images there is in one article either. It's about the nature of use. Rettetast 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, certain of the cast members, like Rouge, Kiima, the Tendo mother, Lime and Mint, Mikado Sanzenin, and some movie or recurrent tv characters, do have a great impact on significant storylines, arguably as much as Konatsu and Tofu Ono, who have separate entries, just not enough to write more than stumps. If we eveluated which 10 or so images for every roster that are most 'valuable', alternately just a third of the entries, could this be acceptable? Understanding of the topic when describing fictional entertainment characters almost per definition includes an image of how they look, and the pages look horribly empty and uninteresting (/in this context semi-useless) as is. Thanks. Dave 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation answers all of your question. Rettetast 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, Yes it is acceptable to simply remove the unimportant ones and keep the important ones.--Marhawkman 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it with the template, thanks.--Analogue Kid 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stephen_nolan.jpg and the image that is targetted for deletion. Stephen Nolan has given full permission for this image to be used on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter so could you advise me which is the best image tag? I am constantly having this problem and various editors are giving me various suggestions. This latest promotional tag was as a result of an editor advice and now I see that you are recommending deletion. Austenlennon 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon[reply]
- Hi. You must get the images released under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ and User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image. I see that you have uploaded a number of images tagged as CC-BY. Have the the copyright holders really released the images under this license? Rettetast 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't this still permitted? i may have got the license wrong but I though attribution was permitted. Anyway the creator at flickr has recently uploaded some of his flickr images to wikipedia and created some articles anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I have replied at the IFD
The same user also created new wiki pages for Mikhail Koklyaev which are images from his own photo bak on flickr ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 09:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of the images can do what he wants with the images, but if he is a wikipedia user it should not be a problem to get him to change the licensing. Rettetast 09:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that this image (Image:Pjbmp2avi.jpg) was deleted today, I was under the impression that I had (as the owner of the copyright for this program) given permission for this screenshot to be used pcrtalk 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Rettetast 23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome! Keep up the good work! pcrtalk 02:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danville Dashers Team Photo 1983 84.jpg
Danville Dashers Team Photo 1981 1982.jpg
I have reivewed the criteria for these photos to be classified as {{Non-free promotional}} and here it is:
Promotional material
Fair use on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such promotional image with a free image
{{Non-free promotional}}—for an image freely provided to promote an item, as in a promotional photo in a press packet
These images comply the above criteria.
I hope this solves the problem unless I am responding to an automated message.
--ADPLANET 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Non-free promotional}} does not give the criteria for inclusion of non-free content. This you will find at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. These images criteria 8 which read "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". These images are purely decorative in the articles. There are no critical commentary of them in them in the article that could justify inclusion. Do you see other articles with large images of the team. I give you one day to remove the images before I remove them again. Rettetast 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:DANE logo.png
I added the rationale template or w/e is this ok now? im not sure, since its my first time uploading a non free image. mijotoba 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks fine. Thanks. Rettetast 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like with what you did to List of minor Sailor Moon characters, you may want to look at Majin Buu, Characters of GetBackers and maybe List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball and List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may also want to check the Final Fantasy characters articles. If my memory serves, I think a few of them have image galleries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw the message and will look into it when i get the time. Why don't you remove images that fails the non free content criteria yourself? You could also list the articles at WP:FUR or tag them with {{non-free}}. Rettetast 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
(b) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used (especially where the original could be used for piracy). This rule also applies to the copy in the Image: namespace.
- it was the only image in the article. I fail to see how this is not minimal.
- The entire work is not used, and it is not high resolution.
- There is little to no chance this image will be used for piracy or in any meaningful way infringe on Nintendo's copyright, as it is neither the game they are trying to sell, or that much of a unique thing anyway.
Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
- I can somewhat understand the Big Green ChuChu being describable by words, though that would necessarily have to be OR, and thus would be deleted, reducing the article to mostly just a list of "This is the boss of this dungeon."
- However, there are certainly bosses on that page that are not very well, if at all described by words alone - can I bring those pictures back?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. This is an image that is not that important in the overall topic. This is just a minor character and a separate image violates WP:NFCC. Durin has written a thorough explanation at User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. Cheers. Rettetast 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you decided to add the {{non-free}} tag to Characters in the Resident Evil films. I see in the edit summary the reason was "See WP:NFCC#3". NFCC#3 states: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." I believe that the images used on the pages are necissary to portray each given character, and a free replacement cannot be made because they are film characters. So, as far as the {{non-free}} tag goes, I'm not sure why you've added it. The tag seems to state that the article would have a lot of "excessive or improper use of copyrighted images", however, the images are necissary per character. -Lindsey8417 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. See the above explanation. We dont allow separate images in list like this. That violates WP:NFCC. See also User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. Cheers. Rettetast 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Vonbraun-portrait.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. . ." Rettetast 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- I haven't been visiting the Wikipages as often as I'd like to.
Image is (was) an official NASA photograph that was incorporated into the National Space Institute wikipage. NASA, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, is an agency of the Federal Government, which is not subjected to copyright issues pertaining to any and all of its images. To wit for source and rationale: [1]
Appreciate you reverting the page back to the way it was. Regards, WSpaceport 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The image was deleted because it had no source. Since you have provided one here i have restored the image. Rettetast 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted it again since you have reuploaded the image. Rettetast 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. As stated in fair use rationale I do not have a free substitute as I have no access to a vehicle of this type at this time. I live and work in a national park, where there are not very many large trucks, and being as I work 40+ hours a week I don't have the time (or money at today's gas prices) to go driving around looking for pictures to take. The particular type of truck in this image is only used by my company in the summer; when the time comes I will get my own picture. In the meantime, please do not delete this image, as it illustrates one of many uses for this model. Thanks :) --Lpimlott 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Even though you will have problems taking such an image yourself, does not mean it is not replaceable by wikipedia standards. If someone can take an image it fails WP:NFCC#1. I will not delete the image myself, since i nominated it but leave it to another admin. Cheers. Rettetast 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the info on the crest to include the Non-free/fair-use media Rationale info that was requested, and I scaled the image down to fit within 300x300 pixels. Let me know if there is anything more that I need to add to that image.
The SJCS_Crest.gif image was of too low a quality for use on Wikipedia, and I do not mind if that is deleted.
(Thanks for pointing out these errors; I am semi-new to Wikipedia standards and what is required.)
Komputerwiz 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:FURG. You need to include a rationale for the use. Rettetast 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quneitra_on_Remains.jpg
Hey , Rettetast!
Can you please provide me with information on how do I make fair-use rationale? Wikipedia's explanations are not enough for me as I am newbie.
What I can say is that I can contact author of image and it was made for promotional purpose and posted on his site.
What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. There is a great explanation at WP:FURG. The important thing is that you have to explain why you have to have the non free image in the article and why it could not be replaced by a free image. Rettetast 11:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rettetast! :)
Now better?
--Shahinaz 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It's fine now. Rettetast 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Rettetast! :)
Can I keep this image with newly-given information?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ali_Sarmini.jpg
Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. that image depicts a living person and can be replaced. You can't just copy a rationale from one image to another. Like the image the rational has to be unique. Rettetast 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why then picture of another living person can be depicted "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg"?
Besides, I didn't copied it, I re-wrote it. Can you please advice me what to do in order to keep Dr. Ali Sarmini's photo here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That image is not non-free. It is in public domain because its a work of the U.S. federal government. You cant keep the photo of Ali Sarmini's because it is a non-free image and therefore comes under WP:NFCC. Images of living persons are normally considered to fail criteria 1. Rettetast 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do I need to keep it? Contact depicted person to ask his permission or visit him, make my own photo and sacrifice it to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you get the copyright holder to release it under a free license it can be kept. You can find instructions on how to do this correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for permission#How to ask for permission. It is important that the copyright holder explicitly says what license the image is released under. Rettetast 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi You seem to be an administrator as you have threatened to block me from editing for reinserting the image. I have inserted it as i have believed that it is not a copyrighted image. Let me explain. This Logo has been developed by the Indtitute of Chartered Accountants for India for general use by its members. The logo of the Institute itself is different. As such this Logo does not belong to any organisation or institute, but can be used by any member of ICAI on his letterhead or visiting card. See this Link. http://icai.org/icairoot/announcements/announ1040.pdf I was not aware what licencing tag to use for such logos. If necessary, the current licencing tag may be changed. Trust it will satisfy your doubts.--Anish 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right about the fact that you coul use it leagally, but I am sorry. You can not use the logo on your userpage. Even though the you could use logo legally, it violates wikipedias policy on non-free content, WP:NFCC. We only allow non-free content when we have to and there is no other way. Everything is copyrighted, even if the copyight holder encourages its use. There are free licenses but this logo is not released under such, which your link shows. Rettetast 13:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why are you erasing the images in the List of students at South Park Elementary? Many of them, such as the image of Wendy Testaburger, have a proper fair use rationale (I didn't know how to give one to an image at the time it nearly got deleted, so I saw to it that a user with the knowledge got that done!), so I don't actually see the whole picture. Care to fill me in? Wilhelmina Will 20:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The images violates WP:NFCC #3 and 8. See User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. Rettetast 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the rationale on Image:La1981vid.jpg. I was at a loss as to why the bot kept tagging it, when it was a simple disambiguation issue. Cheers Andi064 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NP. Rettetast 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just noticed that you removed all images from the Characters of Lost not too long ago, and per some recent comments on your talk page, this doesn't seem to be the only article where you have done so. Now I ask for your advice. The Lost character article has served as a structure and layout guide for Characters of Carnivàle, which I am working on to bring up to at least Good Article. FYI, Carnivàle is basically like Lost, with over a dozen main characters, but the show was cancelled after 2 seasons with 24 episodes. So the character article is basically all main characters (almost all pictured) plus all recurring characters (with only the most important ones pictured). But since I keep the character descriptions short because there is also not much to say (and the episode list already summarizes the plot quite well), I wonder in how far others would consider the thumbnail images still of fairuse. The character article has a fairly big casting, costumes and reception section, but I don't know if that's enough. I would have used an all-cast-members-in-one image, but there don't seem to be any except this, which features several "unimportant" characters and leaves out many characters that are important in Season 2. What is your take? – sgeureka t•c 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I am just ready to watch Carnivàle for myself, so I don't want to go to deep into this article. Durin has written a great explanation for fair use in these kind of articles. You can find it here and you should really read it since i think it will give you a great understanding of use of non free content on these articles.
- The great difference to the Lost article is that you don't have separate articles for the major characters. If you had this an non-free image would be ok at that article, but not in the list since that would violate WP:NFCC#3. If you follow Durins reasoning that would mean that you could not use any images in Characters of Carnivàle because non of the are important enough to have their own article, then there is no need to have an image for them. I would be little less restrictive here since you should be able to have an image of the really important characters. I see from the article that there are two characters that seems to be the main characters, and the rest is grouped on how thay are affiliated to these two. My suggestion would be to keep the images of these two and cut the rest.
- Completely unrelated. When someone have a ndash; in their signature, you know they are serious wikipedians:–). Rettetast 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll see in how far some images can/should be saved for e.g. the costumes section. Hope you enjoy Carnivàle. – sgeureka t•c 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said above: "If you follow Durins reasoning that would mean that you could not use any images in Characters of Carnivàle because non of the are important enough to have their own article"
Well what about if you dont follow Durin's reasoning? Whether or not the presence of an image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" is completely subjective. Durin says that the images do not significantly increase understadning, but many others would say that they do. If the general rule is 5 fair use images per article, then it should be five fair use images per list of characters, because they are articles in their own right. Gungadin♦ 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no 5 image rule. Where do you have this from. I reverted your edits because those were all minor characters and the were not significant enough to the whole topic to have a separate image. Rettetast 00:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In your opinion they arent significant enough to have a separate image, but I disagree. They didnt all have separate images anyway, only the more important ones did, and we kept it to a minimum. Articles with under 5 fairuse images dont show up on Durin's "fairuse overuse" list.Gungadin♦ 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, in your opinion they are not important. Thats why you have classified them as minor characters, is it not? And for what I can see you have low standards for what is a major enough character to warrant their own article. Images of these minor charachters is not crucial to a reader's understanding of the overall series. He can get that understanding from the 648(!) other images depicting the EastEnders series. You can't say that all of these significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. We are trying to create a free encyclopedia here, and must try to keep the use of non-free content to a minimum. Maybe it would be a good idea to have an EastEnders-wikia, and keep the most important stuff at wikipedia. And there is no 5 image rule, it is not about the quantity, it's the nature of use. Rettetast 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dont try to twist things. I said a certain number were significant enough to have their own image, not their own page, and this is unrelated as far as i can see, because even if they were listed as "major characters" you would still not allow them to have images. And I do not have low standards regarding what is a major enough character to warrant a separate article. I base it on the availability of OOU information and sources. I cant be held responsible for articles other people create. Not all the images are crucial to understanding the series as a whole, but most of them are crucial to understanding specific characters, which is why they are being used in character articles. I agree about the wikia, I have suggested it before, but others are not keen on the idea. I cant go removing all the information here over to a wikia without the consent of others.Gungadin♦ 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they need a rationale, you can either (1) read the rationale in their templates, (2) add them yourself, or (3) contribute constructively to Wikipedia by doing something else. Perhaps you can add something of value to an article instead of removing images. Is this making sense to you at all?--Gnfgb2 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:NFCC, WP:FURG, WP:VAND#NOT and WP:AGF. Rettetast 10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who not only agreed with the removal of the majority of non-free images in lists of episodes, but also helped to enforce that, I can tell you that there is no blanket ban on non-free images in any list or list-like article. If you would like to discuss if the images are necessary or not, that would be different. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor disputed the use of a poster for the Oscar-winning film "the French Connection", an image which I did not produce. His reasons had nothing to do with copyright as far as I can tell. He simply thought the poster was irrelevant to illustrate a list of films shot in Marseille. He then proceeded to discuss an autographed picture of Regine Crespin, that he chanced upon on the same page. I honestly do not know what rules apply to this image and of course I would be more than happy to find another image of Regine Crespin. User:angr's tirade about the appopriateness of the poster makes me rather dubious about his intentions in producing an interesting encyclopedia. If he had just contested the Regine Crespin photo, where copyright issues do not seem clear, I would have thought his intervention reasonable. But no, he attacked the poster in a quite irrational and opinionated way. He should therefore explain his personal point of view about the poster on the talk page of Marseille and be a little more courteous about the recently departed grande diva, Regine Crespin, our lass from Marseille :) Mathsci 23:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I asume that both you and Angr have acted in good faith. The discussion on the French Connection image should be taken at the talk page of Marseille, and the other at the IFD. Rettetast 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I am now aware, this editor is going on a tirade of wikistalking, labelling a few more images for the articles on Marseille (and possibly Aix-en-Provence as well). As you can see, I spend quite a lot of time adding knowledge on mathematics and french culture to the WP. I would very much like this editor to clarify his remarks about the poster, which seem to reveal a lack of good faith on his part: I have already started a discussion on the talk page for Marseille, as he should have done in the first place. User:Quadell has always been extremely helpful and never capricious. --Mathsci 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, again, and many apologies for the misunderstanding. In my haste, I didn't notice the author of the queries. I have to admit that I was not sure about the images you have tagged; I found them on blogs which didn't seem to have copyright restrictions. I asked User:Quadell on his talk page about other pictures of Aix, which I worked out for myself were under copyright from the municipal council of Aix. However, these photos, I wasn't so sure about; if some of them are permitted, but need a different description, then I would be quite happy to find out how I should do this. The Jongkind picture is unusable: I would have deleted it if I knew how. It was for the page on the Aix sculptor Philippe Solari, for which I found a WP image of a better sculpture of Emile Zola. How do I delete the image, or request its deletion? BTW I do not have a digital camera; this might be a way of getting alternative images (the sun was shining today) :-) Bonne nuit. --Mathsci 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see that I wrongly classified the Cezanne still-life with the medallion of Philippe Solari. Do I just go ahead and reclassify it as public domain, as you have noted in your edit summary? --Mathsci 23:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure why you're tagging images taken from the french wikipedia site, unloadable from there. I'm referring to Image:Pont Transbordeur-02 (nacelle).jpg which seems completely legal. Or do you want a different classification? I corrected your relaballing PD-OLD to PD-old for the Cezanne painting. --Mathsci 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you're correcting the attributions yourself and placing some of the images from foreign WP pages, not directly available, on WP commons. Many thanks. Will this be done systematically in the future? I have found difficulties in getting some german and french images to appear and so have just copied them to the english WP. Is it recommended pratice to upload them on wikimedia commons now? --Mathsci 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you reinsert images, please take the trouble to scale them. That is just good manners. You left Aix-en-Provence in an appalling state. User:Angr apparently uses flickr as a source, eg for the main picture in Yo-Yo Ma. The image of Regine Crepsin appears there [2]. --Mathsci 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to asume that everything is copyrighted.
- Tag images that you have uploaded and want deleted with {{db-author}}
- I changed the tagging of Image:Pont Transbordeur-02 (nacelle).jpg because there was no evidence of GFDL in the source.
- Upload free images to the commons, but get the licensing correct.
- There is no automatic system for image cleanup. It is just hard work:-)
- Images should not have fixed sizes per WP:MOS#Images. This is because users should be able to decide the size in their preferences.
Rettetast 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you write about image sizes is incorrect and rather unintelligent. Why are you making up this kind of nonsense? Image dimensions are part of WP format, whether you like it or not. Please grow up. --Mathsci 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me cite from WP:MOS: Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers), and a maximum of 300px.
- You should really try to listen to other editors. They may have a point at times. I have tried to help you but you show no interest, so I'll guess it was a wasted effort. And please comment on content, not on the contributor.(From: WP:NPA) Rettetast 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what made you say in your recent edit that the French WP is unreliable as a source. Are you suggesting that the French deliberately put erroneous maps on their city pages and that there is some collective conspiracy to keep these false maps in situ? I am not French but I find your edit remark racist. Are you aware of wikiproject France? Both english and french WP pages are full of errors, as I found when editing Phedre, equipped with both french and english sources. If you continue to make statements like this in edit summaries, I imagine you risk being blocked from editing. Please stop being racist: it is not very intelligent. Your statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:AGF. Do you ever write WP articles? By the way I have some spare maps of Marseille if you would like one. --Mathsci 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please assume good faith. It was not a racist remark. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Not in any language. The article needs Reliable sources. I expect an apology. Rettetast 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reporting you to an administrator. The fact that you chose to disbelieve maps on the French WP page seems small-minded and pedantic.Again your statement contradicts wikiproject France . the transfer of info from the French wp to this one. A similar project exists between PlanetMath and the mathematical wp. Do you wish to impede this transfer of information? There are also citations from one WP article to another - so your statement is complete nonsense. It shows a complete unawareness of how this encyclopedia functions. Kindly think before you write and perhaps try to write an article for WP yourself. --Mathsci 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand everything I am saying. Yes, it is great to transfer information between different wikipedias, and I believe that the information is correct, but that does not mean that it is a reliable source that you should cite. I am sad that you think that you think that I show a complete unawareness of how this encyclopedia functions. I have been active for more than a year now and have over 30.000 edits so I must be a total failure then:-) Rettetast 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already reported you for disruptive editing. I have added a map reference for Marseille, the standard map. Now kindly calm down and stop acting in such a pedantic way. Any fact that you don't happen to know in the article could be queried and the article could be littered with your disruptive tags. Kindly stop this, or find the references yourself, if you think there is some doubt. May I suggest as helpful therapy for you the editing of an actual wikipedia article where you personally have some knowledge? That way you won't tie yourself and other editors in knots. Before doing so, go to the pages of Lyon and Paris and add similar tags. Your actions might then appear more rational to the casual bystander. At least you have learnt something today: Marseille has 16 arrondissements. Later today you might know, albeit with gigantic uncertainty, the same figures for Lyon and Paris. Also, if your mood has not changed, you could put a deletion tag on Arrondissements of Lyon since it does not cite any sources. Bonne chance, Mathsci —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And kindly stop wikistalking me (altering image dimensions in the births/death section just to prove your WP:POINT)! This has already been passed on to the admininstrator: you are trying to edit war and this is quite unwise. Please stop, calm down and do something positive. Can't you think of anything? How about an article on the arrondissements of Marseille. I'm sure you'ld do it magnificently: you seem to know so much about France. --Mathsci 20:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That edit was done hours before I knew you had so strong feelings about this. You are overreacting here. I was trying to help you. I have helped you with your images, I have answered your questions, and I have given you information about MOS and RS. If you can't behave, please stay away from my talk page from now. Ha en fin dag! Rettetast 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you correctly tagged Image:Ms cart1.jpg as having no use rationale. That image is one of three on the article Massurrealism. I started a fair use review here; you might be interested to comment there. I never fixed the fair use rationale on that image because I wanted to figure out which from the three images should be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, it has no fair use rationale. It has a description, and a link to an article it is used in, but there are no rationale. Rettetast 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's why your tag is correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaah. Misunderstood. It is not often i get a notice that my tagging was correct:-) Rettetast 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said I didn't give an explanation for my fair use tag.
It's from an advertisement. I put that in. Kinda hard to miss.
- See WP:FURG. Rettetast 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper-Pak Photo
Thank you for the honor of selecting the Hyper-Pak photo as a candidate for WikiCommons. It has prompted me to assume an actual account.
All the best,
Steve
Hi, I agree with you that the explanations offered at the prior WP:PUI debate are questionable in light of the dubious nature of his recent explanations to you. Unfortunately, the editor who okayed his images at the prior WP:PUI debate is currently on Wikibreak so it's not possible to consult with him. Other options include relisting the questionable images at WP:PUI, making a note at WP:AN, or getting an admin with experience in image-related areas to review the case. Could you conduct this review yourself? I'm not sure about appropriate etiquette or process in this regard. Regards and good luck getting this issue resolved. --Muchness (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3 copyright tags isn't enough? --Simpsons fan 66 05:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. See WP:FURGand WP:NFCC#10. Rettetast 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you know, but why was the Fadead clothing company page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David616 (talk • contribs)
- See the deletion log for the reason and who that deleted it. Rettetast 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was available on wikimedia commons (Image:Secteursmarseille.JPG). The image was correctly entered on the French wikipedia page for Marseille (mais oui !) but had been incorrectly copied (without citing the wikipedia or wikimedia source) to the English WP by another editor. Although I am not the originator of this image, I patrolled the places where the first image was used and corrected the citation. I can't help feeling you were trying to make a WP:POINT, but at the expense of removing the only current map of the city of Marseille from the article. Bravo! --Mathsci (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you nominated more of the images I added on articles for deletion all because a they can be replace. This is very unfair for me considering those other pictures of living sportsmen uploaded by other editors under fair use aren't. Some of which have stayed for more than a year.
True when images are tagged for deletion because a free one can be applied, we may have the option to notify administrators how we want certain images to stay by adding a dispute and our reason. But I feel that's merely a decoration since images almost always lose the case against them. With regards to the way tagged more of my images, why are you picking on me? FoxLad (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When i find one violation I usually check if there are more. It was. If you see such images, tag them with {{subst:rfu}}, or notify me. Rettetast (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extension on this; these people think that once they've produced their promo pics and got them out there, that's it. They do not appreciate the finer points of copyright law, particularly the restrictive version of it applied by the Foundation. Whilst I am prepared to take reasonable steps to provide an image on the basis that the article is better for having one, I'm not going to bust a gut to try and find a free one. Having said that, I guarantee that if the image is deleted, I'll get an email from Annie asking where her pic has gone! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude get a life - all those images were fair use for company logos. I'm not going to waste my time explaining on the page why they conform to policy - it should be obvious to anyone with more than half a brain cell. Cheers, THE KING (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
