User talk:Abu badali/Archive2

Amack.jpeg

I have posted the requested source info and verified that Image:Amack ab.jpeg is indeed fair use under the listed conditions. I'm going to wait on reposting the image until I have confirmation that the source info is satisfactory. -->Johnnyfog

In regards to questions:

1. I went looking for examples of free use rationales and found Image:FishelDanielle.jpg. I took what I could and created the "not-for-profit derivitives" myself as a way of emphasis.

2. I won't upload any new images and will confine myself to updating source info on jpegs I've already posted until something serious happens (for example: threatened with being banned)

3. I am going to do whatever it takes to save my images from deletion because I know they are fair use and it's only the lack of an immediate URL and / or explicit permission from copyright holders that pevents them from being posted. If the image originates from a URl which allows free use and distributes it to other sites with a similar policy, I see nothing wrong with trying to clarify the source info with accurate (if flimsy) rationales. Any attempt on my part to avoid deletion should not be interpreted as trying to "cheat" the system. I have been a wiki user for less than a month and am no threat to it.

Lastly, I have been reminded four times in the last 12 hours to read the free use policies. I have done that. --->Johnnyfog

Amtam.jpeg removed

Was it really neccessary to remove ALL of my source information from the image page?? It took me an hour to accumulate it and the image wasn't even posted on any articles!

A hard day's work

Hi image cleaner and self-pronounced fair use inquisitor,

Thanks for your multiple messages. I know it's a foregone conclusion (that's what the Inquisition was like, wasn't it?), but lemme say a few words nevertheless.

Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg

You might want to talk to User:Thivierr about that picture, but why me? Are you (erroneously in any case) accusing me of violating copyright?

Image:D Koller.jpg

The title of Koller's 2006 book is "Tanz mit mir ... " Geschichten und Anekdoten aus meiner Welt der Musik. In English: "Dance with Me ... " Stories and Anecdotes from My World of Music. Well, it's a memoir. It's about her life. The Wikipedia article is also about her life. As a compromise, we could add a few lines about that particular book of hers to the article. Would the image be able to stay then?

Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG

The image description read (before you changed it):

Image of Alistair Beaton, taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use.

{{fairusein|Alistair Beaton}}

One of the few images of A Beaton available. Not a snapshot, it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes. Originally, it was an illustration of the interview printed in the Camden New Journal. The author of the image was not given.

So why do you cross out taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use and it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes and add a tag saying This image has no source information? This is absurd.

You may not have been able to "found [sic] the image on the source" [1], but do you expect an online periodical like the Camden New Journal to keep all its back issues online forever just so that "the copyright status can be verified by others"?

Don't you trust me as the uploader of the image? Do you think I'm lying about its source? Why on earth should I?

Image:T Judt.jpg

The image of Tony Judt was used "for identification and critical commentary on the [station ID or] program and its contents", because the content of the program—an interview—was Tony Judt and his work. What more can I say?

Final words

As I can see, you have removed the Hester Prynne image again, so you do believe you are the highest authority. On the other hand, the image of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, which I pointed out to you, is still there, and my corresponding question remains unanswered.

I could, up to a point, understand your fervour if you came up with a replacement photo for each image you consider illegitimate, an imageWikipedia could actually use (according to your own strict interpretation of the guidelines). That, I believe, would make your job much more interesting and productive. <KF> 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this obsession?

Thanks for your answer. I just don't believe it. You have now removed that bloody Hester Prynne image three times, from two different articles and after it was posted/put back by two different people. Now I realise you have even put it up for deletion—as if your life depended on it. I can see (a) no harm and (b) no breach of law whatsoever in keeping that stupid picture, but there's no discussion with you. I guess you'll only be satisfied once all images not taken by users themselves have been eliminated from Wikipedia and casual browers have turned their attention to web sites such as http://www.answers.com , where many of the images you are persecuting can survive. 23skidoo thinks "the days are numbered for images of any type on Wikipedia. Sad but probably true"¹, and I do wonder cui bono. Bye, <KF> 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I have to disagree with your 23skidoo friend. As I told you, I have myself uploaded a bunch of images to Wikipedia. I like images, but I prefer them free. As I told you before, it's not just about the "'harm" or "breach of law". It's about gathering free reusable information. I understand that some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable. But we shoud not abuse this.

"I prefer them free." And what about the thousands of others who may have slightly different preferences?

"Some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable." Ergo: If something is acceptable, it cannot be "abused"; abuse is ruled out per definitionem.

And from your previous message: "The source for Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG, as for any other image, must be verifiable. Otherwise, how do we know that it was [sic] "clearly been taken for promotional purposes"?" The source is verifiable. All you have to do is either travel to Camden and get hold of a copy / printout of that old issue, or electronically contact the paper. You're not seriously suggesting that all images on Wikipedia whose source reference is a dead link must be deleted? There's a phenomenon called link rot, remember? Anyway, I verified the source.

More and more, I consider this discussion a waste of my time. "Art is long, life is short". I usually find discussions with other Wikipedians enjoyable, but not this time. I apologize in advance if in future my direct replies to you will become both shorter and less frequent. <KF> 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for your attentiveness.

Thanks for doing me that BIG favor and deleting my template images. Again.

It's bureaucratic nonsense. Your perseverence is nice but it doesn't help much in the battle over copyright law if you keep dismantling my templates.

I know intellectual articles about Nietzsche and religious philosophy don't suffer much without colorful and non-ugly photos, but the trivials subjects I'm sure YOU wouldn't dare sully yourself with DO.

Do you mean to tell me that NO allegedly "copyrighted" image can be used for a template? A user-created one will get deleted just as fast for being orphaned!

At first you made me realize the errors of my ways in regards source info, but now you are becoming a nagging nuisance. Even modifications to my user page don't escape your attention.

I'm curous how you seem to monitor every move I make, NO MATTER HOW BENIGN. Police someone else! If only for a day! --->Johnnyfog

May I never cross your path again.

You irritate me.

Thanks for saying I'm an ok editor though.--->Johnnyfog

Image deletion

You have left more than ten messages on my Talk Page in the last five hours. As I clearly state in large bold letters, on my Talk and User pages, I am technically away on a Wikibreak. I have requested that people do not leave me messages requiring my response. Please do not leave messages on my Talk Page until my scheduled return in November. I have a lot going on, and I really cannot keep logging in here. Thanks. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete it

If I could arrange the immediate deletion of Image:Tidus sword.jpg, I would be very grateful. I had hoped to use it but upon realizing wiki regulations I realized my idea was not feasible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Excellent. I will remember that in the future.

I noticed some film images that are copyrighted (due to the film being unreleased or still in theaters) violate fair use. I also noticed that to bypass this, an uploader can attempt to post a smaller/lower quality version. Is this fair use? --->Johnnyfog

Perplexed

I have looked over the fair use policy, but I do not want to start uploading again because I am still not sure if I understand the rules correctly.

• 1 - Photos of an actor (for an article about that actor). In what cases do I need proof of permission (evidence) from the copyright holder to upload an image?

• 2 - How much evidence is needed?

• 3 - If I reduce the image to a version of lower quality, does that make any difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

Fashion photography

‎I see you put a {pov} tag on the fashion photography page. The criteria for inclusion on this list is having a Wiki article that discusses the photographer's work in the field. Since the criteria for notability is well-established (see WP:BIO for example), and has a self-policing mechanism (the AfD process), the list is easy to maintain. You will notice that each photographer listed does meet these criteria. Since you did not start this discussion on the talk page, I am answering you here. I'm also removing the tag, unless you want a broader discussion with other editors on the talk page. I'll look for your response here. SteveHopson 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "photograph deletion" mission

Hi, I think your time would be better spent trying to properly license images rather than simply tagging them for deletion. Dionyseus 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Little help here

You said: "Hi, Yamla. Would you have the time and willingness to help with (what I think is) a very simple issue with the potential to become a bad thing? I'm trying to have the image Image:KeiraKnightley_PridePrejudice.jpg to have a fair use rationale attached to it (as it is tagged with {{Promophoto}}, which requires one) but the best I could get from an interested user (after some reverts) was "This image will only be used for the Keira Knightley article". Do you think is this enough for a fair use rationale of a publicity photo of a living person? I believe we would benefict from a third opinion here, as the user has already cleary stated that he trully believes this rationale is enough. Thanks in advance. Best regards,"

This is not a sufficient fair-use rationale and I have tagged the image as such. I suspect the uploader simply didn't read the image description help page. A friendly warning, you've made three reverts to that image page within the past 24 hours or so, please see WP:3RR. I'm not accusing you or threatening a block or anything, just pointing out the 3RR policy. --Yamla 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although the license clearly requires a detailed fair-use rationale, I have found it causes less confusion if you leave the license in place, add a brief comment stating that the license requires a detailed fair-use rationale, then use {{fairusedisputed}} instead of {{subst:nld}}. In other news, at some point in the future, I'd like to set up a Wikipedia "group" for policing image copyright and fair-use violations. The main benefit would be to provide more standard warnings and easy-to-understand simple explanations for what people are doing incorrectly. The goal would be to ensure more editors who upload images have a better understanding of what is required. The major problem is that I don't have enough free time so this may not happen for a while yet.  :) --Yamla 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Maps?

OK, since you seem to be the resident expert on images, I have a question for you: What is the wikipedia policy about screen-captures from Google Maps? As an example, let's say I find a building I want to write an article about. The building is visible in Google Maps. Obviously, I can point to Google Maps as a link (if I can figure out how, which I haven't so far). Or, I could capture it and make a picture of it to display in the article. Presumably, their images are taken from public-domain sources, i.e. U.S. satellites. But there could be more to it. What's the rule? Wahkeenah 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy Beckley Stearns

I'm only working on de Evia at the moment, not Stearns; stick to the subject, please. Mowens35 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you will note, the USA discussion of homeopathy only goes to 1880 and then jumps to the 1950s, with nothing in between. Mowens35 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Moskowitz, MD (you really think he's important enough for a Wiki article???)

here's his online resume, which really means he's got good academic background and profession, but not really worth a Wiki article ... Mowens35 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

<copyrighted material removed>

Copyrighted material

I was merely explaining who the man is whom you thought was important for an article. He isn't. Mowens35 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the resume.

What I'd suggest is just removing it. While we could remove it from the history, we'd normally only do this when it is specifically requested. The resume would indeed be copyrighted. A fair-use rationale could, I suppose, be made that the resume is being used fairly (that is, under fair-use) to discuss someone's qualifications. But the same could be done just with a link to the page and fair-use isn't permitted in user space anyway. --Yamla 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The resume was only meant to support my contention that the subject of the resume posted online doesn't need his own article in Wiki. Ignore it otherwise. Mowens35 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kate Winslet article

I reverted your deletion of the lead image from this article on the grounds that the uploading/fair use criteria says screenshots may be used for identification of a film and/or its contents. Kate Winslet was part of the film, therefore under the strictest definition, she is a content. Also, if you are going to delete the lead image from an article, I think it's just common courtesy to provide a replacement image. 23skidoo 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, please give me your definition of "contents". Canadian Oxford Dictionary describes it as "what is contained in something". A participant in a movie is one of the contents of a movie. 23skidoo 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the question on the Fair use talk. I've quotted you, so, feel free to correct-me if I misrepresented you. --Abu Badali 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermodels

Hey!! There are alot of supermodel stubs here at wikipedia. The only non stubs seem to be the VS Angels. I was wondering if you could please help add more/edit articles of supermodels such as Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Gemma Ward, and Bianca Balti. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism

Hi! Could you disambg your link to Nihilism on your user page :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quick and yes, Thanks :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and permissions

You stated in my talk page that obtaining permission from the copyright holder is not enough to use the image on Wikipedia. I feel an explanation on this matter is required. Is Wikipedia moving towards a "free images only" policy? Also, Wikipedia states that material obtained from a press kit qualifies as fair use in the absence of a free alternative. Thus, tagging an image that is already tagged as press material / fair use for deletion doesn't seem very coherent. - antiuser 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and promptness to clear up the issue. antiuser 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

You're welcome, yes I put a lot of work in a really messy (or empty) article.

P. S. Why can Drew Barrymore's article have a main picture of fair use when she has other that is free?

Carlosr chill 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you took that photo? Where you in a helicopter? Whenever a free alternative is available, it should be used. Where's this free image of Drew Barrymore you're talking about? Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A helicopter?! NO WAY! I was in my private jet of course...

Ok, I give up, I found that image in Google, as I suppose you havee guessed by now. So what do I do? Do I just take it off the article? Or can someone erase it from Wikipedia now? Can you?

The Drew Barrymore thing was just something I read in Shakira's talk page, 'cause that's not a very flattering picture of her.

P. S. Sorry for putting this message in your user page first, I hadn't notice that it wasn't your talk page. Carlosr chill 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and good humor. We need more people like you here in Wikipedia. The best thing to do at this point is to mark the image for deletion. You can do that by adding {{Db-author}} to the image description page. Some admin will eventually notice the warning and remove the image. If you know of any free image of Drew Barrymore or Shakira (or any other celebrity), upload it to commons and add it to the relevant Wikipedia article ASAP. Thanks, --Abu Badali 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And done. I also erased it from the article. I'm sorry, it won't happen again, I just wanted a worthy picture for Xcaret (and Shakira, by the way). Guess I'll have to wait for someone to upload one of his own. But i totally understand, it's all for the well being of Wikipedia. Take care and keep going after those bad guys with copyrighted pictures!

Carlosr chill 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyonce

That's the site I got the promo picture from. It is a promo pic, but Sony must have released it. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Many sites have the same promo picture. I got it from that one. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster says on the site, "I've added a new B'Day promo picture. Click on the image to check it out." [[2]] [[http: //www.elwico.pl/~quasar/bee/galeria/bday_promo/in.html]]

Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to contact the webmaster and ask the orginial source of the photo. I will get back to you in a two days. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SEGA's images

Hello. Please leave me alone. I just got a barrage of messages questioning the validity of the images I have uploaded. They are ALL fair use, and I spent time discussing several of these images with Wikipedia administrators before uploading. There must be something more productive you can focus your attention on. There's plenty to do here on Wikipedia.

Thanks - SEGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEGA (talk • contribs)

Why did you edit my personal user page without a note?

Please do not edit my personal user page, particularly without a note. Frankly, its rude. If you have an issue with something that is 100% fine and even encouraged, however I ask that you please use the discussion page. Thats what it is there for afterall. If you are at all academically consistent you will please follow the rules set forth in the WP: FUC guidelines under non-compliance. Simply putting a tag on the history page is insufficient to be considered notification. Additionally, you did not even solicit my acknoledgement of the issue. I would appreciate a note so please notate my discussion page accordingly. You simply should not edit without informing the user of a good reason, and certainly NOT A PERSONAL USER PAGE. Thank you in advance. --Tbkflav 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

After re-reading my comments above and on my user page I realized I had written it when I was a little hot under the collar...put it this way, it had been a bad day! In any event I have removed the inflammatory comments from my user page after a quick note from Shadow1 and re-reading the comments myself...I could definitely see how they would be interpreted as a personal attack. While my original intent was not to launch a personal attack but to question why the image was removed, as well as to highlight the value of notation before changing something, the reality was that the comments were not professional and overly intense. You did have a valid point according to the WP:FUC policy (point 9) and that has been noted. As a new user, I am still familiarizing myself with the various WP policies and this event highlights their importance. If I recall correctly the image appeared to be fair game at the time and didn't seem to be protected work, hence my use. I probably wouldn't have cared if the change had been made to an article I had contributed to or written rather than my user page. If a note had been left as to why, the point would have been moot. In any event, thank you for posting a note later on and for taking my abuse in stride! The good thing is we learned something: For me, it’s not to go off half cocked, and to be a bit more vigilant with respect to image use. For you, it’s to post a note prior to changing a user page. Take care, and best wishes for continued success. --Tbkflav 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

vocalgroup is not spam, but an official foundation

And they seem to have changed their URL, so 68.64.226.198 corrected the non functioning URL which were already present. KittenKlub 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC

Hello again, Abu badali! I responded to your request on WP:AN/I yesterday regarding User:Tbkflav's personal attack against you. The user has agreed to remove the section, however, they brought up another interesting point: You didn't notify them before removing the image. This isn't a problem, but, in the future, please give users a heads-up when you remove an image from their page. Thanks! Shadow1 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

fotos

Já que sua lingua materna é o portugues e na sua aba diz ser do Brasil, prefiro escrever nesta lingua onde posso me expressar melhor. Eu não entendi a sua mensagem. Porque riscou as fontes? Disse que é um fan site? claro, e um dos oficiais, o maior da França. Qual o problema ali? todas as fotos sobre o universo de James Bond tem como fonte original, estejam elas no site que estiverem, nas revistas ou jornais que estiverem, a EON e a MGM, as duas empresas detentoras do copyright sobre tudo referente a James Bond. Por sinal, este copyright está devidamente especificado nas fotos. Todas as fotos sobre este universo que estejam na Wiki ou em qualquer site da net são copyright da EON, mas provavelmente nenhuma é retirada de seu proprio site, já que a produtora distribui as fotos para divulgação pelo mundo todo, tem em diversos lugares, dentro e fora da net. São fotos de legitimo fair-use, são feitas para isso mesmo.

O que deseja que eu faça afinal? A fonte é a que coloquei, e ela recebe ou coleta da fonte matriz, digamos,assim que é a EON/MGM (produtoras dos filmes). Não só este site, mas qualquer site, qualquer revista, jornal ou livro, tem sua fonte de imagens na EON/ MGM que as distribui para todos, mesmo que as recebam de intermediarios , é divulgação, interesse deles, certo? Exatamente o famoso "promotional" do fair use aqui.

Ok, você não precisa entender disto, mas acho que dei aí a explicação sobre o fato. O que posso fazer ali? Colocar duas fontes, a fonte de onde carreguei e a fonte matriz? Se escrever em portugues fica mais facil para mim. Até Machocarioca 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Vou continuar no portugues porque meu ingles é basico e não conseguiria escrever isso tudo que disse em ingles sem parecer que eu tivesse uns 5 anos de idade. Se fosse umas frases rapidas podia ser, mas para falar tudo isso não dá. :-)

Não Abu, o material de divulgação da EON/MGM não "pode ser" autorizado para esse ou aquele veiculo, não é assim que funciona a promoção e divulgação de filmes. É press kit para qualquer veiculo de informação interessado em Bond. É interesse deles ou de qualquer produtora de filme.

Como te falei, esse site é o principal em francês. Ouros sites tipo esse, como jamesbondinternacionalfansite, commanderbond, chittychittybangbang, mi6.co.uk, por exemplo, são praticamente braços propagandisticos da EON. Tem mais, atualmente, o material de promoção de filmes é praticamente todo digital, vai direto em CD, DVD ou disquete para os interessados, mas o material de filmes mais antgos da serie, o press kit, era em fotos mesmo, claro. As fotos que marcou são dos anos 70,80, esse material vinha originalmente em papel mesmo, pouca coisa deles , ou nada, tem no proprio site da EON. Dos anos 90 para trás nada disso tem no site oficial da EON. Se formos criar caso com todas as fotos do mundo Bond que não sejam do site oficial, amigo, vamos tirar praticamente todas e acabar com a parte Bond, que é otima, da Wiki. Tudo é de intermediarios mesmo, mas tudo material de promoção saído da EON/MJM.

Bom, o que vou fazer ali é o seguinte: colocar de novo a fonte com a inscrição licensed by EON/MGM ao lado. E faço a tag de fair use rationale embaixo, ok para vc? Machocarioca 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

All images you marked as "orphaned" are in theis respective aerticles, ther's something wrong here. ?!?! Machocarioca 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Ah, agora entendi, foi vc mesmo que as retirou? A questão é, se ler direito, esses screenshots estão em lugares do texto em que a narrativa está exatamente falando sobre o que está na foto. E acho que isso ajuda sim e muito a wiki, que como enciclopeda, deve ser rica mesmo em imagens e pelo que li na sua aba, vc mesmo diz que sem fair use não conseguiriamos fazer isso, só com material livre, é impossivel.

Bom, vou dar um tempinho de subir fotos de fair use para ilustrar artigos, daqui uns dias coloco elas de novo, menos talvez. Mas sempre que tem muito texto descrevendo um filme procuro colocar alguma pra ilustrar. De qualquer maneira vou tirar eeses teus tags de orphaned da minha aba de usuario, porque elas não tem nada de orfãs, vc q as tirou. :-) Em uns dias coloco algumas de novo. Estou trabalhando nisso aqui e acho que dou um upgrade no visual dos artigos.Machocarioca 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Concordo, mas como te disse, se vc prestar atenção lá, elas são informativas, estão exatamente na parte do texto que fala das cenas que elas mostram. Eu tenho cuidado com isso , onde e o que coloco e com o melhor visual que podem ficar, pequeno, escoltando o texto, apenas isso. Nunca vai me ver colocando foto enorme aqui, é apenas um ponto de apoio visual dentro do artigo. Tenho tanto apreço pela Wiki qto vc. Vou dar um tempo de colocar mais, as q estão, vou deixar algumas ficar, ajudam o artigo em si e qdo vc reverteu acabou revertendo junto os posters lead, que são os oficiais, historicos e substituiram os que os caras puseram de capa de dvd, que nao tem nada a ver. Vou diminuir o numero em Shakespeare Apaixonado e Good Will Hunting. As Good as it Gets so tem uma. Abraço Machocarioca 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Abu, vejo que reverteu novamente as tags das fotos. Me parece isso pura implicancia Abu, já que 90% de todas as fotografias colocadas na Wikipedia, com relação a todos os assiuntos e talvez 100% de toda e qualquer ilustração sobre cinema, qualquer filme, não veem das fontes originais pois isso é impossivel.

Como vejo que essa posição é uma interpretação sua e a minha é diferente e nossas opiniões valem o mesmo por aqui, gostaria que me mostrasse onde, nas regras da wikipedia-en, está escrito o que colocou ali:a fansite is not an original source for promotional material. Estando isso impresso, considero uma regra ,portanto não cabe discussão. Se não estiver escrito, é sua interpretação e me considero no direito de discordar e trocar as tags.

É importante que me mostre onde está escrito essa regra, porque Jimmy Walles terá que mandar retirar metade das fotos por aqui, já que ninguem a cumpre, nem nenhum admnistrador jamas cobrou nada sobre isso, só vc, tornando tudo uma visão pessoal sua, que não pode se sobrepor a visão pessoal de qualquer outro usuario, a menos que estabelecida em votação da comunidade. AbraçosMachocarioca 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

seu chato

não contribuo mais também pfffffffff

Images

Think you could find replacement pictures for those uploaed images of mine that you saw fit for removal due to their their "irrelevance" by Wiki standards (as you've so effortlessly managed to do). Thanks. --User talk:ChuckyDarko 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Copying message wrongly left on my user page

Toda imagem na Wikipédia precisa ...

Toda imagem na Wikipédia precisa da informacão da origem para que se conheça o detentor dos copyrights e o copyright status da imagem. Vc escreveu isso, e é exatamente a informação que dou nas tags, qual é a origem, quem é o detentor do copyright, ora. Não consigo entender qual o problema. Todos sabem qual é, não sei qual é a diferença para voce nisso.

Qualquer imagem do mundo Bond, já lhe disse, o copyright é EON/MGM, não importa onde se pegue. Qualquer foto de astronauta americano em foto oficial, de homens na Lua, de sondas, é da NASA, não importa onde se pega. é freecopyright. De Bond, é copyright EON/MGM. Todas as fotos de posters de filmes, ou cenas de filmes colocadas na Wiki são copyright da produtora, peguem onde pegarem, este é o detentor dos direitos, sempre. Não entendo qual seu problema em entender isso, Abu.Machocarioca 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

A Wilhelm Scream

FUC #1 doesn't apply, as there is no free alternative to this image. If you have a free image that is not inferior to the one we have, feel free to replace it. However removing it altogether does no good to the Wikipedia.  Grue  17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Grue on this one. Stop fighting over this; next person to revert from anyone without a discussion will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fab Five Freddy

Not sure what kind of links you are expecting, the an is about 10+ years older then the picture now and as such finding a link to a press pack from so long ago would be quite difficult. --User:Zer0faults 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Unspecified source for Image:MosepBinneed.jpg

You posted a message on my talk page about the above image. It doesn't appear this image exists anymore at the site. I'll see what I can do to find a suitable replacement. Thanks for pointing this out. Dmoon1 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Second WP:FUC issue

I've left the user in question a notice to remove the fair-use images. Thanks for letting me know. Shadow1 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Callisto

Please, just leave it alone. It's an old show, and there's no way to find the original source now.

It seems all your edits are just removing images or finding ways to get them removed. Its not like Universal Studio’s is going to sue Wikipedia because it has an image of Callisto on her wikipedia article. --DrBat 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But finding the site I got it from wouldn't be good enough for you, because you want the original source.

Again, it seems all your edits are just removing images. And is it just me, or are going after all my edits now? --DrBat 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous. What, do you think Universal Studios will sue Wikipedia because there's an image of Callisto on her article?

Why is it all your edits are just removing images and trying to get them deleted?--DrBat 01:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that all your edits are trying to get images deleted (and I'm not the only one to get annoyed by it, as evidenced by the other complaints in your talk page). --DrBat 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

FYI, 3RR goes both ways. You've violated it as well. --DrBat 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

LMZ00 has placed negative comments on my talk page. And I would like this to be stop. Could you do something about this? See here below:

Are you retarded or something? Seriously. And out of curiosity, what's the highest level of education you've completed? :) Lmz00 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:LILVOKA"

Fine, FINE! In the future, I'll try and be more patient with [individuals of lower intelligence] such as yourself and [that other fellow]. Thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day! :D Lmz00 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Lmz00"

Fine, FINE! In the future, I'll try and be more patient with morons such as yourself and LILVOKA. Thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day! :D

The Results of an Edit War

The Results of an Edit War! Thanks LILVOKA 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified Sources

I'm sorry I tagged the images Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg and Image:Allison Mack1.jpg in corectly. I'll tag them with {{Non-free fair use in}} and there should be no problem. Ivan Kricancic 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen in the Smallville articles, many of the images come from "Kryptonsite.com." If I upload new images from that site, will it be ok? Ivan Kricancic 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've just emailed Kryptonsite asking for permission on the use of images from their site, and they said it would be fine; and I've also added links to Kryptonsite on those image pages, as they said to do this. I hope that clears things up. Thank you for your assistance in this matter; it was greatly appreciated that you showed me how to properly upload images. Ivan Kricancic 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll keep that in mind. Again, thanks.Ivan Kricancic 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, those seem to be promotional images of the actors/actresses, so it should be considered fair use.Ivan Kricancic 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The images are fair use for the purposes of displaying the items in question

They are from a proper source and they do have a rationale. I don't see why you feel the need to go on a one man killing spree of all fair use images on wikipedia. The images con form to all conditions of the fair use tag so they should not be deleted.

I've noticed you've had some conflicts about images before. You are not the highest authority on everything, so don't pretend to be. Kryptonsite is a proper source; besides that, it is a promotional site. Furthermore, for the fair use tag, I have written a rationale on each image page. These images are fair use and they should stay. If you have a problem with them, which you shouldn't, then upload some images that you believe are proper.

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit uncivil earlier (I was writing at 3.00 in the morning). Anyway, I consulted some other wikipedians and they think the images should stay and that they have a good rationale for fair use. I hope this ends the matterIvan Kricancic 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they should stay as well. Dionyseus 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Evelina Papantoniou4.jpg

Hi Abu badali,

The Image:Evelina Papantoniou4.jpg is a generic picture from a Greek magazine which was several years old that I scanned and have been using as my wallpaper picture for my desktop. There was no copyright tag on it which is why you do not see one on the picture. So trying to find a "source" for it when one does not exist is kind of useless. Regards. Mallaccaos 20 September 2006

In that case, we cannot use the image. The copyright holder must be identified, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy does not permit using images from the inside of a magazine solely to depict the person illustrated. --Yamla 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakur image

How come the shakur image was not free? It's been on the shakur article for over a year now?...please don't say you hate shakur? :O:O..Bosoni

I will return it 4 now. Peace Bosoni

If you want to remove the picture of pac which has by the way been on wikipedia for a long time, you will have to find a good substitute. Bosoni

Reply

Not that its any of your business, but they were archived, your last message however will be removed because it is redundant, thanks! - Deathrocker 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:NedLamont; I didn't upload the original image

I wasn't the one who uploaded the original image. I had to upload a new version because someone photoshopped it with the KKK. I just used the source previously listed on the page. What am I supposed to do? mirageinred 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your reply. It still upsets me because he is a prominent politician and I also happen to admire him. Oh well. mirageinred 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. mirageinred 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

Hello, Abu badali. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: thanks for caring

Of course, most of my out-of-control tantrums in reaction to notices are mostly tongue in cheek and I do not really hold any bad feeling toward you either. I am hoping to improve as an editor and fight off clunky articles with a stick, like the rest of you stalwart administrators. Anyway, I think the point is to be as tidy as possible but still have fun doing it.

It's still too bad about that Fairuza Balk photo. But I'm moving past it. Really. UURRRGGGHH!!!

• phew* Later then, Johnnyfog

Fair use

Given that you are the one who reverted me, I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply to my remark at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Lead section. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:BipashaBasu.jpg

I deleted the image. -Nv8200p talk 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read licenses

I can understand the need to remove unsourced licenses, but when WP:ACP causes more work for us it's always NOT appreciated. Re: read the licence. Thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I just prefer to err on the side of keeping the images :) Btw, there is a discrepancy between Sejm licences here and on Commons (if it's fair use, it can't be on Commons...). I raised the issue with a Commons admin who knows more about Polish licences then I do. One more problem to solve... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did

Yes, the images that I tagged as created by myself were created by myself. - Ivan Kricancic 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete the fair use images I uploaded, fair enough, but leave the images that I created myself alone. I created them myself and I release them into the public domain. - Ivan Kricancic 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was not created in 1962! I created this image. And as for the part where it says "I'm using that picture with permission" - that was for a different image I was going to upload, but then I instead created an image myself so I would not have to go through a big argument again. As it stands, I created those images. Ivan Kricancic 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The tags are not wrong. And I did not just take a picture of a picture. Stop harrassing me. If you are angry that I argued with you over fair use, fine, but these images were in fact created by me!! Ivan Kricancic 12:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me! I did not remove legitimate messages, I removed what I believe is an unfair attack on me by you. Please stop harrassing me, tehre are betetr things in this world to do. - Ivan Kricancic 14:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What I did to gain access to this image, was I actually left the house, went and talked my priest who owns the document, and then explained to him about the use of the image. He said it was ok with him to use a picture of the document, and then he went on to say that most Church publications aren't copyrighted anyway. - Ivan Kricancic 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Lion Tamarin pic=

Hello Abu, read the picture´s file history to check the source. Well, anyway, here´s the source information again: Jessie Cohen, NZP photographer http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/PhotoGallery/SmallMammals/ further information about copyright: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/copyright/default.cfm

Best regards Exlibris 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing "legitimate" messages

Hello, Abu. My Talk page is, as everything in my User space, my property, so I'd like to ask you not to question my removal of the needlessly verbose template-generated messages you have flooded my page with. Don't question etiquette when you, yourself, appear to lack them. All of the images in question were uploaded back when there was no strict control of image tagging and sourcing, and really, I cannot trace back images which I found on Google years ago, so they will likely get auto-deleted.

Your human-written messages will never get deleted from my page, but no, I will not change my position regarding template-generated messages. --Sn0wflake 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mind you posting the templates, as a matter of fact, thanks for the work you are doing for the Wiki. What I mind is you cricticizing me for deleting entries which I feel I have absolutely no way of fixing... from my own talk page. --Sn0wflake 04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me to stop removing legitimate messages from my talk page; It is my talk page, and if I feel those messages are illegitimate, I will delete them. Besides, you removed a message from your talk page - a so called 'personal attack'. Put it back and I will stop removing your illegitimate messages. Now, leave me alone. - Ivan Kricancic 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinserting personal attack at user request

The following text was added to my talk page by User:Ivan Kricancic and later removed, as a courtesy, by User:Meegs. I'm now reinserting the text after a [request from User:Ivan Kricancic.

You know it's true

The only reason you tagged those three images for deletion was because I kept fighting your stupid thoughts on why you think those other images aren't fair use!! You only do things like this to make youself feel big, to frustrate otehres, to get your edit count up, to suck up to administrators so you can become one and becuase you have no life! Seriously, I'm just gonna not bother fighting these deletions anymore (so just get someone to delete them now, as I'm not gonna argue) because i actually have a life besides Wikipedia, and I know there is always going to be dickhead like you who have nothing betetr to do than revert the hard work of others! You know it's true. Go fuck yourself!! P.S - I bet you'll go cry to an amin about this "uncivility"! You are a pussy with no life! - Ivan Kricancic 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'll revert my talk page. - Ivan Kricancic 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vigilance

Hi, just wanted to commend you for your vigilance in keeping wikipedia free of copyright violating images Nil Einne 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jk beatles george.jpg

I can't remember why I uploaded this image, but have a feeling it was because it was accidentally deleted or something. As such I'm not sure where it comes from. Sorry. Evil Monkey - Hello 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Greenday_Mud.png and Image:Aimovie.jpg

Hi, Scrumshus. Do you know who created theses images and theirs copyright status? The "source information" you provided was only a direct link to a jpg scan of a magazine's page, where no info on it's creator and copyright status could be found.

And please not that the {{Magazinecover}} tag is not appropriate for this images, as they are not magazine covers being used in articles about the magazine issues. Thanks, --Abu Badali 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there an image tag that says something like "This image is in a magazine article" or something? Because the cover thing was the closest I could find. As for the creator, wouldn't the magazine editor be? I'll add that.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this link says that the photographer is Adrian Callaghan. Is he the copyright holder? If so, then what tag should I attach to the image?  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The link that I gave you says "Adrian Callaghan" on the side of the photo, and means that he took all of the photos for that article.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 15:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't spam my talkpage

Do not spam my talkpage with your nonsense and blanking images with sources provided. - Deathrocker 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you once, I will not ask you again. You are no longer welcome to edit my talkage, keep your spam off my talkpage, and stop vandalising image sources. - Deathrocker 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Wilson_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilson_logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking for image deletion

To answer your question here, to ask for the removal of an image you uploaded (and are the solely contributor), just place {{db-author}} on the image description page. Let me know if you run into any problems. --Abu Badali 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the tag. Thank you. - King Ivan 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Rosenbaum image from Urban Legends

I'm just going to delete my last tantrum for vanity's sake. But oh I hate you so very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

I still have to figure out whose quote is this (this is a quotation, isn't it? I hope it is!!! :) ). For the history's sake, I'd like to registry the above user was talking about these editions. --Abu Badali 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for that AB. You rule. *loads shotgun*... --User:Johnnyfog

Image:Lois03.jpg

I recieved the press kit via email. —scarecroe 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Lex Smallville.jpg

Oh Abu Badali, you are such a pain in the proverbial.

I went to the CW site to get a season six Lex pic that wouldn't be tainted by fansites "which are not sources for promotional material!".

Why on earth not????

But I digress. Yes, it is a promotional image. Why, are there stricter standards for promotional material? Or another classification that I don't know about? Because as far as I know, TV images fit into 2 categories: screenshots and press kits. But then I only started editing last month. --User:Johnnyfog 09:12, 10.3.06

I'm tired of your cruel tutelage, you...you...you BAD PERSON!

Anyway, in that last case the image came directly from the network's site, but there was no explicit permission for fair use. Luckily I think posting an image on a webpage that promotes the show more than meets fair use. No more images from fansites then, I guess. *sigh* ----User:Johnnyfog 12:57, 10.4.06

Apologies, the photo has changed since I last visited that URL. I'm sure I can find it with a google search. ----User:Johnnyfog

I'm not sure what you mean by new image. Once my morale is back, I'm going to seek out a screenshot of Lex to avoid complication. The Buffy character pages recently had to do the same thing. -----User:Johnnyfog 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What's this? Vigilant fair use enforcer Abu Badali got an image warning?? STINGS, DOESN'T IT?!!----User:Johnnyfog

Image tagging for Image:Nauticon.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Nauticon.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringment?

How is Image:Greendayk.jpg a copyright violation? It's a promotional image, I have the source plus the source is a an accurate place of Green Day's promotional material. It's on thier own site!! How is this copyright infringment?  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also...

I dont get why Image:Bille_joe_armstrong,_from_1991.jpg has no source info. (which it does) and Image:Jk_beatles_paul.jpg does. They are both photos from the seperate band's albums. They both have the same copyright tag. And yet the Green Day image has no source, while the Pual McCartney has perfect legitibility. ??? They're both basically from the same source, with the same copyright. Both of them have the correct tags, but one of them is going to be deleted while the other stays with no controversy. Please, make some sense out of this to me.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chowderhead...

That's not a racial slur by the way...I just wanted to say that you're being a little to loose with your copy vio warnings. You recently gave me one for my Rachel Mcadams picture that I uploaded awhile ago, which clearly has source information AND a fair use rationale. I'm going to take the warning off the picture page and also off of my user talk page. Actually while I'm writing this I'm getting the feeling that you're just trolling anyways so whatever. --SweetNeo85 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Being on senate.gov implies PD?

Being on the senate.gov website does not necessarily make it public domain. On the other hand, I don't know that it is not in the public domain and he has more evidence to support it then I do to deny it. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I would have to give that tagging the benefit of the doubt. -Regards Nv8200p talk 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tony Moore.jpg

You have removed the licensing tag I added to this image. Please replace it. I have an email from Tony Moore, the copyright holder, giving permission for this image of himself, taken from his website, to be released into the public domain in order for it to be used in his wikipedia entry. What is the correct procedure for providing proof in these circumstances? Jud 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The actual wording of the request to the copyright holder was as follows. I specifically mentioned that they would be made available for unrestricted use.

Hi Tony,

Would it be possible for you to provide some non-copyright photos for use on your entry in Wikipedia? The photos on your page keep being deleted as the copyright is unknown.

Any photos used would have to be made available for unrestricted use to conform with Wikipedia's policies so the permission of the copyright holder is necessary.

His reply was:

Hi Jude

www.tony-moore.com

There are lots of pics there and you have my permission to use them..

does that help?

All the best T

I can supply a copy of this email to wikipedia permissions.org if necessary. Jud 00:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure he is aware of the meaning of the term "unrestricted use", however I have emailed him with a request for additional confirmation that this image can be placed in the public domain. Jud 01:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam Jone III

That was a good compromise on moving the image out of the infobox. Should we do that to the Allison Mack article? - King Ivan 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I think this new one is better, as the other one has a WB watermark on it. I'm gonna go ahead and change the pic, ok. Thanks. - King Ivan 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to get back to you, I had a bit of work to do. Anyway, yes I'll agree to the compromise. On Chloe Sullivan's article, I think this one uploaded by Rts freak is the best, and you can nominate the other ones for deletion. So now it's nomination for deletion can be withdrawn. Thank you, I'm glad we cleared this up. Have a good day! - King Ivan 07:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi. I am not sure whether you can help me with this but your help would be appreciated. This is about your recent edits to the promotional images of Prison Break characters. Given the source is provided for a known promotional image, is it not sufficient that a fair use rationale is also provided since the terms of use says that you can "download material from this Site for your own use and you must keep all copyright and other proprietary notices attached to the downloaded material". I know it does say "the reproduction, duplication, distribution (including by way of email, facsimile or other electronic means), publication, modification, copying or transmission of material from this Site is strictly prohibited unless you have obtained the prior written consent of FOX" but the utilisation of the image in Wikipedia isn't really any of those things. This also concerns images downloaded from Yahoo!. Doesn't a fair use rationale provide an explanation that this is not for commercial use? If it is prohibited, does this mean we have to remove all the images downloaded from these sites, because that's a lot of images since all television network sites has similar terms of use (like FOX, CBS and ABC)? I am asking you this because a lot of images from TV show articles are downloaded from these sites. Also, is this copyright issue covered in Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images doesn't really say anything specific. Thank you, Ladida 08:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. So should we remove those images or leave them? The other thing is they are used everywhere or I've come across many of them during my perusal of television show articles. Anyway, thanks again for your explanation. :) Ladida 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing good work in enforcing WP:FUC, I salute you with the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. It's totally absurd and contentious to have to fight against people who think fair use is a tool to wield around at will. Hbdragon88 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bow tie

Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted NN porn star bio

Why, yes it was. Good catch!

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Re: Removing images warnings

Taking a look while cleaning up CSD it looks like the images are used solely in the players bio and as such, would fit under fairuse -- Tawker 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to - however if you're going to csd them again, please orphan them. Images in CSD that are not orphaned have a tendancy not to get deleted -- Tawker 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Promotional images

Greetings. I appreciate the work you've been doing with promotional images. This is certainly the most abused type of fairuse image. But I would respectfully submit that you're focusing on the wrong thing. You seem to be nominating for deletion images that are tagged {{promotional}}, but that do not fit the definition as being released by a press kit. There is value in that, but I'd like to draw your attention to a much more serious (and related) problem: "replaceable" images.

For instance, today you nominated these two images for deletion, since they are not actually promotional in nature and did not come from a press kit. This is true. But it is possible that they could still be used under a {{Non-free fair use in}} tag (although that's debatable). On the other hand, I nominated for deletion about a hundred photos uploaded by User:Marc Lacoste which were also tagged {{promotional}}. His photos actually were promotional, and came from press kits -- however, we can not use the images under our fair use criteria, since anyone could take a photo of the objects in question and release the photo under a free license. The problem with these images is not that the {{promotional}} tag was used, but that the images were used at all.

Could I interest you in working with me to get rid of replaceable "promotional" images? The Category:Promotional images has thousands of images in it, many (most?) of which should be deleted.

Thanks, and all the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Quadell. Thanks for you message. Indeed, I usually just report image problems as I stumble upon them, not really focusing in one kind of violation. These two images you mentioned, for instance, came to my attetion because the articles they are being use in is a featured article candidate. By the time I first looked at this article, it was almost passing the FAC with still about 7 or 8 problematic images (most of them were deleted). The article got completly cleaned up (at which time I removed my opposition to its FAC) but latter this two images got added (and some free images removed!) (at which point I readded my opposition to its FAC).

I accept you invitation to try to cleanup the Category:Promotional images category from FUC#1 violations. I'll be taking a look at this category.

Also, I would like to suggest a different approach for this violaitions. We could have something like a {{fair use raplaceble}} template, that would put the image on a [[Category:fair use raplaceble]] category, where it could be deleted on spot by admins. Orphanbot could be used to help us to remove the images from the articles. What do you think of this approach? And if you like it, how hard do you think it would be for us to put this in pratice?

Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I guess giving a week would be a good idea. I've created Template:Replaceable fair use for this purpose, and I was hoping it would work sort-of like Template:No copyright holder or Template:No rationale. To this end, I also created Category:Replaceable fair use images and its subcategories, and Template:Replaceable fair use disputed if there is disagreement. The only problem now is how to get the date-specific subpages created. I guess those will have to be done by hand. I'm not sure how that's done on the others. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, {{replaceable fair use}} already does that. Just type {{subst:replaceable fair use}}, and it fills in the current month and day. (You can also type {{replaceable fair use|month=October|day=13}} if you prefer, and it works too.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots/Film promos

Hi Abu Badali, it has been accepted practice to use these film promotional images in biographies of actors and in film articles - many articles using such images have been featured. A film company would also claim all rights reserved for a screenshot made by a user so we have to make a fair use claim on the images by only using them in conjunction with critical commentary (as laid out in fair use law). Regards Arniep 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your interpretation no screenshots of actors' appearances in film or TV would be permitted on their article pages. Can you link to somewhere where such a discussion has taken place agreeing that this has been accepted as policy? Thanks Arniep 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also you say the image is "clearly not promotional". On the contrary, it has been released to the public to promote the films and by extension, the actors shown in the images. Regards Arniep 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for removing the image from CV as I thought this was somewhat resolved (it is usually me puttng them on there!). As I said your rationale would seem to bar all such images from actors pages which has certainly not been the normal practice up to now. The image is being used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" - I will move the commentary further up to make this clear. Regards Arniep 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have now found a free image which I am using at the top. The screenshot is accompanied by critical commentary. Regards Arniep 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Welling & Kristin Kreuk

Hello Abu. You should keep a watch on the articles Tom Welling & Kristin Kreuk because people keep putting on non free images from dubious sources on those articles, and gettign rid of the single screenshot that was agreed on. Look at this example of one of the images; it states that the image is in teh public domain because the author has been dead for 100 years, but Welling has not even been alive for 30 years. i thought I'd report this to you because you are good with images. Thanks! - King Ivan 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, Jenalexia and especially Alphabetagamnma have been the main offenders. I hope you can help. Thanks! - King Ivan 09:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for a quick response. I don't usually tag images for deletion, because I'm not sure of the propper tags and procedures. Anyway, on a different topic, I don't think I've done this yet, but I feel I should: Abu, I wholeheartedly apologise for my ridiculous personal attack on you a few weeks ago. It was immature, wrong, untrue, detrimental to Wikiepdia and offensive. I now realise that you are only helping Wikiepdia, and I hope you keep up the good work! Again, I apologise for past grievances, and I hope you can accpet my apology. - King Ivan 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy images

Hi

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

I just realised that you probably read the examples it gives as

"advertising material [in a press kit] or a promotional photo in a press kit".

In fact it means "such as advertising material [in a press kit or not] or a promotional photo in a press kit".

Wikipedia itself says gives 2 examples of promo photos:

1. advertising material
2. promotional photo in a press kit.

The Buffy images are the former, and are unrepeatable. I have added another comment at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 October 13/Images about the Buffy images, in summary it says that I believe we are all wasting our time by spending efforts on these images when they should not have the copyright vio tag on because they already have an adequate fair use rationale. Only images without the justified fair use rationale are supposed to get these copyright vio tags. Have you considered letting these images be used without putting the tag back on, and saving us some time. If you believe these images are not fair use, then perhaps IfD is a more appropiate forum for you to take these images to. -- Buffyverse 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 October 13/Images in full:

You are right there are promotional images that come in press kits, but there are also promotional images which are used to advertise things (whether these images come in a press kit or not). These images promote a product. The Buffy images promote the Buffy DVD sets (seasons 1 and 5). That is why Wikipedia says that promtional images can be "advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit."

I just looked at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promotional to better understand the definition of promote/promotional. I have bolded the relevant sections below.

promotional, (adjective)

1 The act of promoting or the fact of being promoted; advancement.

2 Encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something; furtherance.

3 Advertising; publicity.

promote (Dictionary.com Unabridged)

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote).

3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.

4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings).

5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity.

6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle.

promote (American Heritage Dictionary)

1 To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.

2 To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.

3 To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.

4 To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

5 To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.

6 To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

promote (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

1 to cause or contribute to the growth, development, or occurrence of <drugs which promote menstruation>

promote (WordNet)

1: contribute to the progress or growth of; "I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom" [syn: advance, boost, further, encourage]

2: give a promotion to or assign to a higher position; "John was kicked upstairs when a replacement was hired"; "Women tend not to advance in the major law firms"; "I got promoted after many years of hard work" [syn: upgrade, advance, kick upstairs, raise, elevate] [ant: demote]

3: make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops" [syn: advertise, advertize, push]

4: be changed for a superior chess or checker piece 5: change a pawn for a king by advancing it to the eighth row, or change a checker piece for a more valuable piece by moving it the row closest to your opponent

promotional images (Wikipedia)

advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

I appreciate the job Abu badali is doing by cleaning up the use of images on Wikipedia but these Buffy images are promotional (whether they are in press kits or not - which they may well be anyway) & have justified rationales for fair use, making the copyrightvio tag inappropiate. I feel that by adding these tags when they should not be added, everyone's time (especially mine, Abu badali's and Paxomen's) is being wasted when it could be used to improve Wikipedia elsewhere. Please consider accepting the use of these images under Fair Use (making Fox's web site blanket 'Terms of Use' irrelevant).

-- Buffyverse 23:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rachel McAdams in Wedding Crashers.jpg

I'm confused as to why you added the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag to the image in question. Many featured articles on actors use a screenshot from a well-known film that they have appeared in; why should this be any different for Rachel McAdams? Also, as stated in the fair use rationale: "No free or public domain images have been located for this actress..." and therefore, this image's use appears appropriate. If you have other issues with the rationale and/or something else, leave me a message on my talk page or the image's talk page. Thanks. Never Mystic (tc) 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't where an unfree image is, I can't replace the one currently at Rachel McAdams. Never Mystic (tc) 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Menchaca Image

Thanks for bringing Image:Menchaca.jpg to my attention. The file was uploaded a while ago and I can't recall where I got the image. Usually when I screw up, OrphanBot catches it shortly after it's uploaded and I can remember where it's from. I'm sure it was done by a soldier while on duty, making it public domain but I still can't recall where it's from or who took the photo. I will do some searching to find the source or if I am unsuccessful, find a free alternative image. I try hard to upload images properly without violating copyright laws so I will get back to you if maybe it should deleted or speedied. Dark jedi requiem 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable fair use images

FYI, the instructions there point to {{nsd}}, which is of course wrong. Do we have a similar template for the new replaceable img deletion scheme? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

done - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tags

Hi, I'm very concerned about your edits. You've tagged so many images that it will have a large impact on Wikipedia's coverage of Canadian politicians. Why can't we replace these images as we get pictures to replace them with? That will save a lot of trouble, considering how much work people have put in to uploading these photos. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As Wikipedians, we are told to be bold, and so for a bold encyclopedia, and for a complete encyclopedia, we should have all of our MPs at least with pictures. There have been people replacing the photos with ones they took, but it is a slow process, but in the mean time, photos should still be on their pages. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazy!? Do you know how difficult it is to get "free" pictures of some people? I have to say, I vehemently disagree with Mr. Wales on this issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and fairuse images should be used when necessary to illustrate subjects of articles who would otherwise not have pictures. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging Replaceable Fair Use

Hi... can you please stop tagging beauty queen images (e.g. Image:MagenEllis.gif with Replaceable Fair Use tags at least until I can set up a page disputing your inclusion of this and the issue can be discussed? Just a friendly request so I am not forced to edit hundreds of pages! I am going to respond at User:PageantUpdater/Use of Images asap. Thanks... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have replied on User:PageantUpdater/Use_of_Images. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Claudia Christian

Why are you on this campaign to remove seemingly all pictures from articles about people? Do you want wikipedia to have no images at all? Either all pictures will be amateur or there will be none unless we accept some useable but not copyright free pictures. This images is a good example it is not free it is copywrited but it is usable on Wikipedia

1. It is specifically authorised by Zard productions (Zard Productions is Claudia Christian's Production Compnay) as a promotional photograph
2. I (^Jaster) emailled Zard productions to ask permission and they replied that there was no problem with using it in connection with this article Claudia Christian ^Jaster 07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So we can use it on Wikipedia but it is not free .... the only alternative is a screenshot from a movie or TV program (also not free), or an amateur snapshot of poor quality?

Again why are you obsessed with free images... I want a freely available encyclopedia, that's wikipedia, you seem to want to make it look like an amateur production, for the sake of 'free' images ....

I live in the UK so why exactly do I need to comply with US law? ^Jaster 09:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Withpermission tag to this still not free image but I suspect you will ignor this!

I'm just chiming in here. Wikipedia servers are in the U.S., so Wikipedia has to follow U.S. law. Also, even if we have permission to use an image on Wikipedia, we still can't use the image (per Wikipedia policy) unless re-users also have permission to edit and re-distribute the image. So permission isn't good enough, I'm afraid. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So I have to persuade someone to allow not just Wikipedia to use the image but anyone to use, abuse, and do anything they want with the image .... If they realise that then no-one will give permission and we will be back to no images or amateur images ... excluding any I take - Even I won't release pictures of real people under those conditions! ^Jaster 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried looking for a picture that is copywrited and where someone has asked permission and has explained properly what that means as per Wikipedia:Example requests for permission (which I only found after I had asked for permission!) and I could not find any? either there is no apparent request, no apparent answer, or the question was "can I use it on wikipedia" not can I GFDL the picture?

This is not a problem (or so much of a problem) with pictures of "things" (unless the thing is copywrite itself) so the picture of Image:Wild rose flower.jpg is GFDL'd but I would have a problem taking a picture of someone I have never met?

The explanations on the upload page are unclear at the moment (I didn't get what they said) and could do with improving if the policies are going to be enforced then it is better to stop people trying to use pictures they shouldnt rather that having to take them off later... which only annoys and frustrates.... ^Jaster 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can i apply the WikiPedia Policy WP:IAR on this ;-) ^Jaster 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Flies with honey

You've been quite tactful in most of your dealings with uploaders of improper "fair use" images, and I congratulate you in keeping your cool, even when maligned and yelled at. But I want to encourage you to go the extra mile in being tactful in these cases. The reason is, if people dispute the rfu tag, it makes more work for us, and people are less likely to dispute if they are treated with more respect than necessary. For instance, this user has uploaded a lot of his own images, and a lot of pd images, but he has also uploaded a lot of so-called "promotional" images of guns, and those are of course not acceptable. I tagged the images with rfu, and left him a very courteous note. It's worth reading.

There will be some people who will fight tooth-and-nail for every piddling image no matter what you do. But especially tactful messages might reduce the number of disputations. That's my hope, anyway. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Randy Orton

The edit you made to the randy orton page has been reverted. Your edit to that page was clear vandalism if you actually care to look at your edits to what you reverted it to. If you feel the need to revert the page like that again then i will report you for vandalism. Please do not do that again. Thank you Lil crazy thing 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely stupid

I'm sorry but the example No. 8 that you keep citing on the image tags is the most idiotic piece of text I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I no longer wish to contribute to Wikipedia and am considering resigning my administrator status. Why don't you people just ban all images outright and be done with it? 23skidoo 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make up facts to suit your hypothesis. There is nothing in that edit summary (referring to the one on Don Freed) that is abusive to anybody. 23skidoo 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Asking for permissions

Thank you!

I figured there was a verfication method, but I hadn't found it yet. Thanks for passing it on, and I'll forward the e-mails straightaway. Edit: done. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

picture on Kelly van der Veer Article

Hi Abu , Kelly sent me the picture through email herself when I asked her to send me one for the article. She did not specify exactly what rights she is allowing for this picture. I emailed her again yesterday after the last time she replied was the day next to her birthday, 6th May 2006. She has not replied back yet. Now tell me what do you think I should do with the picture. I hope she does reply back to my last mail in which I have asked her to release it into the public domain. The rest is your call , hope to hear from you soon. If this picture if off WP , I am leaving for good. Unitedroad 11:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:IFD

Greetings, Abu. I see you have occasionally listed images on WP:IFD when someone disputes the {{rfu}} tag. The trouble is, the people at IFD are more used to dealing with orphan images, duplicate images, and other encyclopedic concerns, and are often not as well-versed in copyright law or copyright policy at Wikipedia. I think if you list the images on WP:CP instead, you'll get better results. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Kenney image

I appreciate your efforts to find a free photo of Douglas Kenney, but I highly doubt one can be found. As a matter of fact, there are very few photos of him period. The only way I can think of to obtain a free photo would be to get permission from the copyright holder to use it. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Junior and Zico images deletion

I'd like to know why I have not received a warning about it. Plus, those images use were authorized by official websites. I checked with an admin before uploading them, so I'd like an explanation. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You have simple ignored "Please consider placing {{subst:Idw-noncom|Image:Junior_torino.jpg}} on the User Talk page of the uploader" and just sent them to speedy deletion? Is that what happened in there? I really would like an explanation. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I just find this copyright paranoia very disturbing. But if it's a rule, we have to comply. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wonderful job!!!

Well, thank you, but... I still intend to work on changing an overdone, overblown, poorly conceived policy change. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's as good as it gets; it was a cheap, 2.0mp digital camera (I have a better one now, but she's not been anywhere near me for 4 years). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:--Kongar-oolOndar.jpg

I am a native English speaker (and fan of Kongar-ool Ondar).

I just wanted to say I find no offense in your comments on the image talk page.

Econrad 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

talk:America Ferrera

Please comment. -- Zanimum 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Earl Andrew's recreations

Thanks, I took care of it, and I'll watch him. He has uploaded a number of good, PD images, and I hope he continues doing good things for Wikipedia. But I hope he quits with the non-free images too. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please leave a note

Next time you edit my page, please leave me a note so I know what happened and how I can prevent it. Thank you, Tenaciousd 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Tenaciousd.

Image:Cmpunk.jpg

I see you tagged this as replacable fair use, which it quite rightly is and I will not dispute this, I will however disagree with its usage currently due to there being no fair use images being available currently. The author in question, TNApics, has given permission for wikipedia to use their images in any context and this image is being solely used in the article of the individual in question, and as per #Re: Removing images warnings this is a fair treatment of fair use images. I will not argue that it could be replaced if a free use one is released, but one has not been and I have spent time getting superflous images deleted from other sources that do not aid the article. In conclusion as a free use image has not been found, and I should know as I have scoured the entire net looking for one, as well as it being impossible to "create" a free use image of the subject I don't feel the tag is warranted. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition I see you tagged numerous other TNA images as fair use vios as well, which seems unneeded to me as TNA has given permision for wikipedia to use all their images. Having the images be removed for a copyvio when we have permission to use them is counter-productive and seems to go against, well, getting permission in the first place. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Question

You seem to be a copyright expert, so I'll ask you my question. Can a confirmed promotional photograph be altered and still used under the Promophoto liscence. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Do you mark every single image you come across as replaceable? Hardly any of them are replaceable. Some free use alternatives may be found, but you are obsessively marking every image and its getting quite annoying. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Please feel free to participate in what I hope will be a fruitful discussion. - Mcasey666 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi Abu, most infoboxes allow use of captions so try to credit the photographer there rather than just on the image page (which many users won't know exist). Thanks Arniep 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use double check

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Robert Baker? There's a question about whether the book covers are supported by our fair use rules. At first glance I thought they were inappropriate, but I'd appreciate a second opinion. Jay32183 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)