User talk:Chowbok/Archive 5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Some copyrighted fair-use MMA pics
Image:Fedor.jpg, Image:Mirko Filipovic.jpg, Image:Wanderlei de Silva.JPG, Image:TakanoriGomi.jpg, Image:Matt-hughes.jpg, Image:GeorgesStPierre.jpg, Image:Ufc49 chuck liddell 015.jpg, Image:Tito Ortiz.jpg, Image:RichFranklin.jpg, Image:Andersonsilva.jpg, Image:TimSylviaPromo.jpg. Don't you think they fail to qualify for fair use? Shawnc 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well personally I'm inclined not to touch the images that have been considered promotional, but you can tag them if you feel it is right. Shawnc 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for message. Although it is unlikely a member of the general public could easily make a free image I cannot deny that some squaddie could take a quick pic and upload it and therefore cannot argue with you regarding free alternatives.
I've had a quick look up your talk page and I see you get a lot of abuse. So let me be a rare voice saying well done - you are doing great work verifying adherence to Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Mark83 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Non-free photos of bands
Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm tired of dealing with it :) Already added source info a couple of months ago. The thing is, I couldn't find any other pictures of Allison. If you can find any, great. But otherwise, there just isn't much out there. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Smiley Award
User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward
fair use images
I don't really care whether the image I uploaded long ago of Christopher Hitchens, which I claimed was fair use, is removed or not, but it seems odd to put giant deletion notices all over the image page until some suitable free alternative has been found. Is there some giant wiki-wide purge of fair use images that I wasn't aware of? --jacobolus (t) 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The above image is a free use press photo from the State of Michigan and originates from [1] so DO NOT delete the photo. Steelbeard1 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thedrunkendiale
- I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.
- I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.
- I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…
- Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)
Thanks, 69.167.102.181
P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...
That was from about a year ago when a user had asked me to help him fill in all the U.S. state governor infoboxes. I'm not going to argue it at this point, in fact I just deleted it myself. —freak(talk) 22:58, Dec. 2, 2006 (UTC)
Governor Images
I get the idea behind wanting to delete all these fair use images if freely licensed ones are available, but I'm not so sure freely licensed images exist for Governors. Works of the United States government are public domain, but are works of US state governments necessarily public domain? The tag you placed seems to suggest free alternatives might exist, and I'd be happy to help find them if I knew where to start looking. Can you shed any light on free works of state governments? Do you know where I could find the copyright tags associated with these? Alienmercy 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the parent poster. Please refrain from wanton image deletion. Going around recommending all of the Governor's photos for deletion is not appropriate. Your rationale is that they are replaceable, yet you have not done any research or obtained replacement photos. If there is a photo that does not give Fair Use Rationale or is not properly sourced, then that's one thing and those photos should be reviewed. But in the case of Michigan's Governor, Jennifer Granholm, the photo used is sourced and appropriate fair use rationale has been given. --Jeff 09:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the previous posters. These are public images, produced by public employees, for public distribution on web pages. There is no reason for a speedy deletion. They are sourced and appropriate under the terms of wikipeida. These official headshots are unique encyclopedic content that cannot be replicated by another photo. I would also note that Senators, US Representatives, and members of the Presidents cabinet use headshots on their wikipedia pages (albeit under different copyright terms).--PhotographerLens 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fair_use#Heavy_Handed_use_of_.7B.7BReplaceable_fair_use.7D.7D_and_suggestion --Jeff 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the enforcement of policies regarding fair use images, however, I don't understand why images such as the one of Tom Vilsack are being marked for deletion. Images like this, and looking at your talk page, others, are not within the bounds of fair use, they're freely available to be used. They are works of a U.S. state, and are placed on public websites so that people will use them. It's encouraged. There is no mention of copyright that I saw on the Iowa Governor's site. If this is simply an error, could you please remove the tag from the image description page? If this is not an error, could you please justify the tag? Thanks. --MZMcBride 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Unsure
Hey, what's up with tagging the Schweitzer image as unfree? I left a message posted on the discussion. And don't send me the standard form crap that use usually do. Seriously, give me a real answer. VitaleBaby 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, hold up for a while on deleting the governor's images, ok? I'm doing a little research. I'm trying to find out which state governments (or specific state gov't agencies) put their info in the public domain. And if they copyright images, I'm going to e-mail them and see if that can give me something to use, ok? So hang on, this is probably going to take more than a few days. I want to get this worked out once and for all. VitaleBaby 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I want to get this problem solved. The states make their policies so confusing. As soon as I get a response, I'll make the change. Hopefully, none of these states ignore me. I'd assume that most of them will at least be able to provide me with something, but we'll wait and see. VitaleBaby 04:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just wanted to keep you posted on how the governors' images thing is going. I've replaced five so far (I believe). For two of them, I found their old Congressional photos, while for another, I found a photo on a gov't (EPA) website. Two governors had photos on state level departments that (amazingly!) specifically said that their work could be used. VitaleBaby 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Then we need to get people on finding a better image if this is a problem. But to delete it and have no alternative (which I do not care to search for, nor will I) also seems to be an obtuse course of action. Gnrlotto 20:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This User seems to be the Self Appointed Dictator of Wikipedia
You seem to have launched a "jihad" against the official governor's portraits. Your actions are heavy handed and unwarranted. Most of the headshots do qualify as "fair use" images and there for are not appropriate candidates for "speedy deletion." You are not the leader of wikipedia. You will have to get the opinion of other wikipedians on talk pages like this before you act in a dictatorial manner. Please make meaningful contributions to this project instead of launching uneeded fights that ruin wikipedia for views and editors alike--Megatropolis 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore almost all of the governor pictures that this user has tagged with "speedy deletion" tags do not qualify for this designation. They clearly qualify as "fair use" images, and therefore do not require speedy deletion. They are not violating any copyright laws, not have any other alternative pictures been proposed to replace them. The use of this tag is an attempt by the user to circumvent the normal discussion process among wikipedians and arogantly impose the will of this editor.--Megatropolis 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yours must be a thankless task, as even established wikipedians don't like having their uploads deleted; I dare not imagine the reactions you get from some newer users! Anyway, feel free to tag it for deletion. --Zantastik talk 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
wat the hell man!
look ....why did u take off the picture of adam??? we both know that adam looked better in the picture that i put up! ok.......right now im going to change the picture back to my picture! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Jim Risch
The image on Jim Risch's article is his official government portrait & is therefore public property. --JesseBHolmes 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Under I.C. § 9-350, Idaho State property may be used by the public, except for commercial advantage. --JesseBHolmes 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For it to be considered "free" on Wikipedia, it must be free for any use—including commercial. —Chowbok ☠ 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If this were true, than you couldn't put the Microsoft logo on Wikipedia, but we do, because Wikipedia meets fair use. Similarly, Wikipedia's use of the Jim Risch image meets the fair use requirements of the owners. First, Wikipedia is not a commercial website. Secondly, if we remove every image that isn't available for commercial use, we can't put any celebrity pictures on the site either; Jonathan Frakes, Oprah Winfrey, etc. wouldn't want their pictures being used to sell products without their consent. --JesseBHolmes 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We can use logos because they can't be replaced with free images, unlike with this photo. The photos of Winfrey and Frakes can indeed be used for commercial purposes, at least in the many states that don't recognize publicity rights. —Chowbok ☠ 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In California, Washington, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Florida, Illinois, New York, Indiana, Virginia, Massachusetts, Texas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin, celebrity images may not be used commercially without consent. Wikipedia is based in Tampa, Florida. So, by the same logic that would compel us to remove the Jim Risch image, all celebrity images posted without tacit consent must be taken off the site. But Wikipedia is not using these images commercially, so we don't need to take down any of them. --JesseBHolmes 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
what
do u mean by fair used ones???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
look....listen 2 me...i changed it back now....if u click on the adam brody picture....youll see that its different....happy now???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 21:18, December 3, 2006 (UTC-6)
thank you
look...thank you for your concern...but please keep the picture up there for a little while....tell i get this all figuered out....thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 21:22, December 3, 2006 (UTC-6)
could u send me a picture example of what a "free image" is and also....when u upload pictures and then it says the license...which one do i pick so people could noe that its a free image?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 21:26, December 3, 2006 (UTC-6)
thank you
thank u for sending me that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
the hell!
wat the hell man! u turned me in! i see how it is! its war! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adelyna (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
I know you might have a lot on your plate right now with RFC and the like, but you are one of the few people involved in the deletion of the above image that has not yet commented on its debate at the DRV. - hahnchen 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It worked! We really do have name power! :) - crz crztalk 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
disputed
I disputed your RFU on Image:Gstw.jpg because no replaceable version will be found. The picture is shown with the intent of illustrating for the reader Stephanopoulos's position on This Week, in his article. Well, any image taken from the broadcast of the show will automatically be copyright of ABC. Since the image's intent is to show Stephanopoulos on the show, and all images of that are automatically copyrighted, it follows that RFU cannot apply in this instance. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Brandeis Images
You recently tagged several images of Brandeis University for deletion. Please do NOT do this. I'm in contact with the university about getting explicit permission for their use (which should be forthcoming) Alight 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Jarvis
The previous image was a distant shot of a Cocker concert not a decent one of the man himself. PMA (not signed in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.113.249.188 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Origins of Phrases AfD
AfD Nomination: Origins of Phrases
I've nominated the article Origins of Phrases for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Origins of Phrases satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origins of Phrases. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Origins of Phrases during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Regards. Edison 05:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
indeed.
Indeed, you did miss a comment. It's a few sections up. I hadn't planned on adding it to the RFC, until I saw other people had the same issue, and I went back to your user talk to see several unanswered comments regarding RFU. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I have nothing personal against you. I just disagree with your overbroad usage of RFU. I understand you're following within policy, however I feel you're incorrectly tagging images that RFU does not apply, for instance Image:Gstw.jpg. I know that doing mostly anything with images is a thankless job, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, I just feel that you've gotten a bit too overzealous. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell? It was deleted with a consensus to keep? This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Users role in checking Copyright images
- Has anyone bothered to read this? WP:C#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement
- It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page.
- Does the recent actions of users clearly violate the copyright policy? My blunt interpretation of above statement is If your strolling down the street and see an unlocked door, lock it. But don't walk up to every door and check to see if it's locked. Is this wrong?Hackajar 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how the policy forbids assinine policing that users like Chowbok are doing, but I agree with the jist what you're saying. I hate what he's doing, but no ones really stopping him. --Jeff 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hackajar's interpretation is incorrect. What the policy means is that, ideally, every Wikipedian would check if every page they look at complies with all policies, but that, knowing that this would be very burdensome on users who just wish to add a bit of content and leave, we treat this as an optional way to contribute; we really appreciate it when users check if a page is compliant with policies, but we don't demand that all users spend their time doing so.
- Jeffness, please refrain from insulting your fellow Wikpedians. Doing so is not only tremendously rude, but also unproductive. --RobthTalk 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Really! Your statments make it seem like people are "obligated" to do certin things and policy helps "un-obligate" them. Should it not be interprted the other way around? Hackajar 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why should it? I check every article I work on substantially for copyright violations, NPOV problems, etc., and I would like it if everyone would do the same (it would decrease the amount of such problems that we have). What the sentence you have cited says is merely that Wikipedians are not required to perform such checks, but if they spot anything, (in the course of performing such checks or otherwise) they should at the very least call it to people's attention. This in no way forbids individuals from actively searching out and identifying problems. --RobthTalk 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- After Spending hours trying to have my case heard and feeling steamrolled for all practical purposes, along with all of the other rational people who share my viewpoint, all I have left is insults for those involved. Sorry if that's disagreeable to you. --Jeff 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If all you have to contribute is insults, please remain silent. I welcome any productive and substantive contributions you choose to make, but insults achieve nothing. --RobthTalk 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cheapening what I say by saying I'm insulting is a typical wiki tactic. You are a blackbelt wikipedian! I know not to mess with your mojo. --Jeff 06:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If all you have to contribute is insults, please remain silent. I welcome any productive and substantive contributions you choose to make, but insults achieve nothing. --RobthTalk 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Really! Your statments make it seem like people are "obligated" to do certin things and policy helps "un-obligate" them. Should it not be interprted the other way around? Hackajar 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Rinat Shaham 2.jpeg
I have just noticed that the above image has been removed. I got it personally from the artist Rinat Shaham to upload it, and I believed I put all the necessary copyrights notices. Pls advise what is needed to return it.
Micke5000 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello!
Since I do alot of image tagging and get the occasional message about it, I am linking to User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation from my talk page (assuming that's alright with you, otherwise let me know). --Oden 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding User:Irpen
I have started a thread regarding User:Irpen at WP:ANI (here). Feel free to comment. Sincerely, --Oden 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use tag
Tahnks for your note on my talk page about you wanting to remove all the {{fair use}} tags from images. i will stop as of now, but you may wish to review my edits for this evening as I have tagged many of them, several dozen. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm helping!
Hey Chowbok. Thought you might want to know that I am helping in your fair use efforts. Aren't you happy!? I am! --Jeff 08:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
are you stupid or just blind?
well?
What part of click for publication-quality photo don't you understand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2gether4ever (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
I mean do you actually have a foto to replace him with? Or are you just being an upstart jobsworth like the rest of the idiot troll admins around here?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2gether4ever (talk • contribs) 14:56, December 9, 2006 (UTC-6)
I don't like people who delete my hard work for no reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2gether4ever (talk • contribs) 15:00, December 9, 2006 (UTC-6)
Stop VANDALISING MY IMAGE.
This is your final warning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2gether4ever (talk • contribs) 15:08, December 9, 2006 (UTC-6)
Cjs image
Mate, I'm not bothered. I uploaded that ages ago when I had not idea what fair use meant & cared even less. Just delete it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZephyrAnycon (talk • contribs) 16:13, December 9, 2006 (UTC-6)
RE: Jim Doyle.jpg
I uploaded this image, but I apparently violated some copyrights. My apologies. But, VitalBaby seems to have found the solution to the problem of the copyright problems, and uploaded the same image under a different name. I hope his licensing is satisfactory. Please feel free to delete Image:Jim Doyle.jpg, as the replacement is already in the Jim Doyle article. --ClockFace 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, why are you tagging this image, of all things? If you would read what I posed, Rich West, a representative of the governor's office e-mailed this photo to me. While it is the photo that is included on the governor's website, I did not simply upload the same file. When someone releases a photo direclty to me, there is no need to question it. VitaleBaby
- Hi Vitale. Firstly, I support your statements. In my opinion and interpretation of Wiki policy, there is nothing against using promotional photos under fairuse guidelines. However, I must inform you about Chowbok and his cohorts. Their effort is to cleanse wikipedia of all copyrighted content that can be reproduced. This debate has been raging in many places for the past month. It affected me on the Jennifer Granholm article that they have also defaced. I tried valiantly to stop their actions but have failed at reasoning with them, possibly mostly because Jimbo Wales' viewpoint on the matter counts 100x that of the normal pleb. If you're interested in yelling and screaming about it as I did, check my contributions and you'll find many talk articles concerning the subject where I and others' have posted. As it stands though, we have no recourse against his actions.--Jeff 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- So basically it comes down to your photo being copyrighted. If you can get the Governor's office to release it under CC-SA-2.5 then it'll work. But granting permission still holds a copyright on the image, and in Chowbok's interpretation of policy, makes the image fair game for deletion. --Jeff 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Leave this image alone! It asked specifically that is be released into the public domain for use on Wikipedia, and permission was granted. There's nothing left to be questioned here. VitaleBaby 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Gregg Allman landscape
Hi, I saw you added the Landscape option to the Gregg Allman article infobox, but then reverted it. It seemed to work fine, and I'm not sure why you reverted it, so I went ahead and unreverted your self-reversion. If that was a problem, let me know, but it looked ok to me. (Maybe you had a caching problem?) Anyway, as the creator of the landscape option, I assure you that you got the right template! :) Xtifr tälk 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat frustrated...
... this has been a very frustrating Wikipedia week for me! Chowbok, that image Image:Btrieve for Windows 95NT Workstation config.PNG was adapted from the Btrieve manual. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Robbie McNeill image
The Robbie McNeill image you tagged -RDM2000BW.jpg - hey, it's his publicity headshot. He likes it! I maintain his official website, and this is the photo he gives to the press. I don't understand why it's okay to use the publicity shots of the actor as his Star Trek character (or any of the other Star Trek images on the Star Trek pages) while this publicity headshot is taken down. If Wikipedia asked for a headshot, this is the one they'd get from his agent. I simply don't understand the rationale. If I've misclassified the fair use, or copyright, then let me know - I chose the tag that matched for publicity shots like this. To the extent it's "irreplaceable," well, he'd prefer this publicity image over a badly-done screenshot from Star Trek that's 10 years old.
To follow up: The problem with your rationale is that actors and others want professional quality photos out there - not snapsnots, not paparazzi photos, especially for an item of record like Wikipedia. "Professional quality" means that the photographer will likely retain some rights to the photo, even as he/she realizes that it will be reproduced widely - much as studios retain rights to the publicity photos they distribute(even the paparazzi retain rights to their "snapshots.") You cannot replace this professional quality photo with a snapshot; and any actor, indeed, any person who has a professional photo will find it nearly impossible to get the photographer to cede his or her full rights. No one's going to come after Wikipedia, no more than the New York Times or Rolling Stone if those publications ran the photo with an interview. Again, I ask, why do the Star Trek publicity photos get a pass while lots of useable images that have the same status get deleted? You'll have a real paucity of images on Wikipedia if you pursue this policy to its logical conclusion - under the current copyright regime, you'll find it very hard to run professional photos of actors or any public figure that aren't fair use publicity images.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcs47 (talk • contribs) 08:17, December 12, 2006 (UTC-6)
- You are right. Good luck though. This battle has been fought. Chowbok doesn't care about having professional photos, him and people who share his viewpoint don't want anything but images free of fair use rationale. Quality be damned! If you run his website though, you might be able to get the photo released under a free license. --Jeff 14:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Chowbok: why is this image of Billy Joel, clearly a comparable publicity shot, acceptable (see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joel) and not the publicity image of the actor? Do music celebrities get a pass?
::laud::
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| "The more laborious and repetitive" of tasks; constantly reviewing images and ensuring their copyright/fair-use suitability for Wikipedia. Further enduring the ire of both those users who have not familiarized themselves with the WP copyright conventions as well as those established users wantonly disputing policies. Congratulations, and thank you for undertaking these (usually) thankless tasks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Hello Chowbok, sorry for the late reply. I have marked the image as keep. As VoiceOfReason commented, this information could not be adequately conveyed by any replacement. No further response was being provided after the user's comments. So I closed the discussion according to that response. I suppose we are not make to here biased decisions and should consider all the comments. Please let me know the result, if you would close the debate, as per the discussion. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 09:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it could be done again. But VoiceOfReason should also be notified about it. It would be better to discuss with him why he thinks that the image could not be replaced with free image. You could again notify the uploader as well and mention the reason of replacement of the image on the talk page as well. I would appericiate your efforts on the fair use images. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Promontory Point
There has been non-trivial editing since we went back and forth about Promontory Point (Chicago). I would still like to work towards making the page meet with your approval if it does not at this time. Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
StarMetro image
The image uploaded has the correct licensing and is stated on the photo's article. It's a screenshot obtained yeterday from WCOT in Tallahassee, Florida-- Noles1984 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but there's no reason to use a fair-use screenshot of a bus when anybody could just take a photo of it and release it under a free license. —Chowbok ☠ 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- So you are saying screen shots from television are not to be used? Noles1984 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No fair use image should be used if it could be replaced by a free one. —Chowbok ☠ 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having a difficult time getting photos taken by people locally. I'm disabled. I've seen this article for months and have requested photos. Can you let this stand until I can find someone to get actual photos? Noles1984 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No fair use image should be used if it could be replaced by a free one. —Chowbok ☠ 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- So you are saying screen shots from television are not to be used? Noles1984 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Dirtsurfer imagery
Why should the images in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtsurfer be replaced with sub standard quality images of battered, scratched and abused equipment covered in mud? Nobody has brand spanking new equipment just lying around other than dirtsurfer headquarters, from whom the photos originated. What's wrong with using them when I asked CEO of Dirtsurfer USA and it was decided by HQ in Oz that they could be posted here.
I can't see the difference between me photographing my scratched and battered to hell dirtsurfers, and the company taking a photograph of brand new one? The photographs aren't used in promotion or anything like that. They appeared in one blog article for the same purpose as they are being used here.
Thanks Tenin2wenty10 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting
I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Removal of fair use image from Tom Brokaw
Re: [2] Good show! I've replaced the image with one I came across on a USN website [3]. Thanks for keeping after overuse of fair use. --Durin 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Book covers
I've noticed your great work with fair use images and wanted to draw your attention to this book cover replacement project; sorry to spam if you've seen this elsewhere. Keep up the good work, and thanks. Chick Bowen 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:Coconut cream pie.jpg
Please don't remove image tags from their pages. It constitutes vandalism. As you offer no proof of your capturing of the image, its copyright status is in qustion. --WTStoffs 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrongly tagged images
My pleasure -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
CSD Images slower than IFD Images
Please see Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Speedy slower than IFD and provide comments. I believe speedy should be faster than an IFD and 24 hours is enough CSD time. --MECU≈talk 13:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Redundant Image Question
If a user uploads an image to WP, and then uploads it to commons, what template would you use to tag the image on WP as redundant (and therefore deleteable)? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Also, if an image is uploaded twice to WP under different names, how do you handle that? (Niether copy is on commons) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Found it on the IFD page that you linked me to:
| “ | III. Redundant or duplicate images do not have to be listed here. Please use
|
” |
- Furthermore, if an image is of so low a quality or resolution as to be useless in WP, how do you tag it for deletion? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Image of Urban Meyer from flickr
Hey ... I noticed on my watchlist that you removed a CV image of Coach Meyer. To your knowledge, has anyone contacted the owner of that flikr page to ask if he would be willing to release some images under the GFDL? He has a bunch of great ones and it would be worth a shot. BigDT 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- (Copied for continuity)He seemed pretty adamant about retaining full control of his images, so I didn't bother to ask him. Take a look at the conversation here. Feel free to drop him a note, but I wouldn't have very high hopes. —Chowbok ☠ 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok ... thanks for pointing that out ... that's a real shame. BigDT 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Pronouns
As you may have noticed, I have figured out the correct one to apply to you (interestingly enough, this was pointed out to me by Irpen at the NYC wikimeetup). Apologies for the long record of erroneous identification that preceded this. --RobthTalk 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)