User talk:KF/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zichron Dvarim[edit]

Hi,

First of all, this is the first message I'm writing through Wikipedia, so I hope I'm not ruining your page...

You asked me about your Hebrew translation. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about Yaakov Shabtai. Well, in that case the translation is totally wrong. As you can see on the Yaakov Shabtai page, the translation to "Zichron Dvarim" is "memorandum of understanding" or in Hebrew: "זכרון דברים". What YOU wrote in Hebrew is "הדוד פרץ ממריא" - I have no idea what the name of this book is in English, but literally it translates to something like "Uncle Peretz Takes off" (takes off as in an airplane) - according to the Hebrew section for Yaakov Shabtai in Wikipedia, it was published in 1971, while the book "Zichron Dvarim" ("זכרון דברים") was written in 1977.

Hope this helps. <DKong> 20 August 2006

Unspecified source for Image:J Heesters.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:J Heesters.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:D Koller.jpg)[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:D Koller.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Abu Badali 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:T Judt.jpg)[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:T Judt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Abu badali[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 image Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Hi, KF. Sorry for the mistake on Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg. I've alredy warned the correct uploader. Thanks for pointing me to my mistake.
The book cover Image:D Koller.jpg was being used to identify the person on the cover, and that goes against our fai use policy. We can only use such images when discussing the book in question. Depending on how do we "add a few lines about that particular book of hers to the article", we could "improving the article" or "cheating the system". On the other hand, founding a free image of her would undoubtedly improve the article.
The source for Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG, as for any other image, must be verifiable. Otherwise, how do we know that it was "clearly been taken for promotional purposes"?
The screenshot Image:T Judt.jpg was used to show the "look" of Tony Judt, and this is the most common missuse of screenshot. Again, the article would bennefit from a free image.
I don't see myself as I high authority neither as ridiculous. I somehow missed the Errol Flynn. Have been busy.
Whenever I can I upload free images to be used on Wikipedia. And whenever I can I talk to photographer to release their work under a free licensing. You may want to check my commons account.
Best regards, --Abu Badali 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hester Prynne.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hester Prynne.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 21. <KF> 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to Abu badali[edit]

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> 20:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


"I prefer them free." And what about the thousands of others who may have slightly different preferences? - They could work on some non-free encyclopedia. WP:FU#Policy item #1 states we should prefer free content, so, it's just not my personal opinion.
The source you gave up searching for may be this, but the only usage notice is see is "All content © New Journal Enterprises, 2004", and I don't see how to interpret this as promotional material. --Abu Badali 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG[edit]

An image that you uploaded, Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Abu Badali 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 21/Images. <KF> 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming fair use in User's space[edit]

Hi, KF. you may want to know that, according to item #9 in WP:FU#Policy, we can't claim fair use for unfree images in the user space. This reversion of yours was probematic in this sense. I'll undo it for you. Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KF, I noticed you reverted my removal of fair use tagged images from that user page of yours. Do you understand it's against the Wikipedia fair use policy? Would you mind if I revert your revertion? Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was soll das?[edit]

Hi KF, meine Watchlist wurde von einem bot zugepflastert, z.B. hier (nur als ein Beispiel): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sonja_Kirchberger. Hast Du schon mitbekommen was da dahinter steckt? Meine Englisch-Kenntnisse sind leider nicht so gut. Was wollen diese Leute? Grüsse Mutter Erde 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, deine eigene Diskussionsseite hier auf der englischsprachigen Wikipedia benutze ich ja besser nicht, wie ich sehe, also antworte ich Dir hier. Was Du da bemerkt hast, ist nichts anderes als ein Tag, der an den Beginn der Diskussionsseiten aller biographischen Artikel gestellt wird und faires Vorgehen bei der Erstellung und Vervollständigung der jeweiligen Biographie einmahnt (keine unverifizierbaren Gerüchte, kein Rufmord, etc.). Außerdem sollen die einzelnen Artikel einer Bewertung unterzogen werden. Analoges gibt es für Artikel über Spielfilme und Romane. Mich persönlich stört's nicht, aber es ist keineswegs eine meiner Prioritäten, da mitzutun. Harmlos, aber wahrscheinlich lästig, wenn man viele biographische Artikel auf der Watchlist hat.
Falls Du es nicht mitgekriegt hast, die List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) hat übrigens vor ein paar Wochen einen Löschantrag überstanden—fürs erste, würde ich sagen.
Liebe Grüße, <KF> 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ach so, nur die Arbeit eines gelangweilten Oberschülers, na dann :-). Apropos meine Diskussionsseite: Gut so, da sollen sich nur J.s Schwachmaten herumtreiben, ich scanne alles mit. Bin ja mal gespannt wie lange sie noch brauchen, bis sie ein halbwegs korrektes Template erfinden. LOL..Hab mich übrigens gestern bei J. über diese Amateure beschwert. Wenn man schon diesbezüglich nicht korrekt ist, lässt das doch einige Rückschlüsse auf die Qualität des ganzen Projekts zu.
Das Drama mit den Listen habe ich gestern zufällig mitbekommen. Respekt, wie Du die eigentlich verlorene Schlacht gegen die Ignoranten noch umdrehen konntest. Bravo! Ich halte mich aber da lieber zurück, weil meine Hilfe vielleicht kontraproduktiv sein könnte :-) Liebe Grüsse 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Orphaned fair use image (Image:H Hinterseer 2.jpg)[edit]

This fowl may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:H Hinterseer 2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kjetil_r 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Askin_&_Manker.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Askin_&_Manker.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Melanie.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Melanie.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Christian[edit]

Hi Kurt Forstner, I found the link in your page and wanted to let you know that I am redirecting all film related links to "Magic Christian" to "The Magic Christian (1969 film)" (which is a developed version of the original article), whereas another user is working on creating a novel entry under "The Magic Christian (book)", and as soon as this is done I will also redirect all novel related links there. The only thing I don't know how to do (or if it can be achieved) is to move the original article's edit history to the film entry, which is a pitty, because all the people who had worked on the original entry will not display there any more. If you know if this can be cured, please, let me know. By the way, I also live in Austria since 2000. Hoverfish 09:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love reading (some selected) books, but I am not a seeker. The movie I saw by chance many years ago and the first time I learned about Terry Southern's novel was a few days ago, trying to straighten up some of Monty Python's biographies and filmographies. If I ever find myself looking in English book antiquariats again, I will sure be looking for it. So, I transfered in the novel article the part of the last 2002 edits, that I think you refered to. If you like, you can take it from there, or as you deem best. I also added notes on discussions of both split articles about the older edits. Hoverfish 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:R_Morley.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:R_Morley.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Literature for FP[edit]

I have nominated Portal:Literature for a Featured Portal. Could You please answer any questions arising concerning DYK, as You have done all the work on that feature. Thanks, feydey 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006[edit]

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time[edit]

Hi, I have restored the lists in the article you created. Hope this finds your approval. Wikikiwi 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch ashtray[edit]

Over on Kitsch, I asked in the Talk page how the ashtray photo that you posted was racist. I learned that it is Jim Crow memorabilia and the anonymous guy who responded was offended that "slightly rascist" was used in the image's caption and preferred something like "visually and temporally Jim Crow memorabilia." So I was wondering whether the ashtray is temporally Jim Crow memorabilia as well, i.e. do you know where it came from? Well, that's all. - Connelly 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Cardinal_Groer.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cardinal_Groer.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's nice to realise that your bot "has handed out 36,988 warnings to 23,925 users", and that I'm one of them. However, as far as Image:Cardinal_Groer.jpg is concerned, I see a lot of difficulty arguing with someone who claims that no source information is provided if in fact it is. What do you expect me to do? Best wishes, <KF> 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you could try contacting the person who tagged the image, User:Stan Shebs. But at a guess, I'd say the image was tagged because the URL provides no source information: no indication of who created the image, or who the copyright holder is, or where the image is used. --Carnildo 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Let me say right away that I don't care a bit about Groer's image. He abused his position as a teacher to molest little boys. Secondly, the link I provided when I uploaded the image (where all the details you mention were explained) is no longer live, so there is no way I could check on that now. I guess that makes contacting Stan Shebs an obsolete step. As I see things (and I've seen it before with the Alistair Beaton image), such images are doomed: There is no way anyone could stop the deletion process. I would consider this a pity if it were an image I believe is worth keeping. So if people really think that the Catholic Church of Austria would sue Wikipedia if we kept Groer's image then by all means delete it. Thanks again, and all the best, <KF> 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Romy Schneider is Sissi.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Romy Schneider is Sissi.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fritz,
Thanks for your message concerning Image:Romy Schneider is Sissi.JPG. As you might guess from looking at my talk page (including the archived portions), I'm sick and tired of canned messages like the one you sent me: Ever since those tags were introduced, I have always carefully tried to state all the required details. It's just annoying having to read all sorts of things which just do not apply.
What happened is this:
(1) Only two days ago, some fool plays around with the Elizabeth of Bavaria page and—carelessly, unintentionally, on purpose, whatever—and while doing so removes a simple videotape cover (no problems copyright-wise whatsoever) from the page.
(2) You come along and, instead of reverting, say it is not used in any article, and tag it accordingly.
(3) You send me the message that "it has been tagged" (as if it hadn't been you yourself who tagged it) and that it will be deleted after seven days.
(4) I send you this reply and revert the last few edits.
By simply checking the Elizabeth of Bavaria edit history, you might have found out yourself, and doing so wouldn't have taken up more of your precious time than doing what you actually did. If I were on holiday just now, the image would be irrevocably lost. Quite a few images go down the drain that way, something which could easily be avoided.
Best wishes, <KF> 22:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the image through Special: Unused images and there was no way for me to see which article the image was previously used in, since the image's description page has no article-specific fair use rationale.--Fritz S. (Talk) 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your answer, which only shows me how dangerous Special:Unusedimages is. Apart from its being mysteriously titled "Unused files" and apart from the initial warning ("Other web sites may link to a file with a direct URL, and so may still be listed here despite being in active use"), the first random example I checked, Image:Zapata.JPG, uploaded ages ago by Infrogmation, after some checking of mine appears to be used after all—see Emiliano Zapata—though in a modified form (Image:Zapata.png). There, however, the contributor who modified it failed to mention the source ("photo of Emiliano and Euphemio Zapata, from early 1910s source"), so next someone will add a tag saying "no source" to the one and someone else will add a tag saying "not being used" to the other image, and both will be deleted. It only goes to show that anyone working from this list (whose point I fail to grasp in the first place) has to be very very careful. Best wishes, <KF> 16:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's called "Unused files" because it includes not only images, but also sound files, pdfs, etc. And the problem with your example of the Zapata brothers is not with Special:Unusedimages, in my opinion, but with the person who uploaded the png, who neglected to add the image's source and tag the jpg, which is clearly obsolete, acordingly. And I don't think the jpg is sourced very good either ("from early 1910s source" is very vague). --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006[edit]

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Literature quiz[edit]

Very nice Idea, thanks for letting us know. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Lit.[edit]

One person has objected on the Literature portal FP (Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates/Portal:Literature). My tentative opinion would be 1) simply rm the red links on DYK's 2) the new Quiz - I have nothing against it, so if You feel strongly about keeping it I will stand by You OR we'll just comply and delete that feature 3) the placement of the News box is very trivial and IMO should not matter on reaching the FP status and finally 4) selected content- I would disagree with the objector as f.ex. Portal:Aviation has more selected content and it still is a FP. Please let me know what You think, so we can act and give a response. Best, feydey 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about a lot of things here at Wikipedia. However, what I categorically object to on principle is to "comply" with the isolated wishes of a single user, especially in a situation like this one. It is one of the classic cases where the one who cries out loudest gets most of the attention, and this has always been something I consider unbearable.
Even if User:Cyberjunkie is "the first administrator from South Australia" (so what?), he says himself that he is "nowhere near as active on Wikipedia as I have previously been, [...] also due to the onset of higher priorities"; his "interests are broad and ill-defined, my expertise is in politics, international relations, and certain periods of history" (i e not necessarily literature, is it?).
In the good old days, the standard response to anyone complaining about "red links" was, "Well, make them disappear. What are you waiting for, buddy?" That's the whole idea of it. Even at almost 1.5 million articles, Wikipedia still is—and will always be—work in progress.
I just don't understand (literally don't understand) what "red links in the Did you know... section; per criteria, these are prohibited in content sections (or rather, limited to contribution/project sections)" means: Per what criteria? Who, apart from the legislative body of a country, can "prohibit" something in a free, collaborative project such as Wikipedia? What are "contribution/project sections"? Does that mean contribution to a Portal is out of the question or what? Why is a "quiz feature" " self-referential and thus contrary the criteria"? What exactly does "self-referential" mean here? And again: What criteria?
Everything else is personal taste—one single individual's personal taste ("I oppose outright", "I would like to see", "I feel", "I would").
Let me point out again that the only thing I object to is any kind of over-reaction to a single deviating voice. To me, it's a weird kind of of obedience to authority where there isn't even an authority. I thought the quiz might be a good idea, but of course you can remove it any time you feel like it.
All the best, <KF> 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I agree, let's just ignore that one vote, I'll will give a rebuttal along the lines of Your answer. feydey 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is our answer here i guess. Only I would add, that the red links in DYK could be removed, at least to give more attention to "Things you can do". feydey 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rossrs 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your message about Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg. However, I have no idea what exactly you want me to do. You say it is "currently" not being used because it has been removed from the Mia Farrow article. It turns out it has been removed by you yourself. I'm told in your message that I may add it back but reminded at the same time that doing so is against Wikipedia's fair use policy.
So again: What am I supposed to do? As I find it exceedingly hard to understand the phrase "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question" all that seems to remain for me to do is beg you: Please put it up for deletion! Am I mistaken?
Best wishes, <KF> 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry for the confusion. I used a generic template to let you know about the image, and it was probably not the best option. The reason it was removed is because a magazine cover should not be used solely to depict a person, but rather the magazine itself, or the person's appearance on the cover if it's significant (by Wikipedia guidelines). As this was not the case, I removed the image. This then leads to it being orphaned which is a secondary thing. I left the message for you as a courtesy in case you disagreed, or wanted to use the image in another way, but it will end up being deleted in due course if nothing further is done with it. Regards Rossrs 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VickyLeandros.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:VickyLeandros.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument I might have brought forward has already been made obsolete at User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation, so I'm going to do nothing at all. <KF> 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:FFawcett.jpg[edit]

This bird may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:FFawcett.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FFawcett.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FFawcett.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Oden 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your (?) message. I wonder why people keep cluttering my talk page with all those canned messages (just look at it!) if all I can do is wait for the image to be deleted. I uploaded it in good faith in 2003 (!), it's a screenshot, it's being used in other articles I didn't even know existed. You tag it and declare it was uploaded after May 2006. The image is from Myra Breckinridge and could easily be put there, but soon someone else will come along and want to remove it from there as well. If it makes you happy, please speedy delete it. Best wishes, <KF> 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Die Halbstarken.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Die Halbstarken.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Buchholz in Die Halbstarken.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Buchholz in Die Halbstarken.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kelly&Bastian.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kelly&Bastian.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page has indeed an impressive amount of these notices. Anyway, I replaced this image by the freely licensed ones used on the German Wikipedia a while ago (so we do have images of Kelly & Bastian), and now I think it is no longer needed. Kusma (討論) 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Portal question[edit]

I stumbled upon Portal:India and their Quiz, see under DYK, and wondered if it should be used as a DYK tie in/link also on Literature Portal - encouraging the the creation of new DYK lines and edits to articles. Your thoughts? Best, feydey 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your message. Somewhat in a hurry right now, I just had a quick look at that quiz. Personally, I always feel discouraged from participating in anything going on online if I have to read a lot of conditions and/or if I have to register beforehand. However, if you (and/or others) think that it would be a good idea to have a link from the DYK section to the quiz rather than presenting the questions on the Portal itself, I would not have any objections. In any case, I don't consider that quiz in any way an important feature of the Literature Portal: I just consider it a concession to the homo ludens. Best wishes, <KF> 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. feydey 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Puppy -- PROD Notice[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sick Puppy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Sick Puppy. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Justanother 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion here. <KF> 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will discuss it there rather than my talk page. --Justanother 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Image:AL Kennedy.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AL Kennedy.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 21:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More replaceable fair-use images[edit]

—Chowbok ☠ 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for LoPbN[edit]

Thanks. [sigh]
--Jerzy•t 00:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance[edit]

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Howard Bondage.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Howard Bondage.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rossrs 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image has been replaced in the article with Image:Bette Davis and Leslie Howard in Of Human Bondage.jpg, a public domain image which conveys essentially the same information. ie it identifies the actors. It's no longer necessary to keep a fair use image that does not offer anything substantially different. Rossrs 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the message I sent does seem pretty pointless. I was only looking at the Leslie Howard article to begin with. I never thought of the other Of Human Bondage articles until the image was added to them. Rossrs 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:O_Spann.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:O_Spann.jpg. 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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Bringing up baby.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bringing up baby.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 17:24, January 7, 2007 Cohesion (Talk | contribs | block) (Image is missing source information and will be deleted in seven days if it is not added.) [rollback]
(cur) (last) 12:33, January 4, 2007 Jeremy Butler (Talk | contribs | block) (Not a screen shot)
(cur) (last) 07:39, February 25, 2005 Grendelkhan (Talk | contribs | block) m (use more accurate copyright tag: film-screenshot)
(cur) (last) 18:48, February 1, 2005 Quadell (Talk | contribs | block) (tagged)
(cur) (last) 09:24, January 12, 2005 119 (Talk | contribs | block) ({{Unverified}})
(cur) (last) 07:30, July 7, 2003 KF (Talk | contribs | block)

My message to User:Jeremy Butler:
Hi, your vast experience may be able to help save Image:Bringing up baby.jpg. A look at its edit history will show you that your claim that it is not a screenshot gave rise to its current status on the deletion list. Maybe you can help, for example by providing the necessary "source information", something I am unable to do.
As deadlines seem to become shorter with every new year (only 48 hours now), something would have to be done about it right now.
Thanks in advance, and all the best, <KF> 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KF. As you know, Wikipedia policy holds that "The copyright for [a promo photo] is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." In this case, the owner is RKO Radio Pictures or, more accurately, whoever bought the rights to RKO's library.
Even though that photo appears on numerous Web pages, it's not in public domain as the film was released in 1938 and thus its copyright has not expired in the U.S.
Thus, it'd be very difficult to track down the true ownership of the photo. Consequently, my suggestion would be to replace that promotional photo with an actual screenshot nabbed from the film's DVD.
Sorry I couldn't be more help. --Jeremy Butler 13:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:The London Savannah Band 1925.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:The London Savannah Band 1925.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (last) 18:29, January 7, 2007 KF (Talk | contribs | block) (retagging & giving a rationale -- but of course if you are set on deleting this image you will eventually succeed no matter how this image is tagged) [rollback]
(cur) (last) 17:25, January 7, 2007 Cohesion (Talk | contribs | block) (Image is missing source information and will be deleted in seven days if it is not added.)
(cur) (last) 16:49, May 13, 2006 Computerjoe (Talk | contribs | block) (more appropiate copyright tag. possibly pd, due to oldness)
(cur) (last) 23:11, August 2, 2005 KF (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 23:40, December 21, 2004 119 (Talk | contribs | block)
(cur) (last) 19:44, June 24, 2003 KF (Talk | contribs | block)

Billy Cotton and The London Savannah Band in 1925.

Image scanned from old printed publicity material, with the record company (Decca?) most likely being the copyright holder. The exact source and the identity of the photographer are no longer available.

Generally, it is difficult to track down more precise information on old images showing Billy Cotton and the musicians he associated with, so any other image will be likely to cause similar problems identifying its exact source.

{{fairusein|Billy Cotton}}

Unspecified source for Image:Viva Las Vegas.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Viva Las Vegas.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Image:Footlight.jpg.

Fair use rationale for Image:Lara Marlowe.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lara Marlowe.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why ...[edit]

I'm sorry aboutImage:Richardwagner1.jpg. It was Image:Rachel Weisz that was the copyright violation. I must have done that and thought I was removing the Rachel Weisz image and then I actually went back and got the right image. I screwed up and I apologize. You have many other copyrighted images that are not GFDL or Cretive Commons licensed. It is copyright infringement to have those on your user page or user talk page. You should consider removing them or linking them as you did the Rachel Weisz image or someone else will come along and remove them eventually -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literary works with eponymous heroines & heros[edit]

I am amazed these got pulled. If there are copies about and we can't get them re-established, please feel free to place them in WP:NOVELS project space and we can make use of the material at least as an articles needed hitlist. Amazed! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006 competition[edit]

The arrangements for the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are almost complete, and voting will take place between 1st and 28th Feb. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to tell, that 217.88.148.183 requested Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg for deletion. I am against the deletion.--Martin8721 19:50, 27 January 2007 (CET)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg
"right of own photo? --217.88.148.183 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Thanks for the information about the deleton request, but I can't find it anywhere except for a mysterious and cryptic line in the image description page saying, "right of own photo? --217.88.148.183 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)". <KF> 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand it too. Seems to be a troll. By the way: Would you allow to post your picture here? It is a special wiki for public transport in Austria. Your picture shows the interior of type c3. Those trams are in service since 1959 and currently the oldest cars in use here in Vienna. --Martin8721 22:38, 27 January 2007 (CET)
Certainly. Thanks for pointing out that website to me. <KF> 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wie ich eben jetzt sehe, bist du ohnehin auch aus Österreich. ;) Werde das Bild demnächst dort hochladen. Danke nochmals! --Martin8721 23:45, 27 January 2007 (CET)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KF/Archive_4&oldid=180846367"