File talk:Ohrid Banner1.jpg

The banner image is not at present in line with Wikipedia image rules
This image is not properly licenced nor it is properly explained. There's no even basic information.

The uploader in question is deliberatly avoiding the following Wikipedia rules:

Images

Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artefacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Images that aren't properly identified (e.g. images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript" etc.) are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia.

Image_use_policy

subsection: Rules of thumb

2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer.

subsection: Adding images

Before you upload an image, make sure that either: Image_copyright_tags
 * You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself).
 * You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under a free license.
 * You 'can prove that the image is in the public domain.
 * You believe, and state, a fair use rationale for the specific use of the image that you intend.

Incudes some flag-specific tags as this particular image is not an artistic painting or anything similar, but it is a HISTORICAL FLAG.

Also, not even a fair use rationale was provided.

An attempt for normal discussion with other editors on these matters has been ignored and I think that Wikipedia administrators should do something about this image. Rules for all- or rules for no one.--Vbb-sk-mk 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the rationale for the image is currently inadequate. This is a pain; but let's not go too far with lots of capital letters about how iniquitous this is. I have put up a slightly less hysterical section heading, in the interests of keeping this a bit calmer. The whole image issue has somewhat blown up in recent months, and people are rushing around all over the place deleting images and writing rationales and arguing about non-free content policy. It's a mess. I've been burned with this recently myself.


 * The image has been in place for a long time, back when the rules were a bit more lax. Let's assume a bit of good faith here!


 * The redder image does seem better. There seems to be a fair bit of text about it at the promacedonia site. Can someone give a translation please?


 * Thanks &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  07:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. I thought I was at the page about Ilinden uprising. Didn't realize I'm responding to something nearly a year old! &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)