File talk:RonstadtTime.jpg

Untitled
comment: image itself doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text this comment can be used for every photo that is in Wikipedia... The US copyright law states that images online can be used for criticism and comment. Again, every photo on wiki is subject to deletion for the text adding more.

Time magazine has photos on its subject site, the Time magazine photo of Cher is on her site, likewise for other artist. This is a momentous occasion for a person to have there photo on the cover of time.

The images allow people the see the chronology of a persons growth. Especially people whose second language is english, or can't garner anything from the text. Theym get a different take on a subject through visualization...(Sharkentile 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

As discussed, this is a notable image, about feminism, women in music and the future image it conveyed for women in music, as noted by the citations. This is an important image in the point of history in female music. Also one has to consider Ronstadt's stature as the most famous woman in the world in music at the time, The Time magazine is controversial for the image that it projects and one that Ronstadt still does not like. As noted Ronstadt's image at the time was just as famous as her music. So I see the thought of this photo being removed as totally arbritrary and a misunderstanding of why it is there. Think about it?? TIME magazine thought it was important publish this photo and not just write about her. Whether one thinks its important enough is left to interpretation. This is a public forum and site, non english speakers likewise need visualization, idioms are said on this site that are hard for a non english as a first language person to gist. Its been noted that the fair use rules on wiki are much stricter than copyright law, but after reading rule #8, this is subject to broad and sometimes subjective interpretation by one person. This should be a democratic forum where one person does not have the ability to interpret things their way. People do not get paid for doing what they do or get interviewed, its policing that is subject to overreaching. There are dozens of photos on Wiki that could be audited and removed for the exact same reasons that one person presents and a good internet law attorney can find a way to do this if you get on their bad side. This image coupled with a photo is important, and if this is a enclyclopedic internet forum to learn about the subject that the publication of this image is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the words telling you about the image. (Sharkentile 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

Criteria for speedy deletion was not met and alternatives to deletion exist (Sharkentile 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

The following is the excuse and rationale I received when images on this site were not only tagged but immediately removed"

The photos I tagged where accidentally removed (and promptly restored) by admin Nv8200p. See this and this talks for understanding what happened. --Abu badali (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Nothing in this gave me the impression that they replaced the photos, themselves.. We replaced the photos. Keep an eye on this site, it appears that certain people seem to be overreaching in reading, tagging and demanding citaions for obvious knowledge (Sharkentile 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).