User talk:Abu badali/Archive5

Image
Thanks for the imput. I'll do the PD-reason. In regard to the images, that isn't a problem since they are already in Wiki as Free-use, I'll just site them. Tony the Marine 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg
As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 21:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:QueenSky.jpg
You say this is still open but nothing has happening for 2 -3 weeks, the discussion has remained open but unresolved since then and there is no consensus to delete - this picture should stay and the tag be removed Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are back from your break yet, but when you do get back I would appreciate your help again. I am taking another shot at uploading a picture for the Motorola CTO Padmasree Warrior and have posted a discussion on the image page as to why I think it can now be used because it is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Please see the page. I am also consulting with user Mecu on this subject, and have alerted him to this new discussion as well. I would like to get to some kind of consensus on this possibility with the two of you. Here is the external link to the image where you can see the license at the bottom of the page. I would like to upload the first image. . Any and all feedback you could give me would be great. Thanks again.Mediathink 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review
Greetings. There is a debate at Fair use review about an image of Peter Nordin. Your input there would be appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

-
I bet you must be thrilled. Congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.37.206 (talk • contribs)


 * User User:PageantUpdater once claimed this to be her IP address. Is it you again? --Abu badali (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The wrong user was pushed out of the project. --Rob 02:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Her account isn't blocked. We all choose to contribute or choose to leave of our own volition. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * She's already back. They always come back. --Abu badali (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale
I'm troubled by your comment at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content:

For now, we're deleting image with no fair use rationale. The next round will be the images with unsound rationales.

This would be a great abuse of Template:dfu or the WP:IFD process. If the image's rationale is unsound, but the image does qualify as fair use, please improve the rationale, don't delete the image. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. That's what I did with Image:Life9enero.jpg, for instance. What I intended (and apparently failed) to state with this statement was that, from the bulk of unfree images that shouldn't be being used on Wikipedia, most of the current efforts are on those which have no rationale at all. And this effort concentration allows the proliferation of unsound rationales.


 * In a optimistic scenario, the unusable unfree images without a rationale will be wiped out, and the next step will be to address the images with unsound rationales. But you're right that "delete" is not the only possible solution for an image with a bad rationale. Fixing the rationale is always the first choice.


 * But just as there isn't a "correct tag" for every image found on the Internet (as some newcomers tend to believe), there isn't a "good rationale" for every non-free image uploaded to Wikimedia servers. Some of the simply can't be used, no mater what one writes as the rationale.


 * I hope this clarifies my position, and I hope this makes you fell less troubled. And thanks for contacting me for expressing your concerns related to something I did/said. This is such a correct (and simple!) act, but many fail to follow this path.


 * Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm glad you clarified that. I hope that you are not taking the Betacommand route and demanding that other editors write the fair use rationales, thus causing many valid fair use images to be deleted unnecessarily. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Images_and_media_for_deletion
I uploaded 2 free pictures of Linda Lingle and orphaned this image from 3 articles it was in. However, in the 4th, Qur%27an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress, I discovered the picture did meet the fair use requirements as it is not just used to identify the person in the picture but as part of the social commentary surrounding swearings-in that aren't on a Bible. If you would, I believe you should withdraw the IfD nomination at this time. -N 04:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Normal_season86.jpg
Just so you know, the uploader of the above image, which you nominated for deletion, went and deleted it from the IfD page. I have re-added it. Just wanted to let you know.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Same thing done with Image:07011604.jpg.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A complex copyright situation
Hello Abu badali. I ran into this page today: Robbie Williams. It has a ton of non-free images in it (and a few free ones). It seems to me that a few could be justified, but I'm not sure -- I'm quite sure that the current article is in violation of NFCC#3. But I don't know anything about the subject, so it's difficult to tell which ones are important enough to pass criterion #8 (if any). And what's the best way to handle the situation? IFD? I run into this situation a lot, where I know there are too many non-free images to be justifiable, but I'm not sure that any one (taken individually) fails criteria #1, #3, or #8. I've been listing the whole page on IFD with a description of the problem (as in the Continuum (album) listing), but it doesn't feel like quite the right place for it. What's your take on the best way to handle these situations? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Worst rfu defense ever
Image talk:Guzmán.jpg :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Images on articles helmed by WP:H!P
This is really getting annoying, but I have to butt in and put a kibosh or at least a serious slowdown on what you're doing somehow.

Your actions are damaging the integrity of articles that WikiProject Hello! Project have been supervising/editing/writing/trying to improve. I am very dismayed that you are just flat out removing images without making an effort to help actually improve the articles. This is not the first time we had to dispute your "endeavors", especially in the case of the photo in question. This is one of the reasons why, yes, I detaggified your handiwork.

At WP:H!P we fully endeavor to fully attribute and rationalize the images we use for the articles we monitor, edit, and create, and whenever we can we try to make them low resolution enough so that they don't look like shit and thus do justice to both the article and to Wikipedia protocol. Hello! Project artists are unfortunately the most unaccessible to the public as far as obtaining "free" images of the personalities involved. There have been no successful efforts to obtain so-called "free" images.

WP:H!P is run and maintained by non-Japanese fans in the United States and other places in the Western world. Hello! Project and their agency, Up-Front Works, have not made any inroads (yet) to bringing their artists to the US to perform, with the sole exception of Hawaii (as far as I know, none of the American residents who are part of WP:H!P where Up-Front Works often flies members of H!P's Japanese fan club to perform in private concerts there, and the same restrictions on cameras coming into the shows in Japan are used at these shows too.

I am not going to tolerate this any further, especially since you acting in bad faith by removing images without contacting some of the contributors who uploaded them (it seems like you've missed a few - bad boy!) and/or locating or offering solid proof that so-called "free" images for the articles in question exist. I have had a look at your user contribution history. I have had a look at your user contribution history and excuse the way I put this, but from my point of view, all it seems like you are contributing is loosely sanctioned vandalism. In other words, you mght have good intentions, but unfortunately they aren't that good at all. It clearly states in all photographs that we have uploaded (or had to defend) in recent instances that no free alternatives are available to us (or anyone else). If you can prove that so-called "free" images exist for the artists in question, do a little Googling for yourself and try to prove it! Believe me, we've looked ourselves and come up with nothing.

if the problem is with the size of the pictures and/or the presence of Up-Front Works' copyright on the photos - photos that Up-Front Works gives away to fans. for Christ's sake - then that could be easily solved by asking the uploader or one of the folks at WP:H!P to take a couple of minutes with Photoshop and rectify the problem without bringing in the copyright nazis and the Wikipedia firing squad - or to put it mildly, ASK US NICELY WITHOUT GOING TAG CRAZY. All of us in WP:H!P are devoted fans but we are also human beings with the usual responsibilities.

Again, we at WP:H!P do our damndest to bend over backwards to meet Wikipedia standards for pictures, especially with attribution and rationalization. I feel that in part, we who do bend over backwards to stay within boundaries are being punished along with those that don't know what the hell they're doing.

Please try to pull back the reins on removing so-called "non-free" images from articles maintained by WP:H!P - all you are doing is making our efforts harder than they already are and making what is essentially a hobby for us less and less enjoyable, which would then have an even bigger negative impact on Wikipedia as a whole. --CJ Marsicano 03:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I call it (and you) as I see it. You have acted in bad faith by recklessly tagging properly attributed and rationalized images. I challenge you to prove that the images under WP:H!P are replaceable. Do something constructive rather than destructive for once so that you don't end up labeled as a "copyright nazi".


 * I reiterate from my previous communication to you that public camera access to H!P personalities is pretty much impossible.


 * Unless Wikipedia had been contacted by someone from Up-Front Works or any other related entity regarding the use of the giveaway promotional photos, and since there are no "free" images available to use for the personalites WP:H!P covers (I've just been through Google and Flickr - of which I am a paying member of the latter - and have not found any replacements, suitable or otherwise - just digital copies of the same promo photos and photobooks that are being scanned, posted, and traded by fans as you can see in two of the cases I have seen here and here) then there is honestly no reason to be mercilessly destroying our fine work.


 * We at WP:H!P desire have well-representative pictures of the personalities we cover on their respective articles. If you have any truly constructive suggestions as to how to handle this manner (just blowing me off with "oh, there's Wikipedians, photo-cameras, blah blah blah in Japan" means nothing when those people can't get the photo-cameras into the concerts [or get thrown out for trying] doesn't count), I'd love to hear them. I asked if reducing the resolution, resizing the photo, or doing other necessary editing of the existing photos would help resolve the matter. You gave no answer there.  That's definitely a bad-faith move in and of itself. --CJ Marsicano 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Abusing your position?
I am watching your list and you are tagging pictures without even warning the people who uploaded them. This is seriously against policies. You are doing this intentionally to catch people off guard. And it's not just me complaining.

I have had conversations long time ago with other editors who suggested that album covers and images are preferred since they are legit sources to identify artists. So I understand wikipedia want to use FREE images lately. And you are on this spree of random deletion.

Recently you decided to remove image AlanTam.jpg from the article. This is obviously a promotional poster, hence it is FREE. Why don't you explain what type of images will not get deleted for mainstream movies and artists and albums? As I have read all the wikipedia policies, do you really expect us to take pictures of bigtime celebrities in our backyard? And I hope you reply to me with some good examples instead of shoving another NFCC link my direction. Benjwong 04:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Buffer your notices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hayford_Peirce

You've spammed this page with about 25 identical notices over the course of a minute (16:42, 7 March 200). I assume that you used a bot. Creating a terse message and then listing all the images along with their respective expiration dates would have been a much better idea. You don't even have to buffer the messages - just detect whether the talk page already has one of your messages, and add new enties to the list, prepended by "some other images: ... ~ " if 3 minutes have passed. See also User_talk:BetacommandBot. –MT 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look at these?
Hi, Quadell. Would you take a look at the use of unfree images on Music of Hong Kong and Cinema of Hong Kong? The concern is about how those specific images help on the article's comprehension in a way that words alone can not (item#8).

I don't believe these to be difficult cases, but as one editor took my actions personally, it may be easier for someone else to try to communicate with him.

Thanks in advance! --Abu badali (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I got it. Good idea to bring in another user. Also, I wanted to let you know about User:Quadell/Pages with too many non-free images. If people actually use the page, I'll keep adding to it (maybe using a bot, I'm not sure). – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Village_pump_(assistance) - of particular reading interest... hbdragon88 06:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Inquisitor
Did you see the rationale in Image:Yehuda Bauer.jpg? What part of it is under dispute? You seem to take pride in your overzealousness, but it may harm the project. Please try to be reasonable in the future. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The image looks replaceable to me, Humus. Removing non-free, replaceable images is a great help to the project. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem uploaders
By the way, you probably, in your image work, run into users who mistag non-free images as being released by them (under the GFDL or whatever). Please bring these to my (or another admin's) attention. Users who do this need to be warned and, if the behavior doesn't stop, blocked. Also, if a user repeatedly uploads images without sources or tags even after being asked to supply these, let me know about these too. Finally, if you come across a user re-uploading images that were deleted in-process (and not supplying additional information in the re-upload), let me know this as well. I'm not ban-happy by any means, but if a user should be blocked I have no qualms about being the one to do it. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek photos
Saw the promo images got deleted, and I think some better ones from screen caps can be found also. But here are more, should be fair to all of them, you may have just forgot these.

Image:Picard4.jpg - says its a screencap, obviously its not Image:Burton as LaForge.jpg - may be a screencap as it says, looks promo though, maybe cite episode from? Image:Nog.jpg - again, looking at the camera, maybe promo? maybe not? Image:Rom (Star Trek).jpg - same again Image:TheDoctor.jpg - OBVIOUSLY not a screen cap Image:7of9 cargobay mug.png - already has some type of notice on it, not sure how long its been on it for Image:Travis Mayweather.JPG Image:320x240.jpeg Image:Christine chapel.jpg

Now, another question, I would like to replace a lot of these images that got deleted with proper ones, do you know a good program to take good quality screen caps from a DVD to save as a JPG without a terrible loss of quality? I have no idea and have never done this.

Hope this info helps you out. 74.204.40.46 05:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I use MPlayer, but it's not exactly user friendly. --Abu badali (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking, and would it be okay to use pics from screen caps that are on Memory Alpha, a wikipedia "mirror" or whatever its called. I figured it wouldnt be right, but thought I might as well ask since it was on my mind... If not, say no more, and I won't bring it up again :) Thanks for your help 74.204.40.46 05:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you make your own screenshots, so that you can add proper source information, i.e., the series name and episode number (and, if possible, the approximated time when the screen was grabbed).
 * But first, make sure the article really needs an image. --Abu badali (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo deletions
It's coming clear to me that you like deleting pictures of articles, as you did on the LT & MM filmography article. Agtaz 11:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The user page didn't give that away? hbdragon88 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What??? Agtaz 22:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, he's changed the user page up. Talk page comments should indicate that Abu badali is primarily active in image tagging and cleanup, though. hbdragon88 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
Huge improvement! I have felt that a userpage that seemed to be confrontational for the sake of it made you less effective in the excellent work you were doing, as an your image removals etc. might go more smoothly if you're seen as not unnecessarily annoying people. (Unfortunately, image cleanup is going to annoy some people, regardless of your intentions.)

My one concern would be with your new photo. You seem to have suddenly, umm, aged a lot! Did all those grey/white hairs come from the stress of trying to uphold image policy? That would be bad news for me, as I've been intending to get more involved in that area. ElinorD (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Max Payne: Payne & Redemption
I am confused as to why you have called this movie "home-made" and said that it has no "relevance" to Sam Lake. This is a PROFESSIONAL movie made by INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS, most of whom have IMDB profiles supporting this fact. This film is also not only CONDONED BY SAM LAKE, but strongly supported by him, too, hence why he has been quoted on the official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Prowler (talk • contribs)

RE KATHY IRELAND IMPOSTER
Good point to leave it out without a source...I will keep looking as this if it can be documented would be worth an article to itself. A black man succesfully imposing as a supermodel...Bizarre and Noteworthy!Skipdownthestreet 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg in Operation Wrath of God
User:Joshdboz is disputing the removal of Image:Ap munich905 t.jpg from the article Operation Wrath of God. If you would like to comment please do so at so we can get a broader opinion of whether use of the image in this article meets WP:NFCC. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Brunokirby2.jpg. Since you nominated the image for deletion, I thought you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nv8200p talk 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a pain in the butt again about the Munich article, huh Apoo?

Why not try being an EDITOR instead of a provocateur? NOBODY has disputed the use - or caption - of that picture except you. BassPlyr23 10:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronstadt Images
Hello there. These photos are offered for criticism and comment. As noted in other photos for Fleetwood Mac and other subjects that I have seen in the non profit public site, of intrest this appears to be arbitrary. Likewise the term noteworthy is subject to subjective reasoning. Where is noteworthyness of the image in copyright law. This site being a non profit public site, the only issues involved are legal issues with the copyright holder. According to copyright law an image of low resolution for criticsm and comment is usable. The only reason there are issues pertaining to have photos here for purely legal, and copyright issues not noteworthy...

People want to see that the family was in Family Circle magazine, its an important family inthe American southwest, and the same way that a photo of the Kennedy Family is here on wiki the Ronstadt family is here and relevant an copyrighted.

The Time magazine photo is noteworthy the same way this photo is dispalyed on the Cher wiki site and other artist. See Fleetwood Mac, Cher, Madonna, Rolling Stone. Thank you. (Sharkentile 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

Images and Noteworthiness
Your 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.

The images allow people the see the chronology of a persons growth. Especially people whose second language is english or that get a differnt take on a subject through visualization...(Sharkentile 01:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

Image:Tommyheavenly6.JPG
Since pretty much everything else (copyright info, who took the photo [there wasn't a photo credit, so I had to put "Photographer unknown"], proper tag template) is there, I gave the precise source of the image... me, sort of. I scanned the image from a press kit for one of her recent records that I borrowed from a friend who collects that kind of stuff. Since I have provided the source of the picture, I have taken the liberty of removing the no-source tag from the image page. If there's any more questions, you know how to contact me. --CJ Marsicano 01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

More information supporting retaining the aforementioned image
ReyBrujo has informed me that public figures in Japan (and their agencies) have what are called "personality rights", which in a nutshell basically means that if you're a public figure and you take a picture of them without their permission, you violate those rights. In short, this means that finding or creating "free" images of Tommy Heavenly6 or any other Japanese pop or rock singer are pretty much impossible, thus permitting the use of promotional images under Wikipedia's fair use policy. I've again amended the non-free rationale template on the image page and its related talk page to include this information. Hopefully this will allow a keep (speedy or otherwise) of this image and similar images like it. If there's any problems or questions, please contact both Rey and myself -- CJ Marsicano 05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

July 6 ifds
Thanks for waking me up. I though I was on July 1. Teach me to drink and delete!!! -Nv8200p talk 02:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the images. I hope my actions don't upset EADD (Editors Against Drunk Deleting) or I'll be in ARBCOM too! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs)

Handicapped ISA image, again
Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handicapped ISA image, again

Another attempt at users trying to sneak the ISA image back on the Wiki. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ZuleykaRivera.jpg
Thanks for letting me know. In other news, there are several interesting discussions going on at WP:FUR that I thought you might be interested in. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Images by Londo06
You are not an administrator that I am familiar with. I am unclear if you would therefore have the authority to remove images. I will however endeavour to bring the pictures up to scratch. Londo06 23:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No reply, it appears you are associated with quaddell. I will fix the images when they are sorted. Londo06 11:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Images and authority
Sorry, Quadell?? don't call me a vandal. you forget the reason why this site exist at all. its free, public OPEN. Its encyclopedic to inform the public not your paying job and people will stop contributing you go around screwing with everyone moral and having a power trip. This is not not vandalism when I remove something that ANYONE can tag (do you want me and other to start tagging photos? I can easily become an authority), It seems from comments and discussion - people are not familiar with you. We don't know who you are and your statements and requests seem odd and arbitrary and somewhate prejudicial. This is not the form of a person of authority. you might be the vandal- puting your alleged authority over the reason why this whole site exist. we will delete when I don't think the tag is warranted by someone we do not know and like the previous posters we will endeavour to bring pictures up to scratch but if you continue this weird tags and request we  will not continue to honor and we will consider you a vandal and not honor, simple as that, explain your authority?? (Sharkentile 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

Of course my opinion on the matter or any subject on this wiki site is more than welcome, this is a public forum ALL OF OUR OPINONS ARE WELCOME, NON OF US GET PAID ON THIS NON PROFIT SITE, OR interviewed and only some get elected, have you been voted and elected for something, i'm curious about your title. and like many posters here, your authority going around making statements like "the statements not supporting a photo" anyd another thing you immediately deleted photos where you have no right d. again your threats of vandalism seem hollow...you appear to by overreaching with any authority you appear to have. Where are you from.(Sharkentile 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

Just a Wikipedia editor
Well, I too am just a Wikipedia editor and I have not special authority, like you, I am very busy with my paying professional job and have no time to argue with people on these sites over stuff that is not legally relevant but policy relevant. I just get the fact that you're interpreting policy. I've been contacting other people and you have to admit reading other people's post, there are problems with you tagging sites and your reasoning. Where are you from, age, first language? all this is important in the way you're interpeting these subjects and then making your reasoning. do you know about the subject and sites your visiting?? This goes into alot of your interpretion. I deal with the law and policy all day so I know. As far as speedy deletion, as soon as you tagged the photos they were immediately removed, who else should we suspect? You continue to loose the moral of the people and you discourage people from contributing to this entire site. Is that what your goal is, TO DISCOURAGE??? Really, I have a real job and no time to argue. You want to take every photo out fine, im too busy and have a life. What odd and troublesome is that a lot of subjects continue to display photos without question, and I can audit the 100's of sites, and others get tagged by people like you. This take too much of my time. good look, im busy.(Sharkentile 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

Arbitrary and unequal policy
I know what policy is, im a lawyer...good luck, tag what you want according to your interpretation of policy. What is odd and troublesome is that a lot of subjects on wikipedia continue to display photos without question, and I can audit and name the 100's of subjects that do, and others get tagged by people like you. This take too much of my time. good look, im busy. your goal of discourage and loosing moral is. As far those accidentaly deleted photos, we replaced them. and we will if they are removed in the future, someone else will.

What is unequal,odd and troublesome is that a lot of subjects continue to display photos without question, and we can audit the 100's of sites that do, and others get tagged by people like you. This take too much of my time. good look, im busy. tag and remove at your leisure.(Sharkentile 19:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

Images
Hi Abu badali. I don't understand (My English is bad), why you considered the images of São Paulo and Rio De Janeiro for speed deletion? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok... But now, the articles of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro will need quality images. Thanks. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soap Opera Actor Promo Shots
I was looking online and noticed several publicity photos of soap actors and remembered the Star Trek publicity photo issues. I posted my findings for you below, and a few of them even have copyright tags that are clearly false. Hope this helps you in removing improper images from Wikipedia. Anything else I can do for you just let me know, glad to help! Image:ArianneZuker2001L.jpg Image:Nadiabjorlin.jpg Image:Brandonbeemer.jpg Image:Jascook15.jpg Image:Bryandattilo.jpg Image:Marthamadison.jpg Image:Joshtaylordays.jpg Image:J Beaver Deadwood.jpg Image:SBurton.jpg Image:Christie Clark.jpg Image:Dt bb act large dconley.jpg Image:Crampton08.jpg Image:Patrdarbo13.jpg Image:News3.jpg Image:Rhearstabc001.jpg Image:Jingleabc001.jpg Image:Julmorris14.jpg Image:Patsypease.jpg Image:Austinpeck87.jpg Image:Bumpergluphoto.gif Image:MaxwellSheffield.jpg Image:Louisesorel02.jpg Image:Arleen Sorkin.jpg Image:Kirstensnpromo001.png Image:Cookstormsou2.gif Image:Bwarlockabc001.jpg Image:EricWinter.jpg Image:Newhart Cast.jpg Image:Cathy Doe actor.jpg Image:Liza Huber.jpg Image:Benmasters.JPG Image:Passions-Timmy+Tabitha.jpg Image:Passions.jpg Image:Passionsstewart.jpg Image:Ivy 3.jpg Image:Mark Wystrach.jpg Image:MarianneSmall.jpg Image:Rs front.jpg Image:Christinachambers 2006 186x.jpg Image:Sunset Beach Cast98.jpg 74.204.40.46 06:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and tried to list them on the page, I felt bad leavin these all on here and throwin it on you. I hope I did it right, if not, maybe u can fix?  Sorry bout any inconvenience, but none of these look legit. 74.204.40.46 10:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Empress Farah.jpg
Abu badali, could you explain to me the issue you have with this image which you removed from Farah Pahlavi - the Iranian PD-Iran tag looks fine and is used on Commons. What more than "official government portrait" do you believe our policies require as a source? WjBscribe 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find your answer satisfactory - if the problem is not obvious to me as an admin here and on Commons, you need to give the editor more of an explanation of what you want. What information precisely do you say needs to be added to those images' descriptions to meet policy? WjBscribe 14:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly we don't impose such strict standards on a lot of Commons images (where the requirements are usually higher). But if Jeff gives the reference number for the autobiography - assuming the bio confirms its an official state photo - you'd be statisfied with that? Incidentally given this is a user you have been in dispute with before and in light of the issues raised at ArbCom, I'd appreciate an explanation of how you became involved in this matter - it seems a rather remarkable coincidence. WjBscribe 14:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "probably from really from Jeff's logs" - I think it might be a good idea if you stopped looking at Jeffpw (other editors you've been in dispute with)'s logs. Might give the wrong impression. WjBscribe 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
I made a minor grammar fix here. Since this is a touchy area I want to be extra careful here -- if you don't agree with my change, by all means, revert me. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! --Abu badali (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (And I even made a mistake in my correction. Just goes to show: even image-policy-wonks aren't perfect, right?) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruption
Please do not dig through my history to post bogus disputes about images which disagree with your political ideology. Do not join in harassment campaigns against individual users. You do not have consensus on your own and you do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of policy is not policy. Period.


 * 1) The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances.  Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content.  If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
 * 2) The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
 * 3) The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

Please cease stalking me now. Do not send me boilerplate excuses about how you are just enforcing policy, because they aren't true. Repeating the same distortions over and over changes nothing. Learn civility. Leave me in peace, as I intend positive contributions to Wikipedia. Mosquera 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Abu badali; Mosquera has posted this same message to multiple talk pages. I've responded to the one he left to me at . --Durin 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Darger
I added the source for that statement to the image text.--Isotope23 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! --Abu badali (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello, just wondering why my pics need to be deleted and this one doesn't: Image:Filipinos.jpg Coojah 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said they don't? ;) --Abu badali (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * :) oh ok can you put it on the images for deletion page/tag it? thanks Coojah 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Question
Wouldn't WWII images published by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum or British Imperial War Museum be free under some government license?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing Tags
Hello, what do you do when a user keeps deleting tags off of images that are listed for deletion on the deletion page, and put there because of this, with no explanation of why they are removing the tags, and they just continue to remove the ifd tag from the image? 74.204.40.46 02:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Courteously explain the user this is not the correct way of disputing the tagging, and that it may be considered vandalism. If he/she insist, ask for help at WP:ANI. --Abu badali (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to do your second step because I tried that and they are just ignoring me and taking the tag off again. It happened twice, since its an image that's been up for deletion for a while, I'll wait and see if he does it again then I will say something. 74.204.40.46 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MFD
I've transcluded Portal:Catholicism/Popes in to Portal:Pope/Popes to prevent forking, but to allow portal consistancy if anyone ever wanted it. Do you think this is a good fix, or do you want to continue with the MFD? Thanks, — xaosflux  Talk  03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I've reverted myself. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on that page, but do note that although it is orphaned, it is only a week old, have you talk'ed the creator?. —  xaosflux  Talk  04:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bohermeen Church
I OWN the copyright of the image. That copyright was signed over LEGALLY to me. I placed it on Wikipedia with the permission of the original photographer, the parish priest who owns the hard copy and with my own agreement as the legal owner of the image as signed over under Irish copyright law. I am fed up dealing with this copyright shite from people who do not know the law and are too lazy to check. I have removed the image from WP and you can go to hell if you think you are ever getting it back. I have also removed other images whose copyright I OWN from this site. After the way I and others who did so much for this encyclopaedia in the early days have been treated, we (thirty of us, who between us contributed thousands of articles to this site) are all removing ALL images we placed on this site and have removed text we contributed. BTW we are all professional historians and writers. Many of us have done paid work for other encyclopaedias. But we gave our time, effort, research skills and our own images to this site, only to be screwed around over and over by it. As far as we are all concerned, Wikipedia can go fuck itself.

Is that clear enough for you. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused, Jtdirl. I can see that you're upset, but I'm trying to understand why. All the images I see there were tagged as "non-free". If you owned the copyright, then you would have to release them under a free license in order to upload them here. All you had to do is say that you owned the copyright, and that you were releasing them under a free license, and there wouldn't have been any problem. If you feel you were "screwed over", please explain how. I obviously don't want to see you leave Wikipedia over this. I'm just trying to understand the nature of the problem here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aff! Come on! What you have against me? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! Você fala português, assim é melhor. Bom, a imagem do Live Earth é impossível ser encontrada sob licença livre. Tanto quanto as imagens do Pan. A da Adriana Lima pode deletar se quiser. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Associated

 * "No reply, it appears you are associated with quaddell."

Oh dear. It appears we're "associated" now. Next will come the rumors that we're dating. :-) – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Por que você está removendo todos pictogramas dos esportes? Então por favor, remova também os pictogramas de artigos como 2008 Summer Olympics. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review my logs and delete anything you dislike
I know its been a while since I told you I do not require notification if you wish to delete any image that I posted in the past under fair use. So I now remind you that you are free to go through my logs and delete any picture you find an issue with. I have stopped posting any such pictures as I believe Wikipedia will soon accept the same standard as Wikinews and only allow free photos to be used. Again I do not require and do not want any notification of pictures being deleted. Nor do I require an apology that you forgot I told you this in the past. Thank you.--Wowaconia 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

fyi
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Marina_Baker%2Bcolumn.jpg&action=history —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Skin
 But, but. . . I thought you hate all pictures of women showing skin! At least, that's what people say, right? ;) – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See also. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Clear Mistake
Hello. I would like to point your attention to:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg

... which is a screenshot about an image recently deleted in the anti-fair use hysteria.

As this clearly shows, the image - ''It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use'' - was indeed made available by CBS to ALL media outlets. Also please note that the AP lists this image as an "Undated CBS promotional photo".

As user Abu Badali put it, All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. So here it is. Will you assist in restoring this image?

Jenolen   speak it!  03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your image deletion nominations
While glancing through recent IfDs I found your name appeared prominently. You have nominated a bunch of images for deletion but in all cases you have missed the step of adding notifications to the image captions, this is especially important when nominating half of the images from a featured article for deletion.--Konstable 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll consider doing that on these cases. There's the downside of having too many "I Like it!" votes, and users getting upset about how the closing admin didn't "count the votes" correctly... but in some cases where an article's expansion could save the image (like the current Einstein-tongue debate), it's worth doing. Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting for deletion
Does it merely take a vote to keep an image, even if it clearly violates what the policy is? There is a discussion going on for publicity shots from the show Dawson's Creek that it seems like is going to have some Yes votes, but I thought publicity shots should be replaced with screen caps of the show? I copied the link from the site that says the copyright info. Just wondering if thats okay or if they vote yes on it, even if its not allowed, does that mean it still stays.

Also, another image on there says its ok because its presumably from a certain source. Is this okay? Can we just presume its from something and claim its okay under those pretenses? Sorry to bug you again, just seems like you know a lot about this issue. You should see whats being discussed on the page for these images.74.204.40.46 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't care about "votes". The deletion discussion is not a vote. The closing admin analyzes the arguments.
 * Normally, "presumably from a certain source" isn't good enough. We need verifiable and reliable source information. --Abu badali (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the help, kinda new to this and just tryin to help out, so I appreciate your advice. Thanks :) 74.204.40.46 03:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ajuda
Oi Abu... queria te pedir um auxílio se possível, já que você é experiente por aqui. O usuário carregou várias imagens como tag da Agência Brasil mas a única fonte que ele deu é www.agenciabrasil.gov.br, sem o endereço exato da imagem. Ele também carregou imagens com PD-self e depois mudou para Agencia Brasil, outras são evidentes copyvios. Eu marquei algumas delas e pedi que ele informasse o endereço completo da imagem no site da Agência Brasil, pois se basta informar www.agenciabrasil.gov.br eu posso carregar qualquer imagem e pronto, meto a tag da Agência Brasil e tá liberado. Infelizmente, um outro usuário reverteu dizendo que www.agenciabrasil.gov.br já é fonte, o que me parece completamente descabido. O mesmo ocorreu com duas outras imagens dos anos '70 (desta vez carregadas por outro usuário), em que se informa como fonte um arquivo público de Goiás, sem URL, sem nada. Como é possível verificar a licença se não se tem uma fonte? Aqui parece ser difícil eliminar imagens pode copyvio, pois qualquer mínima "desculpa", por mais primário que seja, parece colar. Espero estar errado. Você teria como me orientar, pois não me parece justo usar a licença de Agência Brasil de forma irresponsável. Abraços, Dantadd 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saw3_cape10.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Saw3_cape10.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. Konstable 09:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to contact User:Faded, the original uploader. I just uploaded a lower-resolutuion version of the file. I don't endorse the image use. --Abu badali (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Style_dot_com_screenshot.jpg
I have tagged Image:Style_dot_com_screenshot.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. Konstable 09:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you may want to contact User:Daniel Case, the original uploader. I just uploaded a lower-resolutuion version of the file. I don't endorse the image use. --Abu badali (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anahi2.jpg
I have tagged Image:Anahi2.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. --Konstable 09:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once more, you may want to contact User:Lalo07, the original uploader. I just uploaded a lower-resolutuion version of the file. I don't endorse the image use. --Abu badali (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abu the Bad
Ahhh. I'm sick of having messages to do with images. I thought I had come up with a solution to solve it and then this happens. Wikipedia can be very demanding at times!! Everybody I know copies a written rationale onto uploaded images anyway. Film posters really don't have different rationales!!! I'd propose modifying it to make it more specific.Why do you have to waste time!!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate keep it real. I was kidding. I thought the template was an excellent solution to performing repetitive tasks -when people contribute as much to films as I do and upload many images a day to try to improve article it is a blessing. Now why would you want to go ahead and delete something useful to film contributors huh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know but with films the reality of a free snapshot just isn't practical -remember I am trying to help people by visdually identifying the article subbject and improve the quality of wikipedia. You said about your criteria well it meets this every time see the nomination page. This process only started because of the Anya from Spy hwho loved me tagging earlier. Well perhaps the tag should only be on film posters not screenshots - screenshots may require more specific rationales ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with images I upload getting marked for deleting
Ok, sorry to bother you again, but you may have noticed someone took the initiative, and I just continued with it, to replace all those star trek publicity shots with screen caps and adding fair use rationales and copyright info, sources, etc. Now, is there a way to not get these listed for deletion when someone just clears them off the article and replaces them with another that we know will be deleted again for reasons already discussed. A few of these I uploaded get tagged as orphans now that people have cleared them off the articles. Just a thought, if I posted them temporarily on my user page when the tag comes up would that stop the bots from tagging them as orphans? Ejfetters 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't post non-free images to your userpages (per item #9 of WP:NFCC), and this won't stop them to be deleted as "orphan" anyway.


 * Whenever one screenshot is replaced be one of those images-believed-to-be-promotional, what you should do is revert the replacement and nominate the bad-promotional image for deletion. It could help to add some commented text to the articles, nearby the images,  explaining that those are not to be replaced by images wrongly believed to be promotional. --Abu badali (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dawson's Creek publicity character shots
A lot of talk has gone on about these images that I think should be replaced with screen caps, like star trek was, just wanted to get your weigh-in on them, check them out, and maybe you can vote on the images if you feel strongly enough about them. image:Joey Potter.jpg image:Jen Lindley.jpg image:Pacey Witter.jpg image:Dawson Leery.jpg

Do you think I was right to list these ones for deletion, there source says they aren't to use them for this type of thing, but users are arguing that they are ok to use, and screen caps are exactly the same. If I'm wrong, just let me know, thanks again! Ejfetters 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusing your position?
Recently you decided to remove image Charles Phillips.jpg from the article Charles_Phillips_%28businessman%29. This image was clearly provided by Oracle Corp and the license provided, hence it is FREE. I am watching your list and you are tagging pictures without even warning the people who uploaded them. This is seriously against policies. You are doing this intentionally to catch people off guard. And it's not just me complaining. dmode 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I removed the image from the article, not Abu badali. I removed it from the article because it had been deleted. Just because Oracle created an image, that does not make the image FREE. Images are free only if the are legally in the public domain (not copyrighted), or if they have been explicitly released under a free license. See Copyrights for more information. Also, note that Abu has no position to abuse, besides that of an ordinary editor. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Bully
(This is not an article)

Oracle Corp provided specific images of Charles Phillips for free use publication (the license was included). You deleted the image and deprecated the Wikipedia. In my opinion you are a Wiki bully (comments above and below indicate others may think so too) dmode 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Abu badali has never deleted an image. A personal attack is still a personal attack, no matter how many people may have made it. Please stop, dmode. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jacquelinedupredavidoff.jpg
when tagging images for deletion, please remember to Add following to the image captions as indicated in the template instructions:. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Brabham
Stalking me again are you? Stupid question, of course you are. Never mind, I've asked for it to be speedy deleted. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

F off
You can be polite to me all you like but won't make a bit of difference until you stop stalking me. I don't care what all your cronies over at the Arbitration panel say to kiss up to you, you are nasty and if I don't stand up to you, who will? PageantUpdater talk • contribs  01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pageant, you don't really believe that the ArbCom would feel the need to "kiss up to" a non-admin, do you? Isn't it possible that their decision is based on an objective view of the situation, and not a desire to please one side or the other? – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored...
...and it is under those grounds, as well as the additional disclaimer that appears on the essay noting that some sarcasm and dark humor is used therein, that I have reverted your removal of the link. -- CJ Marsicano 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On the photograph of Taqizadeh
Dear Abu Badali, this is perhaps the tenth time that you have attempted to remove this photograph, for reasons that I do not wish to speculate about at this place. At the time (several months ago) I requested you kindly to leave the matter to a different person, adding that I did not wish to be written by you about this particular photographs any longer! This man died long time ago, please leave his soul in peace! If you cannot, please ask another moderator to consider this photograph. I have a fundamental problem with the combination of you and anything that has to do with Taqizadeh; on the matter of Taqizadeh, I do not consider you an impartial individual. --BF 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Abu badali, thank you for contacting me. I'm willing to "take over" the nomination and deletion questions about these images, and I have left a message for BF on his talk page. It would be best if you didn't leave further messages on his talk page, and it would be great if you could refrain from commenting directly on those images at IFD. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Deal. --Abu badali (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But please, make sure nobody says anything wrong about me without being pointed to the facts. My fan-club is temporally closed for new membership. See similar cases. There's no reason to be lax when it's so easy to prove a source! Any pre-1977 publication is a proof of PD status. I trust you. --Abu badali (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My Image Contributions
Why have so many images I've added to articles been subjected by you for deletion?! I've added all the information that other users have added for their image contributions and yet their images go untouched! What am I doing so wrong that others aren't if I've been following their examples?! I mean that screencap being used to represent Lalla Ward as Romana's 2nd incarnation is terrible. I thought I'd fixed it but apparently it's still not right! I can't win or if I can then I don't know how. If my image is going to be replaced then at least replace it with something more flattering then I won't feel the need to try to improve the article with a better image. — Alan-WK 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg, an image you nominated for deletion (and which was subsequently deleted), is now up for deletion review. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread
FYI, I started drafting a request for comment. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll be watching it. --Abu badali (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's posted - since you were previously involved in this issue, would you mind co-certifying it? Videmus Omnia Talk  15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS and FlickR.
You seem to misunderstand OTRS (based on advice your giving out). OTRS is used when we're reliant on an e-mail that grants a free license. However, FlickR is special. You can specify the license on the FlickR image page itself, and a bot, can verify that the license is correct, and "free". So, an e-mail to OTRS serves no purpose. In fact, since it's so easy to forge e-mails, its actually better to bypass OTRS, and rely on the FlickR bot to check the license. So, I suggest, that you not tell people uploading FlickR images, that they have to use OTRS. In cases, where it's not known if the license on FlickR was intentional, clarification at FlickR (on the image page, or profile page) is probably more useful than a (forgeable) OTRS e-mail, as that's verifiably of the correct person. Forwarded e-mails are actually of little value, due to the impossibility of verifying them. --Rob 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in - I've dealt with Flickr users who prefer to give a GFDL license to us, as opposed to modifying the CC license on the image. Don't know why, but there it is. An OTRS volunteer can verify permission on an image by contacting the e-mail or Flickr Mail address in the permission, if necessary. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I had pointed this out to him. And he acknowledged that. --Abu badali (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: NFCC-related close
Thanks for the reply and bringing your concerns to me. I'd like to point out that the upload dates on the images you cite were around a year ago, and well before I became an administrator. I have a much better understanding of the policy than I did a year ago (and the policy is significantly different than it was a year ago). My thoughts of image-related issues have changed since I became an admin, and I feel like I am able to close image-related issues in an unbiased manner. Regards, IronGargoyle 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you me?
I appears that I'm your sockpuppet. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been told that I am too, by two different people. Since I disagree with you on a regular basis, I can only conclude that you're an especially ineffective puppetmaster. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be almost a case of bipolar disorder. --Abu badali (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Videmus Omnia, considering the wonderful work you've being doing for the project, I have to say that it's an honor for me that someone though you could be my sockpuppet. --Abu badali (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, you guys are all my sockpuppets anyway.  howcheng  {chat} 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS email
I've been sending tons of emails to the OTRS permissions address and only got one reply (for Image:KristinGeorge.jpg)... could the email address be the problem? Per this, I've been sending the permissions off to  permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is this wrong? PageantUpdater talk • contribs  22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally send mine to permissions@wikimedia.org and get a reply within a week... Videmus Omnia Talk  22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So why the different email from the commons? Should I re-send them or wait? PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the images are challenged, I would resend them. It does no harm if one group of volunteers puts the ticket number on the image before another. If they're not being challenged, it does no harm to wait a while. Sometimes the backlog has climbed up to a few weeks on some of the permissions addresses, according to OTRS volunteers that I've asked. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. And another question... (unrelated but you all seem to think you know what you're talking about).... I contacted the author of this image to illustrate a recent Miss Tennessee, but her reply was something I hadn't heard of nor considered before.  Can you tell me whether this is necessary/whether this busts our use of all the other images I've managed to get released in the past few days? PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hi thank you for inquring about the photo of Blair Pancake. I would be interested in allowing it to be used however wouldn't I need to get a model release form signed by Blair to allow anyone to use her photograph?"
 * I sometimes run into similar issues - basically you need an explicit statement from whoever owns the copyright that they are releasing the image under the GFDL. Once in a while it takes some coordination to figure out who actually owns it, and to get their release. I think this person is possibly referring to personality rights, which don't necessarily apply here. FYI, I wrote a kind of help file at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content, don't know if it could help you at all, but you're welcome to it. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abu badali closed
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. is counselled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who question his tagging of images and to work with them in a collaborative way. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot!!! --Abu badali (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that sentiment in its entirety. Also, as part of your "counselling", I would like to recommend leaving this sort of message after a pile of tags. I've had good results doing that. Cheers! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  20:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Life after the arbcom case
Hi, Abu. I'm glad that no sanctions have been imposed against you. I think the work you're doing is extremely important, and I know you've been subjected to a lot of abuse. If I could make a gentle suggestion without giving offence, I think that when people start to feel targeted by you personally, it would be better to ask the help of someone else who is interested in copyright cleanup, rather than just proceeding with tagging that person's images for deletion. It's what I intend to do myself, as I always hoped, in the event of a successful RfA, to become much more involved with image work, and I know that sooner or later some users will feel targeted by me, and it may reach the stage that it will be prudent to back off and ask someone else to take over.

By the way, I've just been doing some image work myself, and I'm quite sure that Image:Mchronicles ep4 1.jpg and Image:Methos endgame08.jpg are tagged incorrectly, but I don't know what the correct tag would be. Maybe you could fix it? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all. About the image, I believe they qualify as film screenshot. But, of course, a rationale is still needed. --Abu badali (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fixed the tags. ElinorD (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another award
Congratulations on end of your ordeal. I thought you deserved a little recognition, an apology, and a caution. Recognition: you have worked tirelessly on images for years, and it's really paid off. Despite the continued backlog, Wikipedia is in much better shape today because of you. Despite our disagreements Because of our disagreements, confusion about interpretation of policy has turned into consensus in many cases, and issues which used to be debated for weeks are now handled with little difficulty. You've done good work. Apology: early on in your ArbCom case, I believed that the record would show an unambiguous pattern of retribution on your part, bad-faith nominations, and attempts to use image-nominations as a form of punishment. Evidence of this turned out to be unpersuasive. I was also under the impression that your interpretation of policy was extreme, and I said so. I now believe that even though we frequently disagree, and even though you are clearly on the deletionist/strict end of the spectrum, your interpretation of policy is fundamentally legitimate. I was wrong to ascribe to you bad motives or unsound logic, and I apologize. Caution: the ArbCom found essentially no evidence that you acted in bad faith in nominating images for deletion. Still, as you know, some users think that you have, and will doubtless continue to believe this. You help the project when you invite other image wonks to comment or assist in dealing with defensive users, so that it doesn't appear "personal". Thanks again, and I wish you all the best. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the award, the advice, everything! --Abu badali (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My quote of something you said
I've quoted (and disputed) something you said in the discussion here, so I thought I should give you the chance to respond. Carcharoth 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Screencaptures of Photos from DVD
Hi Abu badali.

I was wondering if you could tell me what licensing I should use if I were to submit an image for an article if it's a photo that I've screencaptured from the photo gallery of a DVD? I'd really appreciate any advice you can offer me in this matter. Thank you for reading. — Alan-WK 00:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Alan-WK. I don't think we have a specific licensing tag for that. What do you plan to use the images for? --Abu badali (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was planning on using these screencaptures of photos from DVD photo galleries to represent fictional characters. For instance, the picture that I submitted for the article Fifth Doctor is a screencapture I personally took from the DVD release of the Doctor Who serial Castrovalva and I licensed it as a non-free promotional picture which I'm beginning to think isn't accurate. But as I say...it's a screencapture of a photo from a DVD so should I actually have licensed it as a screencapture? — Alan-WK (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Non-free promotional is only for images that are "known to have come from a press kit or similar source", and I don't think DVDs qualify as that. And Non-free film screenshot is for film screenshots, which is also not the case. We're helpless here. But why don't you use a real movie screenshot instead? --Abu badali (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I think that using low quality screencaptures to represent characters or the actors that portray them is awful and that they deserve better. Either a magazine scan of a photo or a DVD screencapture of a photo as I have done for the article relating to the Fifth Doctor would do surely? — Alan-WK (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian photos
Try not to re-nominate them for deletion again a third time, please? :) -Nard 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in Dreadwing
Hi, Abu. I was going through the article Dreadwing, tagging images as lacking fair use rationale. Most of them had a Non-free comic licence tag, which made them fair use (whether valid or invalid fair use). Three of them were marked as PD-release. Could you check that that's correct, please. The images are:


 * Image:G2 dreadwing.jpg
 * Image:Rid dread.jpg
 * Image:Dreadwing en.jpg

Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

More advice requested
Hello again. I was working my way through the now-deleted Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 July 2007. Sometimes, when I'm doing this work, I come across an image that is tagged as having no rationale, when in fact it does have one. Sometimes, it's obvious that the rationale is completely invalid, at least in the article in which the image is used. For example, Image:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg has as the rationale that it shows how easily Saddam sat in his throne. I recently removed it from the article about the year 2006!

There were three images which I removed from the category, because they did have a rationale. I wanted to delete the category so that admins can move on to the next one in the backlog. However, since I have doubts as to the validity of the rationales, I'd appreciate if you could take a look. The images are:
 * Image:Edna Mode.jpg
 * Image:Nurseppe.jpg
 * Image:Shot00011.jpg

By the way, the image Image:Jp01.jpg was in one of these categories, and I deleted it, but there have been complaints at my talk page. I have now undeleted Image talk:Jp01.jpg, so that the discussion can continue. I'm not sure that I was right to delete the talk page as well. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Asalamu Alaikum, thanks for informing me about the pics. Do let me know how I can improve the articles by adding or not adding pictures. I would like to improve the quality of the article and the pictures are not that important. Thanks and awaiting your reply Taprobanus 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * what you do is unbelivably thankless and difficult job. Keep it up. Thanks

Oy!
I peeked into your user contribs (hope you don't mind!), and thought I would point out Image:Microsoft wordmark.svg to you! It is currently up for a deletion debate, but is likely to be spared (due to the excellent research of Carl Lindberg). A free Commons-hosted image is better than a non-Commons-hosted free image! --Iamunknown 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again
I just want to say thanks again for your wizardry of the image at Julie Laipply. I also want to let you know that for the good of myself, you and everyone else I have put the issues between us aside and am willing to move on. Besides... I don't think I have any non-free image uploads left on here :P I don't think there are any others that seriously need cropping but you're welcome to take a look if you get a moment... I have been busy the past few weeks trying to come up with free images and if I do say so myself I'm quite proud of the result :)  You can check my Commons upload log or some of the galleries where there are pics (Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, Miss Universe, Miss America) (although I haven't put all of them in the galleries).  PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:HankAaron.jpg
This image is clearly not free, but source and fair-use rationale information is missing. Since your an expert on this, I think you should deal with the issue. Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl
You posted a message on his page. He is a permanently-blocked user, so he's in no position to do anything about your complaint. Baseball Bugs 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Abu Badali!

I need your help in deciding the license of one image: This image is listed as released under GFDL, with source as "Rob Matthews". Though I cannot find this image anywhere else (other than Wikipedia mirrors) through a Google image search, I found this page listing a lot of photos of Yurt, all having tag: Photograher Rob Matthews. All rights reserved. ©2005 Yurt Workshop. Looking at these images, I get a feeling that this image is part of those. Can you check the actual status, or refer me to some place where I can?

By the way, my sarcasm meter exploded reading your User Page :D

Do you
have a vendetta against Filipinos or something?

If so, kindly find another place to air your problems.

If not, can you explain why you IfD'd three historical Philippine pictures in one go.

My theory is that you are either a person who forgot to research carefully, which is forgivable or a very insensitive deletionist, which is not.

Don't reply to my talkpage, reply to WP:PINOY

You might find some inflaming posts there that was created by me. I apologize in advance if it offends you in anyway. I was very angry then. I just don't want foreigners bullying my people both online and offline. Besides you already have a "background" so I don't really trust you.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fair use tag needs updating
You might want to direct your efforts towards the images in Category:Fair use tag needs updating. That would be, in my opinion, a helpful use of time. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

input/opinion
Do you think Image:WotW pub.jpg meets WP:NFCC? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another question
Hi, Abu. The information on Image:Footscray-station-overpass.jpg seems to be contradictory. Used with permission, and public domain. What should I do? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do ifd on these cases. --Abu badali (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done that. Now, can you give me some advice on what I should do about the following two images, please?
 * Image:Heighho.JPG Dubious looking rationale, particularly "purpose of use"! Also, I wonder about WP:NFCC
 * Image:Underthesea.JPG Can that really be GFDL, when it reproduces what would seem to be copyrighted images?
 * Many thanks. ElinorD (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A agree in both cases. I don't think that something with a prominent Disney's logo can be considered "free". And for the fair use claim, I don't see how an image of the tape helps in the understanding of a article that is pretty much a list of songs. I would point this concerns in an ifd nomination. --Abu badali (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
The book covers at Intelligent Design help illustrate the subject, make the article more readable, and are about publications that are very important in relation to the ID movement. Please don't remove them without discussing it first. Reinistalk 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The pictures significantly add to the article, and I don't agree with your interpretation of the NFCC rule. Reinistalk 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Two reverts are surely not more than trhee. --Abu badali (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning
Please be advised that WP:3RR strictly prohibits more than three reverts within a 24-hour period, and also prohibits edit warring in general. You are already in violation of the latter prohibition against edit warring at intelligent design, having reverted three different editors at that article on August 19, all without discussion or consensus on the article talk page. Please refrain from any further interference with the local consensus process. ... Kenosis 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Lcc2.jpg
why was this vandalised and replaced with a pic of a plane? Any why was nothing said about the decision to do this on the talk page? And why is it now listed for deletion again, with no link to a talk page and no message to me explaining why? How do I appeal a decision? I strongly feel there is no justification for deletion, and want my opinion acknowledged! Urso 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted by User:Quadell as a result of the deletion discussion, see the deletion log for the image. The image with the same name on Commons already existed, it just shows through when the English Wikipedia file with the same name is deleted. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not repost deleted content...you can request a deletion review instead. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * but nothing was said in the discussion about why it was deleted or even that it had been! I assumed someone had vandalized it, hence my repost. Surely I should have been told of the decision to delete and given the address for appealing, this seems totally inefficient and unfair; it's not like I didn't try to argue my position- and why do I only now get told about a deletion log; again I should have been told about this so I could discuss it there... also, how can I request a review if no copy of the deleted image exists!Urso 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's normally so many images up for deletion that the admins don't do notifications for each decision. If it was deleted you can generally assume that the reason was per the nomination. Also, IfD is generally more policy-based than consensus-based like AfD, so even if multiple editors argue for 'keep' the image will still be deleted if it doesn't comply with policy. To request a review at DRV, just reference the original filename, administrators can view the deleted image. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * well, since I reupped it as Lcc2, with my new rationale, I'll let the debate take place there. But if it is deleted again please could whoever makes the decison tell me what's wrong with my new rationale! Urso 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * oh, and thanks to Videmus Omnia for taking the time to answer my questions! I appreciate there must be a deluge of images to deal with. If it's deleted again I will accept it, but I just want to know what I did wrong...Urso 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More on historic and historical images
I'm still not happy about the way you are handling historical and historic images. I'm sorry to bring this up so publically, but I've posted my thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, and I'm inviting you to comment there. I do respect a lot of the image work you do, but I really do feel that you need to take things slower with the historic and historical images. I hope you understand why I felt I had to raise the matter in this way. Carcharoth 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for helping out with the Matthew situation. I didn't want to complain about something so idiotic, but it was starting to get under my skin. Videmus Omnia Talk  12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You are in violation of WP:POINT with this nonsense:. Keep in mind that escalation often turns ugly, and fake shields don't work against reality. Ponder. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a veiled threat against Abu badali? I hope not. Pondering. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how do you see that edit as a point. I'm curious about your reasoning. --Abu badali (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Polo Grounds
How do you imagine I'm going to find a "free equivalent" of a diagram of a structure that was torn down in 1964? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The key issue on that diagram is for verifying the 425 feet to the corner of the bleachers. That's the specific purpose for uploading that diagram. Consider this website which has a to-scale drawing like the one I uploaded. However, it does not explicitly state the 425 feet. It can be inferred, but that would be "spinning" it. I need a source (the one I uploaded) where it says it explicitly. I have not seen that anywhere else in a "free" source, nor am I likely to find one. The diagram was made when the structure existed, by authors who apparently actually measured it. The stadium was demolished in 1964. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The illustration is much better than someone having to take my word for it that a 56-year-old book contradicts the words of the announcer describing the play. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would bother to actually read what the illustration's comments say instead of just blindly assigning those tags in your zeal to delete stuff, you would see that I ALREADY SAID I cannot find a free equivalent. Do you enjoy all of this constant hassle that you give and get? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are at least three grammatical negatives in your answer, so I don't understand what you're actually trying to say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what you're getting at. This is a diagram from a 56-year-old book of a structure demolished 43 years ago. How do you imagine I'm going to find a free equivalent somewhere? You are being very unfair. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get this anti-illustration obsession of some editors here. People are visually oriented. Illustrations convey a lot more than words do. I myself could "redraw" that illustration. What would that prove? Anybody can make something up. The visual from the original source jumps out at you. Words just lay there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arafat in Lebanon.jpg

 * Image:Arafat in_Lebanon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Al_Ameer_son ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * I couldn't find this image on the source url, nor any reference to a cc-by-sa licensing Abu badali (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the more accurate url to the file page. It is located in a pdf document about the photographer's stay in Beirut. The author of the photo is a wiki:user of the German Wikipedia. I copied the license tag that he used. You can try contacting him for more information. I will myself also. Al Ameer son
 * Sorry but you can clarify the link I am supposed to add to the image file on de.wikipedia. Once again sorry for inconvenience. --Al Ameer son —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * Thank you for your patience, now I understand. I will try to find it on the German wikipedia, if that fails I will contact the author and add the link to the media file page. However it could take a day or two, depending on when he responds. Thanks again. --Al Ameer son —The preceding  signed but undated.
 * I translated what was on the cc-by-sa license tag from the german wikipedia and I got this:

This file became under the conditions "of the Creative Commons denomination passing on under same conditions Germany"- license (shortened "CC-by-SA") in the version 2.0 publishes.
 * I'm not exactly an expert in this sector in wikipedia but I wonder if you can extract any information from that. If not please notify me again. Al Ameer son 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IFDs
Please help constructively improve image rationales rather than jumping the gun through the IFD process when such noms are not really necessary. I've noticed that a couple of your nominations were based on reasonings that were easily and quickly fixable. --Strothra 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)