User talk:Chowbok/Archive 3

Mediation
Hello, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a case filed here. You were mentioned as someone whose input would be valued. If you would like to participate, please visit the mediation page and sign up. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randal Pinkett.jpg
It does have a fair use rationale ("For fair use on Randal Pinkett - this is a promotional photo taken from Randal Pinkett's promotional website [1]"), not a very good one though I admit. I will expand it, thanks.--Konst.ableTalk 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Well if you intend to go out and try to make a free alternative yourself, let me know. I have no intention of looking for one.  The image displayed there is displayed legally and with a fair use rationale.  There is absolutely no reason to remove it - it will not improve this encyclopaedia and currently it is not infringing any laws.  As it is, creating a so-called "free" (what a stupid term) alternative is "possible" for any living person.  But are you going to go out with your camera spying on celebreties?  I don't think so.--Konst.ableTalk 23:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No point in me bringing up a new dispute about the policy, there already is an existing one. So instead I went ahead and slapped a disputedpolicy tag on it.--Konst.ableTalk 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randall Simon.jpg
I just wasn't sure which tag to use for that image. I saw that other headshots from MLB.com had been used here, so I figured it was okay, but I didn't know how to tag it. As far as I know, there's no suitable replacement that's up-to-date (I uploaded it after he was traded to the Phillies), but if there is, then whoever finds it is welcome to replace it. Drjayphd 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ray Comfort.jpg
Okay, thanks. Only one article linked to it, so I instead linked to another image of him. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
Howdy! Thanks for the statement. Could I ask you to remove the last paragraph? It is a valid proposal, but at this time we are just making statements on a for/against basis. There will be a time later to propose solutions. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use disputed
Please have a look and argue against my point if you don't agree: Image_talk:Rhsteinunnicelandmiss.jpg Tryggvia 08:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A proposal
Have a look here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deletion of promotional photos for a proposal.--Konst.ableTalk 09:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bleep pic11.jpg
The image is copyrighted, but is intended to be used for free in conjunction with articles about the film. The source of the image and its copyright status is plainly stated on the image page. No appropriate image tag exists, as far as I know. User:Pedant 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Don't turn this into a war, the image information plainly states: '''Image provided by whatthebleep.com to be used to promote the film. This copyright image may be used non-commercially to promote awareness of the film "What the Bleep do We know".' It is neither "provided with a fair use rationale" nor is it "a screenshot "'', those are false statements. I'm reverting your revert, because it is wikipedia policy to remove demonstrably false information, regardless of it stating "do not remove this tag". User:Pedant 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My Images
Image:ÉricDesjardins.jpg, Image:Rathje.jpg, and Image:RandyRobitaille.jpg have all been replaced to meet free use criteria and a message has been left on their talk pages. If what I have done is not correct, please leave me a message at my talk page. Briememory 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a fair use rational for Image:RyanKesler.jpg. Please tell me if this does not satisfy you. Also, I would like to know why a picture used in a press release is not fair use, as it fits the description used under the image tag used. Briememory


 * The point is that this image does not violate fair use criteria. It is a promo photo. I implore you not to delete this images, any of the five that I have created, because they do not violate the criteria. Briememory 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Landscape option live
Ok, I went ahead and added the Landscape option to infobox musical artist. To use it, just add "| Landscape=yes". However, looking at the Mike Love article, I think that one might be better fixed by cropping, especially some of the black area on the left, and leaving it as a portrait image. Just a thought. cheers. --Xtifr tälk 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RobertKnepper.jpg
Hi. Can you please check my fair use rationale for Image:RobertKnepper.jpg? Thank you. Ladida 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RobinGibb.jpg
Hi, I see you have queried the use of this image under RFU - I have made an extensive search but have not been able to find any non-copyright images of Gibb that are available. If you know of one please substitute it. Jud 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry, but the image is a publicity shot from International Ice Hocjey Federation and the swedish "hockeyligan". The Fair use tag doesn't even need too be there, the promophoto tag is enough. How should I proceed?--Krm500 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The image was relased in a press kit by the IIHF before a tournament.--Krm500 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I understand why you're doing it, but please don't post any more messages on my talk page about fair use images I may have uploaded. I uploaded pictures of various Louisiana politicians for a user who isn't very comfortable around computers, and most of them are claimed as fair use. If the rules have been changed so that such photos are not acceptable, so be it, but I dislike having a ton of messages to that effect splashed across my talk page. Sorry if this message sounds angry or flippant; it's not supposed to be. But you don't need to warn me about any more fair use images. Thanks, -- BrianSmithson 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg
The image fits the Fair Use Criteria. My reply is on the image's discussion page.--HeartThrobs 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:BauhausBand.jpg listed for deletion
Hi. As far as I know (though I may be wrong) promotional photos are still allowed in Wiki. And this image seem to me to be much better than that concert photo. At least, the whole band is clearly visible. Blacklake 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Font samples
Are these really PD? The fonts themselves are copyrighted, so the images are not without restriction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image: Ryan Ross
This image was provided by their publist package to promote bad. I am not a music writter, nor MTV, so I cannot ask for it directly. That being said, they put it in public domain to promote band. Does this still require a re-host of image of Ryan Ross? Or should I redefine image copyright templeate? Thoughts? Hackajar 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This comment has been re-submitted. It was trampled over by anthother poster. Hackajar 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image fair usage dispute
I have replied here  Glen  04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sculley j.jpg
I've already looked for a free use replacement for that image before, with no luck. That is why the image is still there and is still in use. I don;t see any problem with the rationale, if you do, then change it. Thanks! — Wackymacs 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SE3promo (22).jpg
Image:SE3promo (22).jpg is a duplicate, and that is why it is orphaned. I don't know how to remove it. If it is going to be deleted, then that is best. (Bjorn Tipling 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Promontory Point (Chicago)
Thanks, that's a huge lot better! - MPF 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance. However, it seems to have been editted by a non-Chicagoan or at least a non-Hyde Parker. You removed numerous extremely important points. I commented on the page if you look at the bottom of the code. Lets meet at the discussion page and discuss my paragraphs of contention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:33, November 9, 2006 (UTC-5)

See current discussion page for thoughts. TonyTheTiger 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Come work with me. I attempted to reedit. TonyTheTiger 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sec. Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer & SACEUR Gen. Jones.jpg
I don't really have the time to travel to Belgium. But if you want to, fine. Otherwise, goodbye to the image. DesertSky85451 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that all promotional photos should be deleted?
Hi, is it like you have a goal to get every single publicity photo used in biography articles deleted? I'm asking this because the two images I uploaded and recently tagged by you are photos of artists released specifically for the purpose of illustrating the artist on the media and their usage here perfectly fits the promophoto tag in place. It seems to me that you have a problem with the promophoto tag, and you have to initiate a discussion somewhere about the usage of this tag and possibly work towards getting this tag category deleted. I would also be happy if you could please explain your reasoning to me leading you to think that for Image:SibelTuzunEurovisionPromotion.jpg and Image:SebnemFerahPromotion.jpg, free versions could be created. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, thanks for making it clear. But the "exception" or "living/dead" issue you are talking about is not mentioned in the promophoto tag itself and I still think that your actual problem should firstly be with that tag, rather than the images using it. You see, there are many people complaining on your talk page saying the images uploaded by them are not easily recreatable and believing the images fit the description in the tag. You could perhaps discuss the problem on that tag's talk page or on Fair use (if you already haven't, of course). Perhaps a rewording of the tag could be agreed upon and prevent interpretations like mine and other complaining guys' from occuring in the future. I still maintain that any publicity photo released by, say, a record company to be used on media for the promotion of one of their artists could also be usable here on Wikipedia like they are used everywhere else and this category of images won't pose a restriction on Wikipedia's redistributabilty. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputing image tagging
Hi. I just wanted to let you know I am disputing the tagging of Image:SombatMetanee.jpg and Image:Somluck.jpg. I understand it is nothing personal. I want to do what's right and come to a greater understanding about how images can be used. As I understand it, the promophoto license is the focus of the replaceable images campaign by concerned Wikipedians. What if the license were changed to Non-free fair use in? Is that a more appropriate license for the use of these two photos? I appreciate your efforts and any help you can offer in helping me to find a correct answer in this dispute. Thanks. -Wisekwai 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. I thought I had already explained why the images are fair use in the detailed fair-use rationale for their specific use, and have stated my case again on the article's talk page. -Wisekwai 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed image tagging
I am disputing your ridiculous tagging of slfnow.jpg on the basis that that line up of the band no longer exists, the members of that line up of the band live on two different continents, and unless you can be arsed to phone them all up and arrange for the members to be flown to the same country, so that you can take a photograph of them, so that you can upload it to Wikipedia, it aint gonna happen!!! Jcuk 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) --- No I will NOT calm down. I notice now you have even tagged slfofficial.jpg which Stiff Little Fingers themselves asked me to upload, as you can clearly see on my user page. If Stiff Little Fingers permission to use their image is not good enough for you, may I ask whose permission is? Jcuk 18:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet champagne
If you don't like the image of Soviet champagne or feel that it violates someone's copyrights, I give you permission to delete it, provided that you produce a free replacement. I want to remark that the image was uploaded under Template:PD-Soviet and was perfectly valid, until the template was suddenly deprecated and turned invalid, for reasons unknown to me. Good luck, Ghirla  -трёп-  19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seasick Steve Photo
Hi there

I have now emailed Steve about that, all i can do now is wait. There's a chance he won't reply before the deadline, is there any chance that you could extend the deletion deadline, or whether i would be able to re-upload the photo after his reply? Please reply on my talk page, thanks JimHxn 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Q'orianka kilcher Photo
-Hey i got a question for you, why is the Q'orianka Kilcher image consider for deletion??? You have to give me a valid good reason, because there is nothing wrong WITH it!, including with it's copyright status and owner. It is a copyrighted, howerver it is also realesed as a Free image in the public domain status. I have done every thing to provided accurate details to this picture. Every detail is provided? Or you have private reAsons against Mexicans hey vato? --Ramĺrez November 10, 2006 23:45 (UTC)

-So you are making fun of me now ha??. I feel that, I've been discriminated here.. This is just total bullshit, homes. So I get into trouble for trying to fix a picture!. So tell me, what am I going to do know.? I feel like i'm the bad person here. Instead of complaning for no valid reasons, why don't you help me and our fellow wikipedians out???. --RamÍrez November 10, 01:22 (UTC)

A question re: Reasoning
I saw on another talk page you defended your fair use actions thusly:

''Can anybody reproduce and edit the photo for any reason, even for profit? If not, then it's not good enough.''

That's not how fair use works, and I think you know it. What you're talking about - or trying to achieve through your multiple fair use violation allegations - is creating a fallacious chain of responsibility. For example, if Wikipedia fairly uses an image that someone else then downloads and reproduces, edits, and profits from, you seem to think that WIKIPEDIA is the "bad actor." When, in truth, the person who is NOT fairly using the material is pretty clearly in the wrong. Promotional photos are released for a reason - promotion. Fair use is FAIR. I really wish you'd reconsider the agressiveness of your campaign against fair use images. Jenolen 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease attacking the properly used images
Removing the "replaceable fair use" tag is considered vandalism, and will be treated as such. Please stop doing it. If you disagree with the tag's application to that image, then follow the instructions listed therein. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cease attacking the properly used images that make Wikipedia a better source by providing illustrations to the articles. The image under question is properly tagged. If you disagree take your grievances to the image's talk page. --Irpen 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After a brief interaction with you I decided to avoid the repetition of it at all cost but I was prompted by this. This borders vandalism. Please cool it off! --Irpen 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. And in case you are new to internet communication, be aware that picking on the spelling and grammar in your opponent's entries, like you did, instead of responding in good faith is considered trolling. Such actions are even more rude when you know that your opponent is a non-native speaker. If you ever knew more than one language, you would have realized the rudeness of your response. --Irpen 10:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Second notice to me in a row
Since when are "promotional" tags (to make the article more illustrated) not acceptable on Wikipedia!? Why won't you do that to people who don't list any tags or sources what so ever!? This is the second day in a row, you have sent me a message to my talk page disputing one of the images I uploaded. I thought that it wasn't "fair use" if you used a certain amount of images on one particular article. Go waste your time elsewhere!!! I absoultely agree with the most recent comments about your actions in this particular talk page. TMC1982 10:38 p.m., 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Misunderstanding of Fair Use Related Issues
Something else to think about!

I've also seen you ask people, say, when it comes to a promotional photo of a football coach, "couldn't someone just go to the stadium and take a picture of the coach, then release it here under a Wikipedia acceptable license". The answer - NO. The reason has to do with the different rights included in a photograph. There are the photographer's rights, to the photograph in question, and the subject's rights, the right of publicity. What makes the promophoto tag so crucial to being able to illustrate Wikipedia entries is that in the case of a promotional photo, BOTH of these rights have been addressed. The work of the photographer is done as "work for hire," with no rights retained, as their resulting image is MEANT to be widely disseminated. The SUBJECT of the photograph has APPROVED their appearance in the image in question, again, as the image is MEANT to be used widely.

On the other hand, if I go to State University this weekend, and take a picture of Head Coach Bob Noneck, I own the rights to the picture, but I do NOT own the rights to Bob Noneck's image. I have to CLEAR it with him, by submitting a legal document. Not a chance in hell he's going to sign it... and isn't that why he posed for all those publicity photos at the beginning of the season anyway? So he doesn't have to deal with garbage like this?

Think of it this way - do you proprose that for sound clips, say, of The Beatles Blackbird, that instead of using a fair use clip from the album, we instead try to record Paul McCartney singing it ourselves? After all, that COULD be done...

COULD being the key word. A lot of things COULD be done, or MIGHT be done. But they don't have to be, because there are rules in place that balance the needs of copyright holders with the needs of Wikipedians. Rules like fair use.

Don't be afraid of it!

Jenolen 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you define a Replaceable Image
It seems to me that an photograph by definition captures something at a moment in time e.g. a sports player in a certain game or stage of their career, or an actor appearing in a certain film or attending a particualr premiere. Many arguments on replacement of an image seem to disregard the context of the image entirely.

Jbuzza 17:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting image
How do I delete an image ? Thanks Trade2tradewell 10:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stretch Arm Strong press photo.jpg
You recently tagged the Strech Armstrong photo. Wikipedia has been very lenient with press photos (since they are not a copyvio.) I did read your message about photo tagging, however I do not believe that fair use promo pictures should be deleted (especially if none other is available). It is unencylcopedic not to have pictures of bands because they could "possibly" be made.

I will remind you of what makes bands notable. The list is:


 * Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
 * Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
 * Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
 * Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
 * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)
 * Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
 * Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.
 * Has won or placed in a major music competition.
 * Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
 * Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
 * Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

Once any one or combination of the above are meet (allowing Wikipedia to host an article for) photos are "out of the picture". I've been to far too many concerts to count and tried far too many times to take photos of bands (with a huge variety of cheap to top-of-the-line cameras). First of all many bands and venues don't allow cameras. Secondly, even in the front you can be thirty or more feet away from a band member. Keyword 'member'. You may be able to take a (at best) picture of *one* member, and at roudy shows much less. The picture 'might' be good for the members page but it unencyclopedic for the band's page. Good pictures of bands are taken by professional photographers who get paid for their work and hence do not release it into the public domain. Professional photographers also are allowed much closer to bands and can even walk on stage or through the crowd barriers and behind scenes. Their is no amount of good luck that can bring you an encyclopedic picture of all, perhaps three to six members (or more) of any band. Period. Few fans are allowed backstage, and remarkably less take pictures for Wikipedia.

Promo pictures, although theoritically possible, in most cases are not plausable to recreate. To assume that they are, and delete fair-use images would be a great disservice to Wikipedia and the thousands, if not more, people who read its articles.

Dark j e  di requiem  05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have proven my point exactly. You can take ONE mediocre picture of ONE person. You still cannot however take a picture of a band. Does Bauhaus have a drummer? Two? Who is the member in the middle? Male? Female? Who are the rest? I'm not sure.


 * I can see the (possibly) bassist's face. The rest are either facing the wrong direction, overblown, or devoid all together. I will repeat myself "devoid all together".


 * Is their an alternative? Why, yes there is. Avoid copyright paranoia and upload a fair use promo picture. Maybe then can I see their faces, know how many people are in the band, and also what they look like. Otherwise Wikipedia will be unnessicarily stuck almost denude of pictures with a few half rate, confusing, unencylopedia pictures sprinkled every once and a long while.


 * Plus, I never said any of articles are good. Never said we should copy article from Britannnica either. But hey, we do copy Britannica! The Eleventh Edition is in the public domain--or are you going to let Wikipedia's hard working editors use that either? Dark j  e  di requiem  06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will admit that a picture of a sport player, or even a single musician, is easy to take. Most (if not all) of the pictures of sport players you tagged could easily be recreated. Some could be done fairly well. But once again, to get every single member of a band, is very nearly impossible. For instance, Slipknot (as much as I don't like them) have nine members, Catch 22 have seven. To get every single member in a shot, facing the camera is impossible. Even a band with four members or a trio can be impossible. Most of the time even getting a picture of the drummer is impossible. That's why we have fair use images of bands. It makes the job of creating a decent article about a band possible. Without it the pages will be just text and links. Readers can't see anything. And even if I find an explosive picture of a chaotic moment of a loud/crowded concert and I can't see the members, it's not encyclopedic. If people are missing, facing the wrong direction, or overblown it's not encyclopedic. The picture shows 1/4 of the band clearly. I do not need to see the "spirit" of the band. They have the fair-use promo template for a reason. We need to see their faces, we need a fair-use image. Dark j  e  di requiem  06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Answers:


 * Again, the band's page needs a picture of the band. Not a picture of one/most nor a picture of several pasted together. You will end up with a poorly pasted picture of four seemingly unrelated people. You cannot force it. When they are together, they are a band. When you go in Paint and paste four pictures of four people, you will get exactly that. One picture, made of four pictures of four people. If you use a fair-use image you will get "the band". A team, standing together, unified within the shot. A group shot is unrepeatable, not four pasted together. They are a group, not a series of pictures pasted together to look like a group. With the fair use picture you get the real deal.
 * It's not about Stretch Arm Strong. There are *thousands* of fair use images. Thousands. Why don't you email every single one of them, or their managers, and see how far you get. It would be a waste of time (not only of yours or my own) but of all the editors out there that uploaded a fair-use, and used it properly, legally and responsibly.


 * We need to think of what's best for Wikipedia. As soon as something harms it, or WikiMedia project, it should be fixed--or better yet prevented. As soon as Stretch Arm Strong legally threatens Wikipedia, than I will happily delete it (assuming the threat is founded). I make sure my edits do not allow that to happen. To prevent that, I upload legally, responsibly. Laws exist to help define what is and is not fair-use. Their is a legal balance in America and as long as Wikipedia says within that, it will be fine. I do not, in any way, make Wikipedia vunerable to legal action. I work hard to contribute. I make sure all of the pictures I upload, including the one you feel needs to be deleted, are 100% legal. The only reason the photo should be deleted is if it is a copyright violation. Do you honestly think that me uploading a fair use image, explaining in great detail how it can legally be used, citing my source, applying it to the correct page, and watching to make sure it is not misused honestly compremises Wikipedia? Dark j  e  di requiem  07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's examine the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.


 * The first pillar clear states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy"


 * Seems strange to settle for something attempting to become an encyclopedia to want either no pictures or to be riddled with unaccurate ones. When free use images are available, Wikipedia needs to use them. Pictures such as those of animals and locations do not come with a press kit. That is why we have featured pictures, to help ensure that those pages have a good, if not great picture. Pages with that kind of content are much more encylopedic with a featured pictured. Although it does make the page more attractive, you are completely missing the point if that's all you see it as. Fortunatly, bands have a press kit. Fortunatly we can use them.


 * Pillar two: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view..."


 * Although this does not easily apply to pictures, a normal press picture is much more neutral than say a hyper kind that "captures the spirit" of some, most likely, obnoxious band. Seems like an opinion to me.


 * You guessed it, Pillar three:"Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly..."


 * Pillar three says TEXT ONLY. It appears that text only is to be distributed. No pictures. No videos. No sound clips. It finishes with "Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL." Well, since text is the only thing available under the copyleft of GFDL the images are not freely copied. This is why many specify the specific terms of usage (no commericial use/give credit/public domain/released ect.)


 * Pillar four: "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil..."


 * Irrelevant to dispute.


 * Fifth and final pillar: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold..."


 * It seems that although Wikipedia does not have firm rules I have not violated a single one by uploading my picture. Wikipedia has a category called "Non-free image copyright tags". We cannot create a completely "freely-redistributable encylopedia". Because in that case we would have to contain absolutly zero fair-use images. In that case we should start by deleting every album picture. Every movie picture. Every movie poster. Every logo. Every modern American stamp. Every magazine cover. Every Newspaper cover. Every sports poster. Every political poster. Every video game screen shot. Every movie screen shot. Every computer program screen shot. Every music video screen shot. Even all the screen shots of Wikipedia! We would have to delete even the picture of Osama Bin Laden.


 * Then, when all the pictures are deleted. We will have a completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, "freely-redistributable encylopedia". Then again, that's why the pillar only said "text". Dark j  e  di requiem  20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have no other disagreements, I am going to remove the deletion tag. Although I do think you are acting with good intentions, you are causing a lot of disruptions for Wikipedia, and it's many editors. Dark j  e  di requiem  19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:TapaniKalliomäki.jpg
Yes but I thought the whole point of the promotional image was that it is currently used TEMPORARILY to illustrate an actor for educational purposes. Then image MUST be removed if a free image becomes available. I really don't think there are many people going throughout Finland or wherever especially taking free shots of famous actors to upload to wikipedia do you? One of the principal characteristics about film and actors is visual image. Special promo photographs were taken especially for this reason to promote an image in the media. It must be marked that if a free image is created - this is highly unlikely then the current photo should be removed. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is true but can't you see how that is very important on articles about actors that they are visually identified. Removable of there image is jeopardizing the quality of the article. These small articles will be written in full later,. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if a wikipedian has a photograph of an actor they would upload it to wikipedia whether there is a photo already there or not. THe same goes for politicians. Politicans are far more in the public eye even more than actors far more even likely to have a free photo available yet there are thousands of images which are not free and have been uploaded to wikipedia under fair use. Why should this be different for actors??Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How can it be better to have no image? WHile I agree that it wuold be great to have a free image for everything wikipedia is supposed to educate the reader. Education involves not only text but images help to identify and put the article in its context. I beleive that taking away an image which was released into the media for the purpose of such promotion anyway is vandalism to my article.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know mate I appreciate your concern about imagery but I really do think you are looking too much into it. This is isn't a war. Peace my friend. People upload images to wikipedia to attempt to make sense of what they reading and help improve our articles and understanding for everybody. Whilst direct copywright is a serious matter, I really think you are putting too much time and effort into something that will only cause annoyance as you said and not really doing anything to help educate people. I feel your efforts would be better suited to improving wikipedia grasping the main purpose of the project - to provide information whether it be through text, maps or photographic images. I'm sure many agree with me as you said. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sure your work would be far more rewarding for yourself and from other wikipedian users if you concentrate on improving wikipedia Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I absolutely agree with you that wikipedia should aim at producing a free, redistributable work to anybody on the planet but also at the same time it needs to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia which means that this may not always be possible. And I can see how in regards to this concept your work can be seen as improvement but I strongly sugggest that to evade this kind of dispute in the future that something is done to the tagging to state the importance of removing an image if a free alternative becomes available Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes but think of it like this. Those articles wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for me. It took nearly six years to start. I seriously doubt any FREE photographs will suddenly become available of them just like that. It will be years before a photo is made available although technically as you said with the politicians one could really be made available within a few days. THis is the biggest conflict I think in regards to the images. Whilst yes of course if they are alive it is possible to have a free image of them, it is really highly unlikely at present. So are yo saying that any image of a person on wikipedia is living and odesn't have a totally free image available should be wiped off? It seems far too repressive to me. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Landuaer
Hi, I'm confused about Image:Rolf landauer.jpg. It's marked as both a copyrighted promotional image and a cc-licensed image. Which is it? If it's cc-licensed, can you put in the description where specifically it was released under that license? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Chowbok, I don't understand. You appear to be saying that promo images and CC are mutually exclusive. Please explain rationale. If you are correct, then which alternative to CC should one switch to? Best, bunix 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's go back a bit. Who owns the copyright on that photo? —Chowbok ☠ 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IBM (I think)...although their website doesn't explicity say that. It simply contains the photo for free download for media releases, promotional use etc etc. bunix 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you don't know who owns the copyright, then you can't say that the image is CC-licensed. An image has to be specifically licensed that way by the copyright owner, they can't just say it's for free download, etc. I'm going to mark that as a promotional photo, and also mark it as replaceable. (You'll be seeing the boilerplate text that explains that shortly.) Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, can you please sign your messages on my talk page with ~ ? That way I can click right on your username and go back to your talk page. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's dead, isn't he? I'll just mark it promo for now (not replaceable). &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is dead as a doornail. I thought it was already marked as promophoto. bunix 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously
No offense, but don't you have anything better to do? TheQuandry 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You made it my business when you started adding templates to images I uploaded with a poorly-rationalized claim that the image can be "made free." It looks to me like this is all you do all day long, like some kind of weird personal crusade. It borders on trolling, if you ask me. TheQuandry 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ask me. It's still trolling. I bet you were a hall monitor in high school. Don't you think it's more than a bit odd that hordes of people who have uploaded images in good faith and included a proper template and done nothing wrong are angry with you? Of course you don't, because you don't care. TheQuandry 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. But then please understand that this logic can work both ways. TheQuandry 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sunstorm-cybertron.jpg
Please read up on the commons page on Derivative works which means even if a person creates a self image of Image:Sunstorm-cybertron.jpg, it's still copyrighted, thus a free image can't be created of the transformers toys so it's a valid unreplacble fair use. Keep up the good work on the images. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
I would really like to know your personal criteria for determing what images your label "replaceable". I've read the link to someone elses definition that you have here but its not them doing all the seemingly random labelling.

I'm seeing you all over the show tagging all sorts of images and for the life of me I cannot determine nor see any consistancy in a basis for the tag on any of them. Even bands that actually broke up years ago (as one editor pointed out do you expect someone to fly around the world bring them all together?)

So, I want to know in specific terms exactly what are the factors you use in choosing which images are replaceable. Thanks in advance  Glen  22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I had asked a similar question earlier here but have not seen a reply. Would appreciate that clarity though as at the moment this looks more like a personal crusade than implementation of a clearly defined policy Jbuzza 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly from your response on User:Glen_S your criteria is (with a few exceptions) to tag where the image is of someone who is alive as the image is therefore deemed replaceable. My view is that this is a personal interpretation which, while you are entitled to make it, is rather simplistic and does not take into account the value to the reader of the context of the image (e.g. historic) or how reasonable it is to request a replacement. I would ask if you could consider developing a more pragmatic approach to your quest to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to others. Jbuzza 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Exotica II.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Exotica II.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, 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. --TheQuandry 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:TSO Band.jpg
The image that was uploaded by me was a publicity shot available freely on the band's PureVolume site. It was used in the absence of a free use photopraph. Searches on Flickr and other websites that contain free use photographs gave nothing. If there are anymore questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- Die Hard  2k5  00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. TheQuandry 02:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Jimbo said that in the discussions about anything the argument "Jimbo said", like you invoked here, has no value whatsoever and editors should resolve disagreements without invoking such arguments. --Irpen 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tgimmick.jpg
Image:Tgimmick.jpg comes from the EvilEmpireWrestling website. The photographer writes "Feel Free To Use These Pics" on the pages. The photographer himself has even uploaded some of his images to this site, such as this one Image:Weedwackerczw.jpg. I'm not sure what this means as far as fair use since the author has uploaded his pictures here, but hopefully it can be figured out so the pictures will not be deleted. Jonathan Burgess 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I emailed him and he replied with this:
 * "In all honesty, I didn't even know about Wikipedia until recently when my friend, who lets me borrow part of his space sometimes, told me about my pictures being on the site, so I'm not the one who put them there. That said, all I've asked of people who use my pics is that they credit me and don't direct link my pictures. I always figured you can't stop people from using them ( Of course I take pics from the Internet too ) so just don't mess up my site in the process." He doesn't seem against using them here, I don't know though. Jonathan Burgess 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image disputes
Unless you can prove that a free image is available for all these images you are marking as "replaceable" by free images, please stay away from the images and quit marking them as violating fair use. I don't have a problem with replacing a fair use image if you can show me a free image that's available but until you can, you should stop going around and marking all the fair use images you can find as "replaceable". It goes against the Assume good faith policy. Thank you for your cooperation. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After reviewing your contributions for the last while, I can see that you are systematically going through the images marked fair use and marking a very large number of them as "replaceable." Again, I challenge you to find free images for these, and I will happily replace the fair use images (and and all you find) with the free images. However, until you can provide such free images, or links to them, marking all of these instances of legitimate fair use is disruptive and not good faith on your part. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  07:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Furthermore, spamming talk pages with rfu templates is not something I view as good faith, and I would appreciate it if you would stop. --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are trying to create a free content encyclopedia, since I am trying to do the same thing. Personally, I have uploaded over 1,000 images (a large majority of which are high res, and which are of people) to the Commons.  Therefore I hope you can understand why having an image warning template repeatedly posted on my talk page is something I would consider annoying/nitpicking.  This, in addition to the fact that I have been here for quite a while and don't need to be spoken down to.  I don't mind the notifications, but I consider it very demeaning to post the template repeatedly to my user talk page as if I don't understand what is happening here.


 * So I ask you to please consider this for all users, even new users: one long template notice is enough, isn't it? After that, wouldn't it be better to just reply to the same notice with an indentation and a link to the new image in question? I personally believe it would, and I try to do that whenever I have found the need to post multiple image notices to a user talk page (or I will just make a personalized response without using a template).  Sorry if I came off harsh. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gross incivility
Hi, Chowbok. I saw you engage in incivility here and here. You gratuitously accuse fellow wikipedians of vandalism and tell them that your incivil remarks are none of their business. I scanned through your talk page and see that many wikipedians believe your activities in the project are disruptive. If I don't see a change in your attitude and more respect towards fellow wikipedians and consensus, I will have to launch an arbitration case over these behavioral problems. Thanks for your attention, Ghirla  -трёп-  07:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suman image
Hi, I do not believe getting a properly licensed Suman Chatterjee image is trivial. I did try, but could not find any. You are welcome to look, and I will also look into it. With the exception of press releases, I do not see how it might be possible to obtain images. There is one easy way out though - to use an album cover. It is usually unacceptable to use album cover images to illustrate anything other than the album (say the artist in this case), but as the Suman Chatterjee article has a discography, this should not be a problem. I suggest the original image stays until someone can find and upload an alternative image. Pradiptaray 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pepperidge Farm logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pepperidge Farm logo.png. 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, 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.

Also, there is no detailed fair use rationale provided with this uploaded image, as required in the fair use license template.

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. --TheQuandry 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Incivility
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks like "crybaby" or "cry cry sob sob". TheQuandry 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments on my talk page can be considered a form of passive-aggressive commentary based on our previous disagreement. You know very well what you were implying. Wikipedia policy states "please remember to keep a cool head at all times and refrain from using words or speaking in a manner that may offend others." TheQuandry 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hello. As for Image:Silviacorzo01.jpg, you can delete it if you want, since there is already a free alternative. But as for Image:Reikahashimoto.jpg, it would be nice to keep it for a while, since finding a free alternative is kinda harder. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tim Vine.jpg
Hi there,

Just a quick question about Image:Tim Vine.jpg which I uploaded, and which you (perhaps rightly) question the claim of fair use for under criterion one. My question is, given that it's rather hard to track down a Wikipedian who lives next door to Mr. Vine who could ask for a quick snapshot ;-) is it possible to just leave a more permanent note (i.e. allowing more than a week) on the article page, as per Image:GMiniXS202s.jpg in the article Archos? If this was to prove unsuccessful then obviously the image could/should be deleted.

Regards, Countdown Crispy  (  ? 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that I could track down a free image (I had a good look when I rewrote the article in the first place); I was suggesting that if it was made more obvious that a free alternative was desirable then someone who can help might be alerted and thus be able to help out. Having looked at the article again, the photo is definitely useful - Mr. Vine is currently an active comedian and the last picture of him is circa 1997 - and so deleting it might be a bit extreme. Time will tell. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having re-read the fair use criteria, I actually reckon this photograph is covered. Whilst you suggested that fair use is only applicable where "a free [picture] couldn't be created", the actual wording of criterion one is that fair use applies where "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Since there are seemingly no free promotional photographs for Not Going Out, and that the photo provides information which the photograph from many years earlier does not, I have revoked my earlier negativity and feel that it is covered under fair use. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because of the "or" - one of the two sections of the criterion is correct, hence the whole criterion stands. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would like to do this then you are of course welcome to and I will be interested to read the results. But for now, it is late at night and I'm trying to enjoy reading the tip of the Wikipedia iceberg and I really lack the patience to do so myself. If you want to bother the legality guys, or just cut out the middle men and nominate the picture for deletion, it's fine by me. I am of course merely trying to add a little of information to Wikipedia articles wherever I can, and this is clearly second within this community to the task of grumbling about the wording of a criterion on a policy page. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Beatie Boys" Image; Truce?
On my page, you wrote:


 * Perhaps not. But FWIW, I obtained a freely-licensed photo of the Beatie Boys for Wikipedia, who are a bigger band than almost every one I tagged. —Chowbok ☠ 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I assume you mean the Beastie Boys.

2) Is this the hypothetical "free" image you claim should be held up as an ideal?  Because if they've really released all rights to it, I should be able to do with it anything I choose.  Say, like, upload it to CafePress and start selling T-shirts with that image on it.  After all, it's a "free" image, right?

Or is it just free to be fairly used? You know, for non-commercial applications? Say, like, a certain non-profit on-line encyclopedia? I would guess this is the case, as it is with the overwhelming majority of promotional photos.

The Wikipedia community, of course, will have the final say on whether Wikipedia is better off with or without promophotos. I'm in the "with" camp; you're in the "without" camp. How about ceasing your agressive tagging of promophotos for a week or two to let a consensus build? Let's see what the community has to say, before you and a few other users continue torching Wikipedia to "save" it. Jenolen 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote:


 * I don't see why I should stop tagging images. If the admins making the decisions agree with you, then nothing I've tagged will be deleted. If they agree with me, then somebody's going to delete all those images at some point anyway.—Chowbok ☠ 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I say: You should stop tagging images because there is no consensus that your tagging is actually helping Wikipedia. Plus, who's going to delete all those templates (that say "do not delete this template"}} if the consensus goes a different way?  I'm just asking you, nicely, to chill for a bit.  It's obvious you've stirred up a debate and discussion about the promophoto issue.  Why not wait for the waters to clear a bit before proceeding full speed ahead?  Jenolen 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you tag an image for speedy
Hello! Before you add speedy deletion templates to an image, please check them for previous vandalism and revert as necessary. For example Image:Placebo.jpg had its source information removed by anons. Regards, Kimchi.sg 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SivJensen2421-1-.jpg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SivJensen2421-1-.jpg.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:

[...]


 * OK, found another one, thanks for the notice -- H eptor  talk 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What tag can i put
The image of the burial of the sardine, is a fair use image, its illustrating the article, and has a rasonable tag, if you can help me, to put another tag.

Caracas 2000 20:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Burial of the sardine
But this event, is difficult to find, this photo is from the 80s, Fundef is a cultural foundation, for the preservation of the venezuelan folk, this image is a good version of the event, and is like a referencial photo, when you talk about the burial of the sardine. Caracas 2000 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me, putting the apropiate tag Caracas 2000 23:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tornado GR1 test firing Brimstone.JPG
Hi. Thanks for the message. As far as I can see the image was removed from Brimstone missile because an editor decided to change the image title which produced a red link. This was then removed. I've replace the image. This missile is now in service so it could be argued that it is replaceable - but certainly not by the general public. Let me know about any more concerns you may have. Best regards, Mark83 00:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Trentacid
Okay. I actually told to him about the other pictures the first time, so I can just go through and put the same thing in as the last one. I'll get it taken care of within the next few days. Jonathan Burgess 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tigers DYoung 2006.jpg
Please do not persist in putting a RFU tag when a legit Fair Use Criterion is listed on the page in the rational section. Consistanly placing a RFU tag can be considered vandalism as much as removing it when a legit rational is given.
 * It would be nice if you would try and help instead of just placing tags. If you know legit as fair use, why not try and offer some suggestions and/or rationales, we're all here for the greater good ya know! ;-) Darwin&#39;s Bulldog 02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tarponback.jpg
Thanks for adding your note regarding Image:Tarponback.jpg. I am concerned about deleting the free press release picture of the 1963 Rambler Tarpon. I believe that I have fully described the reasons for the use of this image under the fair use. Could you please explain how a picture of a concept car from over 40 years ago fails the first fair use criterion. In other words, how is it possible to describe and illustrate a subject that does not exist and how do you create a freely licensed image of it today. Because show cars like this Tarpon were destroyed, it is not possible to take a picture of it today. Will taking yet another picture of the factory promotional photo qualify? I like to learn more about the fair use subject, but I do not think another image generation can hide the original! Moreover, the purpose of including this image is to help illustrate the characteristic design of the fastback. I believe it adds to the value of the article, in addition to the aims of Wikipedia. If you disagree, I welcome your questions and a detailed discussion of the concerns. Thank you CZmarlin 04:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:ThomasMCover.jpg
Hi Chowbok, I did not understand your comment about this image. It is a promophoto...did I not tag is as such correctly? bunix 10:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:The enigma.jpg
"This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." This image is a widely circulated promotional image that has been pre-authorized for use on websites, in magazines, etc. I fail to see why it requires any further attention from either of us. - Tzaquiel 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but the deletion of this picture before a 'free' picture can be obtained seems premature and a little backwards to me. There are surely quite a lot of people who would recognize The Enigma from a picture before they would recognize him from his biography. While I understand and respect the ideological reasons for wanting a 'free' picture embedded in the article, the tagging of this picture as deletable seems extreme for the reason that its removal will make the article significantly less useful and informative, given the highly visual nature of the subject at hand. Would you perhaps be willing to offer an alternative picture? - Tzaquiel 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Trick or Treater.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trick or Treater.jpg. I notice the 'image' page states "My mom took this and releases it under the CC [Creative Commons] license." This indicates that you are not the copyright holder.

If you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). The image page does not list the name of the copyright holder or the date(s) in which the Creative Commons permission was given. In addition, to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licensed for that purpose, whoever provided it.

To be sure all material is in fact licensed for the Creative Commons purpose stated with the image, English Wikipedia's policy provides a process for "requesting permission from 3rd parties." This policy requires you to request written copyright permission from the copyright holder (in this case, your mom) and forward that  to [[:m:Communications committee|the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org".  You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself) or on the image description page, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers.

Yes, I know it's a pain, but everyone is held to the same standards on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Jreferee 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say that you made a very cute skeleton. Happy Halloween! [[Image:Smiley transparent.png|15px]] ~ BigrTex 18:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy
Instead of try to delete so many fair-use pictures, why don't you spend your time and effort into drafting a policy about it. If you read policy, Wikipedia values consensus. Instead of deciding what's best and ignoring everybody's concerns, why don't you try to gain a concensus and work towards that? Your talk page is almost full of nothing but people voicing their concern about how you treat pictures on Wikipedia. I've seen hostility go both ways, so why don't you try to be constructive instead of invoking such a strong reaction from others? Maybe this way you can recieve constructive critisism, and help Wikipedia by defining explicitly what is and is not fair use. Than when you tag images and people disagree, you can point them straight to the rules.

Just a note from me to you: I've spent many hours trying to improve Wikipedia, searching for sources and looking for pictures. I'm sure that could be said of any number of people. Although I agree that whatever I do can be edited by anyone (in which ever way they see fit), it's disheartening to login to Wikipedia, excitedly see that someone messaged me, and notice that something that I spent so much time on is nominated for deletion. Seek a consensus. What you're doing now is harming everyone who logs on, just to get a slap in the face and a template saying you're trying to get something that they worked on deleted. Every editor counts. Every editor that get's hurt, hurts Wikipedia. Please consider the hours upon hours people spent building what your deleting. Dark j e  di requiem  09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again,only the text is supposed to be freely distibuted. That's why at mirrors | such as this there is no picture shown, while at Wikipedia there is.


 * I am quoting you word for word, "I'm not "ignoring everybody's concerns"" which you followed by saying only "some people" disagree with you. The following is a very partial list of people who recently disagreed with you or were/are concerned about how you've re/acted. Most of which you insisted that their image be deleted anyway and continued doing so. The list is:


 * Dark jedi requiem
 * Jreferee
 * Tzaquiel
 * CZmarlin
 * Darwin's Bulldog
 * bunix
 * Jenolen
 * CountdownCrispy
 * Julián Ortega
 * TheQuandry
 * Pradiptaray
 * Ghirla
 * tomf688
 * Nihonjoe
 * Irpen
 * DieHard2k5
 * Jbuzza
 * Jaranda
 * Ernst Stavro Blofeld
 * TMC1982
 * RamÍrez
 * Jcuk
 * Wisekwai
 * Atilim Gunes Baydin
 * DesertSky85451
 * Blacklake
 * HeartThrobs
 * Briememory
 * Tryggvia
 * Konst.able

You said that you could "easily say that you're "ignoring everybody's concerns" by uploading unnecessary fair-use photos". Here is the comprensive list of people who have voiced concerns about me uploading fairuse images:
 * Chowbok

It is irrelevent if you think that what you're doing is good, if in fact it is hurting Wikipedia. This is why I asked you to stop, and seek a concences. Not a short discussion at the village pump. Not your personal opinion, but a concenses. Dark j e  di requiem  05:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, only the text is licensed under GFDL. Look at the bottom of your page, it reads "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." No where does is say "All text and images are available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." In Wikipedia's copyright page it reads "To fulfill the above goals, the text contained in Wikipedia is licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." It later says "All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL." Again, only text is distributed. In the copyright faq it says "Images used in Wikipedia may have their own, completely independent licensing scheme."
 * No where does it say images are distributed, should be, or are even supposed to be. In short, pictures were not made to be distributed, and thus we have many fair use pictures to illustrate articles which would seriously lack without. Dark j  e  di requiem  06:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy #2
From Copyrights - ''All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available).'' Note there is nothing in there about "if an image could be created or made free." Fair use images ARE acceptable. Period. So, just to clear that up... you're not against fair use images, which, by policy, are acceptable -- you just think FUC#1 means that most of what people would consider fair use images are, really, not fair use images? That images released for fair use instead must be deleted, because, hypothetically, they could, at some point in the future, be made more free (libre)? Then what's the point of allowing the fair use of images to begin with? See, I really think that's part of the problem -- once you agree to allow fair use images -- and make no mistake, the policy says pretty clearly that fair use images are acceptable -- you have to actually go ahead and allow them. Not throw them out on some technicality. I agree with Dark Jedi -- there's so much more productive stuff we could be doing! Let's do it! Jenolen 09:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote in reply: I do agree that most of the photos I've tagged are fair use. The question is are they acceptable fair use.  (emphasis added)


 * And as soon as I figure how you determine the difference between "fair use" and "acceptable fair use", I guess I'll understand this crusade. Thank you for such a perfect encapsulation of this current mess; truly, we are down the Wiki-rabbit hole now.
 * Jenolen 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

image:VCraigJordan.jpg
Hi Chowbok, you recently tagged this for deletion because it can be replaced by a free image. I understand there's a process (templates and such) to try to get subjects on Wikipedia to release their images under GFDL. I was hoping you could point me to them (I've searched but our search enging is not helping me much) - I'll try and get the image released. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't realised it was so ad-hoc.  I appreciate you sharing your template with me.  --Siobhan Hansa 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Pepperidge Farm logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pepperidge Farm logo.png. 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, including a detailed fair-use rationale.

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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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. TheQuandry 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued abuse
I have reported you for your trolling, for spamming my talk page with alert templates and for bad faith edits. TheQuandry 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits are obvious bad faith and you are obviously spamming my talk page and trolling me. The administrators will decide how to deal with you. TheQuandry 06:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am done arguing. Please stop spamming my talk page and trolling me. TheQuandry 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Shauna parsons.jpg and Image:Stephanie Kralevich.jpg
Hi, thanks for your dillgence in seeking out inappropriately used copyrighted materials. However, I feel that these publicity photos are appropriate and could only be replaced with another fair use image such as a screen capture from television. I do not see the rationale of replacing one fair use image with another. There is no freely licensed image which is available or could reasonably be created to replace these. The criteria for speedy deletion as literally read do no apply.Fourdee 07:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sambush.gif
If you can supposedly find a free image, do it. But if you find one that isn't, *I* will tag it. Just to be an asshole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trebeloblues (talk • contribs) 15:28, November 18, 2006 (UTC-6)