User talk:Fourthords/Archive 3

Image licensing help
Pd_THOR, you flagged an image (WayneCountyNYUSASeal.JPG) I uploaded for deletion due to licensing and fair use concerns. I agree with this, but I'm finding the image tagging process very non-intuitive, especially post-upload (ie. making changes to the tag after the fact).

I added rationale and source info to the image's Talk page, but I'm not confident this is what's required. Any input you can provide will be much appreciated.

&mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 12:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that having to later put these things into the image as opposed to having the system make known the requirements up-front is unhelpful. Excellent information, I moved the sourcing and fair-use rationale to the images description page; and hope you're satisfied with the formatting. I also added fairusereview to the image as I'm not sure if using the image in the template (effectively for decoration purposes, and not on the county page itself) will qualify under fair-use.  But I don't want to be the unqualified ogre to remove it, or tell you no, so I added the template.  Further, the image should be taken from User:JimDunning/Sandbox ASAP as fair-use images shouldn't be used outside of the articlespace.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks – the rationale info looks just fine and now I know what to do in the future. I'm actually getting quite the education on image fair use and modified the Wayne County template so that the seal image is not on the template page. I thought I'd be okay using a parser function that would let me place the image on the article page as an argument for the county summary info box at the bottom. Now I've discovered that using the image on the article page in such a manner (template or no template) is considered mere decoration and can't be used. I see how it can be considered decoration, although I saw it as informative.


 * I'm curious what the difference is between Image:Flag of New York.svg and Image:WayneCountyNYUSASeal.JPG, however. Both were in the template (and appeared at the bottom of the article page). I recall reading something about use of US and state images being wide open, so is using images related to a state subdivision different?


 * (Thanks for reminding me about the image link to my Sandbox page – I should have deleted that earlier. I removed it (does that change the fair use review flag?).)


 * &mdash;  Jim Dunning  talk  : 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The tag on Image:Flag of New York.svg says that state flags fall within the public domain. Why, I don't know.  But I trust that it is true.  As for the seal (Image:WayneCountyNYUSASeal.JPG), per the source it came from: "Copyright © 2001-2003 Wayne County Government. All rights reserved.".  To use it then, it has to fall under fair-use.  Why one is PD and the other isn't, I don't really know. I'll remove the review notice (which I think I can do, since I added it) since it's only being used on the Wayne County, New York page.  I'll also adjust the fair-use rationale appropriately.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Christmas
I've responded to your question on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/January 7. --Spangineerws (háblame)  02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Julianna Rose Mauriello
There's a discussion relevant to your recent edit of this page on the talk page here: Talk:Julianna Rose Mauriello. Kat, Queen of Typos 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:West Bromwich Albion crest.png and CSD for no rationale
If You read the warning box's first sentence: This image is tagged as being allowed under "fair use" with a generic fair use template such as fairusein or fairuse, and was uploaded after May 4, 2006. Do You notice something? Like that the picture was originally uploaded 12:53, 31 May 2005 by Fooby. And please inform the uploader(s) that the uploaded image needs a source (or something else). Best, feydey 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the version of the image currently being used was uploaded after 2006-05-04, it was uploaded by on 2007-01-03. As for informing the uploader, honestly I usually let  to make the notifications as it does so automatically.  While this probably isn't the best of practices, neither is the Coke I have for breakfast; but they both usually get the job done.  /me shrugs.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D
I would like a fair use image for Tenacious D, but where can I find one?

Tenacious D Fans 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Laud
Thank you and yes I really did from scratch no less except the eagle but I re-did it and made it look embroidered too. I'm actually in the process of remaking all of them as we speak the gold ones look even better. Check the United States Navy enlisted rate insignia page in about an hour and ill have them all up there. Incidentally I made the insignia that are on there now with the exception of the collar devices. I made them didn't like them and decided to improve on them. again thanks. -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot has a glitch also
Photos
 * Image:Schadler robert.jpg
 * Image:Evans allen.jpg
 * Image:Rowan ruth.jpg
 * Image:Hunter jon blair.jpg
 * Image:Sypolt dave.jpg

Were all labled by your bot as unsourced yet, each photo was labled as to its source with the text; Official Press Release Photo from WV Legislature. Press Release photos are public domain and for General Public Use. They were labled with the GFDL which should be correct. Sourced and labled.

These are sourced silmilar
 * Image:Betty Ireland, West Virginia Secretary of State.jpg
 * Image:Gov Joe Manchin.jpg

Labled as the press release photos. What is your looking for?

I'm starting to think these bots looking at photo should be banned. Very few are sofisticated enough to read the source information. --71Demon 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I ... don't have a bot. Of all those images, I've only edited Image:Hunter jon blair.jpg. I removed the GFDL licensing on it as I could not corroborate it with the "sourcing".  I searched for the apparent sourcing for this image and found http://www.legis.state.wv.us/index.cfm; and I can find no GFDL release of their materials on their website.  As such, I removed the GFDL and replaced it with no license.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You must be new to Wiki. In order for a User to know you are responding to them, you need to post on their talkpage.  The only way they would know you responded on yours is if they have it in your watch.  I don't usually put User pages in my watch, I did happend to check yours.  There were 5, Press Release photos that I uploaded today, and I gave them all to you so that you didn't mark them as well.


 * I'm glad you found the West Virginia Legislature site, but what does that have to do with sourcing? I believe the same photos are on there, but I got them in the state capital last week when I was there for the openning session.  That is why I didn't put a link saying I got them there, because that would be lying.  I stated the source, that they were the official press release photos, and that they were public domain.  I picked them up last week when I spent several days in Charleston for the openning of the state legislature.  IF you don't believe call State Senator Dave Sypolt that gave them to me. His number is (304) 698-5299.  The sourcing is correct.  --71Demon 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good, very good. The quick jab under the pretenses of being helpful that both effects to make make me feel dumb and/or depreciated, as well as showing you to be the bastion of wiki-knowledge and helpfulness that you truly must be.  You were a little too overt about it, though.  Next time, I recommend dropping the whole "you must be new" bit, it detracts from the seemingly helpful and friendly-nuanced attitude of the message -- but only a little bit.  Good job.  However, to give you satisfaction sir: I've got six months, one day, and 2441 edits on you; "new to Wiki" really doesn't apply. I realize you're getting quite the copyright education on your own talk page already, so I'll keep this short.  Essentially "Official Press Release Photo from WV Legislature" ≠ GFDL-no-disclaimers.  Because a press release photo has been intended for wide distribution does not mean its copyright has been duly released.  We must assume that without evidence to the contrary, somewhere somebody is reserving all copyrights to this image.  Now, if you can summarily corroborate that the copyright holder for this image has clearly released all rights (or licensed the image under a suitable free-use license: Creative Commons, GFDL, etc., then great!  Provide that corroboration and we'll gladly keep the image.  Until such time though, we must assume the image is copyrighted and as such fails WP:FUC as well as WP:FAIR #8.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
I saw the comment you left at Template talk:Attribution. My guess is that if the copyright holder is not a Wikipedia user, then CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat would probably be the most appropriate tag. —ShadowHalo 03:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PD sources required?
You said: "If an image has only a free-use copyright tag, my instinct is to request a source even though many of those copyright tags don't require one in their verbage. For example PD-USGov-State only says that the image is PD and nothing required about source, but it seems to have no burden of proof.  Specifically, I'm referring to Image:G8 bombings response.jpg (see history), but this is problematic in all venues.  Say I were to upload a questionably copyrighted image (say, ) but tagged it with PD-release or PD-USGov-State.  Without a source required, what is the recourse since the licensing doesn't explicitly require it?"


 * Special:Upload unambiguously states that the source of the file (in this case, an image) must be provided or the image will be deleted within one week. Image use policy says, "fully describe images' sources and copyright details on their description pages".  I think it is quite clear, barring any evidence to the contrary, that sources must be provided even for public domain images.  It seems to fit both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's image policies.  It is my opinion that PD-USGov-State, for example, is not immune from this simply because it doesn't spell it out there as well; anyone uploading an image would already have seen that a source is required.  --Yamla 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

allowedin
I'm still waiting for someone with bot-coding experience to have a go at it, if you know anyone who could that would be great. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:WotW pub.jpg
Rather than restore the tag after considerable effort was made to so satisfy, why not write me with the reasons you believe this to still be replaceable? This image accompanies text specific to the film and is not used merely to identify; please explain. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. And while I do appreciate the efforts you've made, I maintain my position.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, virtually by force, become entirely familiar with WP:FUC; nothing therein suggests that text specific "to either the scene portrayed [or] to how the actress appears in the particular scene" is required, much less suggested. Your objection seems focused upon item #8 (the remainder are satisfied), which states that an image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"; the image within the article accompanies the text, "War director Steven Spielberg marveled at 'how quickly she understands the situation in a sequence, how quickly she sizes it up, measures it up and how she would really react in a real situation'". I maintain that your position is incorrectly&mdash;not just unnecessarily&mdash;strict. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But how exactly does that passage of text relate the the use of the image? Spielberg didn't say anything about this given scene, or about how she particularly looked in any given scene; only that basically, she's really good.  This image doesn't convey her ability to grasp the gravity of the fictional situation as it would personally relate to her in reality (what the text is saying), it shows her looking ... sad?  worried?  Great.  But it doesn't give us any more insight into her acting than this image or this image does for those respective actors.  To describe what Spielberg was referring requires watching actions and events.  This can be accomplished by either the quote itself, or a video which can demonstrate these acting capabilities; an image doesn't do this, and can't. The combination of text and image to satisfy fair use should be: "This is a fact.  This image is crucial to illustrating this fact, and no free-use alternative could perform the same function."  The utilization of this image amounts to: "She is an excellent actress because she can do [this].  This image clearly depicts what she looks like when she is acting."  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, your position is incorrectly&mdash;not just unnecessarily&mdash;strict, as WP:FUC neither requires nor suggests that the text be exactly specific to the image. Quoting again, the relevant passage states that an image must "specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text"; Miss Fanning has a sufficiently prolific career that "relevant points or sections" need refer only to a film, not a specific scene therefrom. Simply put, the image illustrates the text, as required. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are met; please withdraw your tag. Thank you. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I don't feel that the image's use meets criteria; please feel free to dispute "my tag". —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * conversation moved to Image_talk:WotW_pub.jpg

Yukmouth
Seems so to me. The guy's still active, and there's nothing specifically notable about that particular image. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
Image:Little Big Girl.png‎ and Image:Springfield Up.png‎ are only temporary. I fully intend on uploading screenshots as soon as the episodes air. I added fair use rationale, so what more do you want? -- Scorpion 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the images are simply too big to qualify as fair-use. The fair-use criteria require that the image be "as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images".  If you have image manipulation software available to you, you can do it yourself, or leave the tags and somebody (recently, I've seen  reducing many of these images) will eventually reduce it for you.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They won't be deleted? -- Scorpion 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no. There's no CSD for too-big fair-use images, it's really too easy to fix and doesn't require a judgment call.  If you just leave the tags (or replace them, as you've taken at least one off again already) somebody'll come along and reduce the image. For an example, I tagged Image:AmericaFerrera UglyBetty.jpg as fairusereduce yesterday.  About nine hours later,  came along and reduced it.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Bourbons3
You left a note about an image uploaded by. He's been indefblocked for a while as a massively sockpuppeting user, so you're probably in the clear as to him responding about the pending image deletion. ;) Syrthiss 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for Image:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png
You had added a template to this image that required it to get a fair use rationale. However, you did not notify me that you had done this. I would have preferred it if you left a message on my talk page so that I could rectify the situation, seen as how I uploaded the image in the first place. This seems to be common practice whenever something threatens deletion of a file. —msikma (user, talk) 07:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually I use a script that automatically both tags images as well as amends the uploaders' talk pages. I've been having some problems with it recently, so I've taken to relying on  to make the notifications.  I'm sorry if it seems rather ... curt of me not to do so, but while the bot isn't "quick" it is quite thorough, and does inevitably save me a lot of time.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay. It's not a big deal to me. But it really should notify people on their talk page. It really would have cost me a lot more time to have to redo that screenshot that you tagged for deletion, and had I not noticed that it was, I certainly wouldn't have been able to keep it from being deleted. —msikma (user, talk) 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

u smell
likw dog poo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilyfan87 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * You have grammar and spelling deficiencies. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

image sourcing question
You said: "I know MySpace is not a WP:RS, but can it be used as the sourcing for an image when to corroborate the source you must have an account? "


 * This is hard to answer. I actually signed up for a MySpace account just so I could verify things like this.  What it comes down to is whether there is sufficient reason to believe this really is an official MySpace account and whether the image is licensed appropriately.  In this case, it appears to be a fair-use image used to depict a living person so it is not relevant whether or not the source corroborates anything.  In general, I'm unhappy with sources that require an account.  However, it seems that Wikipedia generally allows it for the "big sites" such as MySpace.  --Yamla 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the problem is the same with Flickr -- in that MySpace has no mechanism for verifying the copyright voracity of images and other media uploaded. I could create a MySpace account (god forbid), claim that I'm this actress (or any other public personality) and post pictures that I claim are mine.  I could even go so far in my charade to say that I've released the copyrights to these works.  How do we combat that claim except to say that MySpace (and its ilk) is not a WP:RS for articles or media.  Possibly making exceptions when verifiable by a reliable third source (i.e. Weird Al's official website offers a link to his MySpace page, endorsing it as the official Weird Al MySpace account).  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've hit the problem and the only reasonable solution on the nose. "Sufficient reason to believe this really is an official MySpace account", etc. etc., but you said it much better.  --Yamla 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:WeirdAlLimeWire.png
Hey, I noticed you tagged that image earlier, and I have since cropped and resized the image, hopefully making it more acceptable for Fair Use. If you could let me know on my talk page if you have any problems with the image as it is now, that would be great. Thanks!  Gromr e  aper  (Talk) / (Cont)  01:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, it looks great! —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:MK-61.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MK-61.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for scrutinizing my uploads for policy compliance. I will return the favor so that we can help make Wikipedia better. Is there any reason you are making edis to my sandbox? There are no fair use images in that space. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't scrutinizing your uploads for policy compliance, I just came across your row with and was following the results.  Looking at the revisions to Joachim (Star Trek), I saw that the images you'd uploaded for the article weren't being used on the article anymore, so I marked them as orphaned.  I'm sorry if you thought I was perusing you for particular malfeasances, I only commented on your sandbox discussion page to remind you about not using fair-use images there.  I certainly didn't remove them, I generally try to shy away from editing other users' user pages (it comes across as being rather ogrish), opting just to tell them about the problems.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A note was left on User talk:Shaundakulbara/Sandbox rather than my talk page, which was confusing as I use that as an alternate sandbox. No, it's not spoiling things for me. My complaints have always been in favor of following policy, not bucking it. Best wishes. Shaundakulbara 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think you're confusing me with .  I just want you to know that I dropped the note, and that I didn't edit your sandbox.  Sorry if you thought I was irate with you or anything, I just wanted to help out .  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found your note and left the message before I even knew that WJBscribe had made an edit to my sandbox. That's why I was so confused.  If I saw the edit then the note it would have made sense.  You're cool with me, as is WJBscribe.  Thanks again. Shaundakulbara 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking question re: Dominic Keating image
Hi. You've removed the image on Dominic Keating's page because it wasn't fair use. My understanding is that I am free to use it here. It's a publicity shot from the studio, which can be used in any way we want to promote the show. Since we list that it's from the show, is this not all right?

Any help understanding this is more than appreciated! RoaringMice 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The promophoto licensing states that the image is duly fair-use when used "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". Further, the fair-use criteria (#1) says that we can only use fair-use materials "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."  The image is being used appropriately at Malcolm Reed to illustrate the fictional character (since, not being real, the only images available are those licensed under fair-use).  However, since a free image of Dominic Keating can be taken, the fair-use image cannot be used to illustrate his article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So I could use his headshot, or a pic that we've taken ourselves, and that would be okay? I want to be sure we're doing this correctly. Thanks. RoaringMice 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the short answer is that only an image which is freely-licensed can be used there. for example, you could contact the uploaders of these photos and see if they would agree to relicense one of the images to the cc-by-sa license (which Flickr allows you to do).  For public figures, they themselves rarely release freely-licensed images of themselves (as they make money from them), but you could always make the request to the actor (or their agent) that they specifically release just one image we could use freely (not fairly).  See WP:COPYREQ for some more thoughts on the latter.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

wiki commons voting diff
"No matter where you go, there you are." —  pd_THOR  undefined | 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Snoop graduation photo.jpg
Oh come on. Does your school own your graduation photo? Do you have a precedent case where a school made money of the picture of their famous alumni?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, typically the photography studio that took the school photos maintains the copyright to them. That's why you have to pay for the school pictures you want, instead of just getting one big one and scanning/printing as many copies as you later want.  However, this is all tangential; more to the point is that if you intend to claim No rights reserved, you have to corroborate it.  You can't just assume that they (or perhaps the photography studio) don't maintain the copyright.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries
Hi PD - thanks for your recent changes to this. As you may be aware it is currently a Featured List candidate so I am doing various bits of cleanup (being the proposer & main contributor). I will need to look into the fair use of images policy as I am new to it - all the images used (other than CNN) were ones I found in other Wikipedia articles, so I assumed if they were already legit they would continue to be so in this article.

Re the Causes section, this issue has come up in the FLC discussion: the section has no source because it is intended to be no more than a statement (viz. mine) on the proportions of the entries in the list that say they are hoaxes, name confusions, etc. I.e. no research was involved - no more than counting. Hence it is just re-presenting information from the list in a different format, and (I reckon) no more needs a source than saying e.g. 'the list below has 80 entries'. Moreover, if it needed a source to belong in the article then it would have to be cut, which would seem over-zealous, since the Causes section is informative given that what it says is not immediately obvious from a glance at the list.

Anyway, if you think a rewording or similar would help this section pass muster, please let me know. I would be loathe to cut it (or for the list to fail FL status because of it). Thanks! Ben Finn 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, actually I hadn't been aware of its candidacy; I think I wound up there following one of the images I'd removed. It's actually a really neat article, and I'm really impressed by the amount of sourcing.  I didn't vet any of them, or go terribly into depth, but it certainly looked really good. As for images and fair-use, my guide there was the fair-use criteria, particularly #8: for a copyrighted image to be duly used under fair-use here, you need to make a case that it "contributes significantly" to the article, and doesn't serve as decoration.  Using a fair-use image of an obituary itself wouldn't be fair-use since the content of the obit can be discussed equally well w/o the image.  An image of the relevant person wouldn't be fair-use since it doesn't contribute any especial understanding to the article or section that you would lack w/o the image.  They look nice, and the free-use images are certainly well-utilized; but copyrighted ones are too much and would probably have proved to be contentious in the FA process.  I can explain more about fair-use images (and why they're OK in one article but not another) if you want, but not here right now. However, Image:CheneyCNNobit.jpg does probably qualify under fair-use if you can provide a detailed fair-use rationale for the image page.  I tagged it as lacking a rationale when I came across it, and honestly didn't take much time to examine it and it's appropriateness for the article.  I've read over the section and (aside from laughing out loud and reading it to my wife) think that if you just described on the image page the specific reasons for why this image contributes significantly to the article and cannot be replace with a free-one ... and you know what, let me do it.  I'm quite happy to.  *Please Hold*  Okay, done. The only thing I would suggest for the "Causes" section is to maybe elabourate that the percentages are based on the list as it stands?  Try to make it a little clearer that the percentages are just derived from the list itself and not any other unlisted source.  Or perhaps they aren't needed; or could even be detrimental?  I could make the argument that by putting the percentages on there at all precipitates the assumption that those statistics are more over-arching for the phenomenon as a whole, and not just this specific list?  I won't remove them and let you think about it. Over all, I think this is a fantastic article and intend to follow up with reading the FAC nomination.  Keep up the great work!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image of Ivana Baquero
Hi, you removed the image Image:Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth.jpg that I placed in the article about Ivana Baquero. The reason you mentioned was just - fair-use image;. Could you please elaborate, maybe point me to an article about what is fair use and what isn't regarding placing images of actresses in articles about them on WIkipedia? Ik.pas.aan 19:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Because the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to provide a free encyclopedia, we can only use copyrighted material where we have to.  When we have to use copyrighted material, we have to clearly explain why this image is necessary and why there cannot be a free one used in it's place.  This usually means things that either (a) do not exist anymore, like dead people, and therefore we can only use the material that is already out there whether it is copyrighted or not; or (b) are fictional (like starships or characters) and therefore only exist in a copyrighted state.  These uses of copyrighted material fall under "fair-use" (see fair use for more). However, according to the criteria of Wikipedia's fair-use policy (#1), we cannot use fair-use images to depict living people.  This is because living people (especially celebrities) are generally available and accessible for free-use images to be taken of them.  So while it is within policy to use Image:WesleyCrusher2366.jpg on the page for Wesley Crusher, it would not qualify for use at Wil Wheaton (the actor).  Note that the images at Wil Wheaton's article are all "free-use", meaning that whoever owned the pictures has released their copyright so that they can be more widely used.  In fact Image:Wil Wheaton.jpg was relased by the actor himself so that Wikipedia could use it; to learn more about requesting copyleft images, see WP:COPYREQ. That is why the copyrighted image Image:Ivana Baquero in Pan's Labyrinth.jpg cannot be used at Ivana Baquero.  Further, I've tagged the image as not explaining why this particular copyrighted image needs to be in the article it is in now.  Per #8 of the same policy, fair-use images "must contribute significantly to the article".  I'm not saying this images doesn't, but you need to specifically explain why.  I've uploaded several fair-use images myself (seen here: User:pd_THOR), feel free to peruse them to get the general idea.  If you have any more questions (of if my explanation is just shite) let me know!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did my best to clarify now. Ik.pas.aan 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thor,

Please allow me to upload images to my biography. I own all the rights to the jpegs. Tahnk you in advance for your assistance. Brian (masterbrian1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.146.178.246 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 February 2007
 * Dooba-what? Well, I don't have any say in allowing you to upload images, that is a priveledge afforded most all Wikipedia contributers.  I only assume you're referring to Image:After Flight Handshake.jpg, which I apparently tagged as missing licensing information--over a year ago.  I don't remember this specific image, but if you "own all the rights to 'the jpegs'", then it may have been deleted as a copyright violation.  After so much time, I honestly can't say.  I haven't offered you any overt assistance, but feel free to ask should you have any questions about images and copyrights, I'll do my best to answer them.  Cheers.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Sinclair
Could you tell me why you put a tag "unsourced" or "no rationale" to the picture Victoria Sinclair.jpg? It's a screenshot from a video of Naked News; go to see the other anchors, they all have a tag of a fair use video or film screenshot and it doesn't create any problems. I don't understand why you create problems when everything is fine. So please, delete these tags. VincentG 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged it with no source because while the image was described, it was not explicitly sourced as being from Naked News. I've tagged it with no rationale because there is no detailed fair-use rationale explaining how this copyrighted image is necessary as opposed to a free-use one (WP:FUC), as well as how the image "contribute[s] significantly" to the article for which it is claiming fair-use (WP:FUC).  It appears you have resolved the sourcing problem (minimally), but have not provided the required detailed fair-use rationale.  As such, I see no cause to "delete these tags"; as you have apparently removed them yourself, are you working on providing an appropriate fair-use rationale, or should I re-tag the image?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Sectoid.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sectoid.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're Pitiful Image Listing
Hi! I see I have been given credit for the image at You're Pitiful but I do have some concern with the copyright listing:

This image is copyrighted; however, the copyright holder allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed.

What concerns me is the part about "allows the image to be modified, used commercially". While the image is okay on display in an illustrational manner, I disagree with the statement of it being okay to modify or use it commercially. I'm fine with being displayed on Wikipedia where I am credited for it, but it cannot be altered or sold or used in profit. My web page's disclaimer only outlines that I must be credited if people base other works off mine, or display my works elsewhere--- but does not allow for alteration of my work or commercial sale of it. I'm unsure if there is a way to alter the copyright listing to reflect this. If you could adjust this, it would be wonderful. Thank you! --Aronjs 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, bugger. I'd interpreted your licensing more liberally than you'd apparently intended.  Essentially what you're saying is that you want to grant permission for Wikipedia's use only?  Unfortunately, we can't use it then.  One of the tenants of Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia" part, meaning that with the GFDL licensing we are authorizing the downstream use of our content for any purposes--even the manipulation and reselling thereof.  Since you're saying you're licensing the image as "Wikipedia permission only", it can't be used by others downstream, and therefore makes that portion of WP "unfree".  Even if I were to change the licensing appropriately (changing the licensing from attribution to permission, the interface automatically knows that that licensing is incompatable and would automatically mark it for deletion.  If you're sure about this, let me know, and I'll have the image removed.  Even if you don't respond in, say ... a week, I'll still have it removed based on your comments here alone.  However, if you change your mind, or want to relicense it under a Creative Commons license (cc-by-sa-2.5) or the GFDL itself GFDL-self, just let me know here and I'll help you out.  Lastly, if you have any questions, let me know, I'll be more than glad to help!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to be displayed anywhere, it just cannot be SOLD. I don't understand why the image cannot be listed as okay for display anywhere on the internet without permission to sell. It can be displayed, it just can't be sold for profit. I am confused as to why this is not allowed. I guess I need help understanding the options because it doesn't make sense, hehe.

--Aronjs 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand completely; but non-permission for commercial reproduction (or modification for that matter) makes it incompatable with the GFDL license that Wikipedia uses. That's effectively the crux of the situation.  I'll remove the licensing that's there now, and re-tag your image as NoncommercialProvided.  It won't be allowed to stay, but that is the proper licensing as you requested.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie posters are copyrighted, and cannot be used for profit, yet they are still on Wikipedia. But oh well. You can return the image to it's original status with the original license, as I was unsure of how things were run here and I had just wondered if it was possible for a different license. Seeing as there is no different license, please revert it back to what it was.

Thank you. --Aronjs 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thank you.   —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Sectoidautopsy.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sectoidautopsy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My HD Elizabeth Swann
My HD screenshot of Elizabeth Swann seems to be too big ;-).

How can I delete it?--Homei 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for anything that you've uploaded you can request a self-deletion with db-self iinm. I've deleted images and subpages that way before.  Hope that helps!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Template:Country data Canada
Hi, I just now noticed your message on Template talk:Country data Canada. These templates are used internally by the flag, flagicon, and flagcountry templates. If you still need help, please let me know! Andrwsc 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! I understand how these function at a very limited level, I think it has something to do with meta data and invisible fields?  Anyway, I have a question.  I know that Template:Country data Canada has variables for specifying flags for specific years (i.e. 1868, 1921, 1957), but these are very specific--that is, they don't parse for the years in between.  If I type in  🇨🇦 , I get errors when what I wanted it to show was the same thing I would have gotten had I typed in  🇨🇦 .  Many countries don't even offer the same limited functionality as Canada's, I know Template:country data Saint Lucia (or El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Armenia, etc.) doesn't offer different dates for the varying flags over the years.  I know it's possible to add this parsing function because USN flag does it: I can type in    and get the appropriate United States naval jack which was flown in 1809.  Can this same functionality be added to the flagicon template?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, the mechanism used to select historical flag variants with the flag and flagicon templates is to use a string to identify it. Most of the time, that string is a year (as is the case with the three variants for Canada), but named labels are used for other countries (e.g. look at Template:Country data Germany to see the set of variants available there.  In Canada's case, it seemed clearest to make the label names the same as the year of introduction instead of "red ensign #1", "red ensign #2", etc.


 * If there are some specific Country_data templates that are missing historical flags (you mention a few), then they can be easily added. Perhaps post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template if you are uncomfortable with making the changes yourself.  The Country_data mechanism is relatively new, and we only used the set of historical flags that existed in the previous set of templates, but we can certainly add more.


 * As for selecting the flag based on the year, I'm not sure that we can easily do that in a backward compatible way, but again, I'd post a message to that project and we'll discuss it there. Andrwsc 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:JoGuestCover.jpg
What the hell? That's not the picture I uploaded at all. Someone went and uploaded one over the one I had (which was from her fansite and was definitely fair use). Can the old image be restored? Also, what's with the shot from behind in the article? I'm all for porn but I thought we don't do that here? Brjatlick 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't have a clue. I'm 100% sure that Image:JoGuestCover.jpg isn't licensed under the GFDL, so I tagged it as missing a source and it will be deleted in course.  I don't really know anything about Jo Guest, nor about the image you once uploaded.  According to the image log, it was deleted by  on the 25th of February 2007.  But that's all I can tell you, I'm sorry.  As for the porno, they're both unsourced and unlicensed, so soon  will remove them both from the article and they'll end up deleted soon after that.  Hope I helped!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ok, thanks. Brjatlick 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia Bikini News.jpg
Can you explain why you flagged this image? The image is a screenshot from a copyrighted video podcast, used for identification of the video, and I have the permission from the producers. What more do I need? daleki 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for your edits to the Leo Ryan article, they look nice. Smee 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * You're welcome! :^)  I did too.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images
Since you seem to understand fair use images, can you explain them to me so I can find some for the LazyTown series of articles? I am tired of the images being uploaded every day and then removed. Kat, Queen of Typos 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. I can tell you the basics for using copyrighted images under fair-use, if you have any questions, lemme know. We use copyrighted images under fair-use by basically saying: "This article really needs an image here, but I simply cannot get a free-use alternative.  I hope the copyright holder doesn't mind, since (a.) I feel this image is crucial to this article and (b.) I'm using it in a primarily non-profit fashion."  To ensure we are fully and properly attributing copyrighted images to whom they belong, every fair-use image requires three components:
 * A source explaining (preferably) where the image originally came from and who holds the copyright. A source could be: "This image is a personally acquired screenshot from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Tapestry". Paramount Home Entertainment is the copyright holder."
 * A copyright tag which explains under what generic fair-use copyright we are claiming this under. In the previous example, an appropriste tag woudl be tv-screenshot. Many, many more tags can be found at WP:ICT.
 * A detailed fair-use rationale that fully describes the reasons (in detail) Wikipedia is using this copyrighted image on every page it's being used on. An example for the above would be detailing that the image is depicting a fictional character in a position or pose that generally defines the character. Further, this is a fictional character and therefore no free image can be expected to be available.  Also mention that it is a low-resolution image, as well as that using this particular image is not expected to limit the copyright holder's to profit from the original source.  That should suffice, although if you have additional specific rationales for using this copyrighted image on Wikipedia, feel free to add them.
 * Those are the basics that each fair-use image should have, as well as the reasons for using them. The basic rule is to use it only when you have to, as the fair-use criteria require: "the material must contribute significantly to the article".  If you have any questions, want more specific information, or want my input on any specific images, please let me know!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

height
This template gives numbers with two decimal places, but the numbers you're converting from aren't that precise, so you're giving approximations an inappropriate appearance of accuracy. Could you please not use this template on numbers like ship dimensions? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain I understand your objection. You're saying that height takes a measurement from feet-inches and converts them into meters with two decimal points, right?  And that using those two decimal points gives the metric measurement an air of exactitude that the original measurement did not confer? So essentially when a given measurement is 17.5 feet, saying that it is also 5.334 meters gives the impression of a more exact measurement than the general 17.5 feet?  Would it then be appropriate to round to whole meters, or to one decimal point?  Say, for example, the USS Thrush, which has a given length of 144 feet; calculating that gives me 43.8912 meters.  Now, putting that in isn't incorrect necessarily, just very specific.  But if I were to round to 44 meters, that's 144.356955 feet, which is incorrect based on the information available.  What do you recommend be done in these instances?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * USS Firebolt (PC-10) had numbers that were stated in whole feet and whole meters, which was appropriate because obviously the ship isn't precisely 174 feet zero inches. Leaving them just the way they are seems fine.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not, the naval vessel register lists it at 170 feet. Obviously when you get to a ship of that size measurements aren't going to be entirely precise since the more important part is approximate size. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Untitledg.JPG
Why are you about to remove this image? It is made available by the Canadian government, and there are no other images specifically about the major issue of human trafficking I have seen on this site. And many, indeed most images, don’t give explanations why they are there. What do I have to do? Chwyatt 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point/problem is that the image does not "contribute significantly to the article", such that it qualifies under the fair-use criteria. The image is just a poster, not illustrating any particular given information in the article, nor conveying any information which cannot be described w/o using copyrighted material. In the overview section it's serving a decorative purpose, which is not allowed under fair-use.  While information about the Canadian promotional program to inform the public about the issue may be warranted in the article (in a fashion similar to "United States Federal law"), unless the article specifically discussed this particular image in critical commentary, it would again not be acceptable under fair-use.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If then I write something about what governments (such as, amongst others, the Canadians) do to combat trafficking, including raising awareness, then this problem is resolved, right? That would directly connect text to image, it would specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text. The issue of relevance is one of interpretation. But discussing awareness programmes (including posters) would be keeping to the spirit of the rules.


 * Illustrating what such an awareness poster would look like (and many unfamiliar to the issue may not know) would add something to the article, and therefore keeping to the rule. Chwyatt 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Album covers
I noticed that you tagged Image:Styx 20th Century Masters.jpg with templates for lacking a source and for lacking a fair use rationale. I have no problem with adding those things, but I've uploaded quite a few album covers, and I want to make sure it's necessary before I go through the trouble.

The source I can understand, to satisfy WP:V, but as I go through Category:Album covers, I see that most do not have any source info, and are not tagged as such (lousy argument, I know). As for rationale, I thought that the album cover template covers that pretty well. Do you just want it specifically stated which articles the image is on and why (e.g This album cover illustrates the album in question, for use in (the band's) discography and in the article on (the album))? Again, going through the category, I see no album covers that contain this. Thanks. --Joelmills 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you're right; almost none of the album covers on Wikipedia have this informations. Though they do all require it, there are just so many albums, and so very many people just uploading images that they almost never get tagged correctly.  I'm not on a crusade for album covers or anything, but since they still need the information, I just tag them when I run across them.  Basically, they just need source, licensing tag, and fair-use rationale (effectively an explanation of why the copyrighted image should be allowed under fair-use provisions). Looking at Image:Styx 20th Century Masters.jpg though, it's not being used with any critical commentary, and probably doesn't qualify under fair-use.  I won't argue against/for it, but I'm pretty sure that since neither the album itself or the cover are being discussed in the article, it doesn't qualify under fair-use.  I'd check with WP:FUC and WT:FU if I were you. Thanks for the line, I appreciate being asked as opposed to being assumed.  Be well!  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Question
Hi Thor, I got your Id since you reverted the Star Trek logo image to the last version (Image_talk:StarTrek_Logo.png). I just wanted to say you're right on reverting it, thanks I did not think about the fact that I was actually using a copyrighted image. May be later I will use a custom made model of the Enterprise instead of using the already existing picture.

Also, I had a question on image tags and would be very glad if you could find some time to answer it, or direct me to proper source. I wanted to create an inline image which will link to Star Trek instead of the image itself, in the User_Trekkie. I did some research on it, but could not find a way to do it. Is it possible to set up a custom link with an image? -- Hirak 99 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrm, I really don't know. You might check out Memory Alpha, their main page does this, although I don't know how.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will check there. -- Hirak 99 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ethereal.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ethereal.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
On Behalf of 142.166.229.58 "I am sorry for my 'Vandalism' of your page. I thought that someone such as you would appreciate this humor. I also thank you for bringing to my knowledge of free use images; being fairly new to wikipedia I did not know...I now also see that some of my colleagues have done the same (namely user:STAREYe) and I appolgise for this both now and in cases of the future" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.166.32.25 (talk • contribs).
 * I did think it was humorous, and took no offense. I'm glad I was able to help you with whatever it was that I did.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth of Kitty Genovese
I noticed that you reverted my "assumption" of the place of birth of Kitty Genovese from Brooklyn, New York, back to New York, New York. I try not to make assumptions on Wikipedia; when I edit, I either enter new and pertinent information or I correct errors. In the Kitty Genovese article, if you will click footnote 1 at the top of the article, you will be taken to a web site that details a lot of information about Genovese. You will see that her birthplace is Brooklyn. I'll let you correct the infomation from New York, New York, back to Brooklyn, New York.

There is an age-old-adage about assumptions. When you ass-u-me, you make an ass of u and me. Who's making the assumptions?

Anthony22 22:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it. You just forgot to cite it, no big deal.  I've re-included the information with a citation.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)