User talk:Johnnyfog/Archive 1

Smallville Pictures
If you are going to place pictures on that page, please put them in their correct places, which is before all the text. Also, I would advice finding more information for the copyright of those pictures, because the Orphanbot will come in and delete every one if you don't. Please see Smallville Season 5 pictures for an idea of what that should be like. Just click the picture and click the "edit this page" for that picture and you will see everything you need. Bignole 18:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
You seem to be doing a good job with Smallville images but if you don't get their licensing right, people are going to delete them. You should put something like: ==Summary== This is a screenshot of smallville season 2 episode 7 taken by User:Johnnyfog and is owned by the WB.

Licensing
I would hate to see all your uploading go to waste. You may want to go back to the images you uploaded and add this info. Keep up the good work. - Peregrinefisher 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Images in user page
Hi, Johnnyfog. Please, understand that, according to Wikipedia's policy, we can't claim fair use when using images on User's pages. I've remove some of these images from your page. --Abu Badali 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Hi, Johnnyfog. You may want to know that, acording to Wikipedia policies, we can't claim fair use for images outstide of articles. Than includes, talk pages, user pages and templates.

Don't you think it would better for you to avoid uploading new images for a while before you fully understand WP:IUP and WP:FU?

Best regards, --Abu Badali 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, understand that fan sites are usualy not the source for the images they use. For using the promotional tag, we need to make sure the image comes from a press kit (or something similar), and that's why we need to know the original source.

And please, use edit summaries when reverting. --Abu Badali 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Johnnyfog, please take Abu Badali's advice and confine your contributions to the the encyclopedia's text until you have throughly read and understood Wikipedia's image use policies. Realize that Wikipedia is a free content project and only allows unfree images in a few very specific cases. Among the many requirements are that we know the image's origin and copyright holder, that its use not affect the market for the image, and that it not be possible to create a free image to serve the same purpose.  If you have any questions, please ask at Media copyright questions.  ×Meegs 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes
I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

-- Cyde Weys 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Substantial image problems
STOP! All images you upload must have the source and an accurate license (including rationale for any licenses that aren't clear-cut, such as for promotional images). Additionally, copyrighted images must have the copyright holder identified and must have a detailed fair-use rationale for each use of the image on the Wikipedia. Please do not upload any more images until you have fixed the substantial problems with the images you have already uploaded. Wikipedia has to take copyright violations very seriously. Thanks. --Yamla 14:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amack ab.jpeg
Johnnyfog, do you understand my concerns regarding the licensing of Image:Amack ab.jpeg? The source ulr given is a fan site, and it's probably not the copyright holder for that image. When need to know who is the real copyright holder before stating the image is free from use. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amack.jpeg
I have posted the requested source info and verified that Image:Amack ab.jpeg is indeed fair use under the listed conditions. I'm going to wait on reposting the image until I have confirmation that the source info is satisfactory. -->Johnnyfog

I'm afraid it's not. The fan site http://www.allisonmackonline.com/ is unlikely to be the original source for most of images is hosts. Also, we don't have enough evidence that the image is free for use (requeiring attribution) as you said. I'll be reverting the image to the no source status until we get to find who really owns that image. Thanks for the contact. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Johnnyfog. "Usage is restricted to not-for-profit derivatives" makes an image unusable in Wikipedia. Where did you get ? Also, were you being serious in ?

Don't you think it would be better for you to temporarly step out of image acticities on Wikipedia? Please, don't take me wrong. You are wellcome here. But I believe you will become a much more useful contributor if you take some time to read the images use guidelines, and/or talk with some other users about them. Of course, feel free to act as you wish. --Abu Badali 18:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amtam.jpeg removed

 * Don't worry. Your information is on the history. I've removed that because it was tnaccurate. That site is not the original source for the image. --Abu Badali 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to questions:
1. I went looking for examples of free use rationales and found Image:FishelDanielle.jpg. I took what I could and created the "not-for-profit derivitives" myself as a way of emphasis.

2. I won't upload any new images and will confine myself to updating source info on jpegs I've already posted until something serious happens (for example: threatened with being banned)

3. I am going to do whatever it takes to save my images from deletion because I know they are fair use and it's only the lack of an immediate URL and / or explicit permission from copyright holders that pevents them from being posted. If the image originates from a URl which allows free use and distributes it to other sites with a similar policy, I see nothing wrong with trying to clarify the source info with accurate (if flimsy) rationales. Any attempt on my part to avoid deletion should not be interpreted as trying to "cheat" the system. I have been a wiki user for less than a month and am no threat to it.

Lastly, I have been reminded four times in the last 12 hours to read the free use policies. I have done that. --->Johnnyfog


 * 1 - Unfortunnatelly, that was a very bad example. We need evidence before stating that some image "may be used for any purpose provided the source is cited". Also, we must make sure the source we provide is the real original source, that is, the one who created/owns the image. Fan sites or general web galeries rarely hold the copyright on the image they host.


 * 2 - I really hope you don't get to be blocked. I don't think this will be necessary.


 * 3 - Don't get attached to the images you've upload. They are not "yours". Also, not that images are never "fair use". The use of an image is what may be a fair use. And remember that it's not just necessary that the image use is "fair use" according to the law. The use should also be in accordance to Wikipedia's policy on fair use, that happens to be more restrictive.


 * Let me know of any problem. --Abu Badali 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gee, thanks for your attentiveness.

 * "Thanks for doing me that BIG favor...". You're welcome.


 * "I know intellectual articles...". A free ecyclopedia suffer much from the abuse of unfree images.


 * "Do you mean to tell me that NO allegedly "copyrighted" image can be used for a template?" YES! You get it! That's what the policy says.


 * "I'm curous how you seem to monitor every move I make...". I check your User's contributions page.


 * Don't feel bad about this all. I feel a great potential in you as an editor. I've commited mistakes in my first days here too (and nobody is free from commiting them). Best regards, --Abu Badali 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry
Don't fear these red warnings. They're just part of the bureaucracy. :) --Abu Badali 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New userboxes
I have deleted a userbox template you recently created, as userboxes should no longer be created in templatespace per the terms of the German userbox solution. Here is the userbox code so that you can recreate the userbox in your userspace ("userfying") if you wish.

-- Cyde Weys 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, judging by the number of image copyright warnings you continue to get, I recommend that you stop uploading stuff and take some time to read our copyright policies and adhere to our rules. If you don't, you will get blocked. -- Cyde Weys 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And I just redeleted the Veronica Mars template you recreated under a different name. Don't do this. Read the instructions at WP:GUS. -- Cyde Weys 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I noticed some film images that are copyrighted (due to the film being unreleased or still in theaters) violate fair use. I also noticed that to bypass this, an uploader can attempt to post a smaller/lower quality version. Is this fair use? --->Johnnyfog


 * What exactly do you mean by "film images"? Screenshots or publicity images (like studio stills)? In any case, the general rule for fair use applies. Our policy allows for the use of unfree (copyrighted) images when they are essential information in the article that can't be conveyed with text or with other free image. For instance, in the article about Spilberg's E.T., we could use a screenshot showing the creature, as it's the only way to explain how it looked like. Of course, these images should be used in a limited number. We don't need a full galery of E.T. images just to show the look of the creature. --Abu Badali 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perplexed
I have looked over the fair use policy, but I do not want to start uploading again because I am still not sure if I understand the rules correctly.


 * 1 - Photos of an actor (for an article about that actor). In what cases do I need proof of permission (evidence) from the copyright holder to upload an image?


 * 2 - How much evidence is needed?


 * 3 - If I reduce the image to a version of lower quality, does that make any difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)


 * Hummm... evidence? That's what you need:


 * 1) The source of the image, that is, we need to know who "owns" the image. Actually, who owns the right to use that image, the copyright. Usually, whoever created the image owns the copyright. So, for photos, the source (the copyright holder) is the photographer (or the agency he works for). For a movie, the copyright holder is the Movie studio that produced the movie. And so on.
 * 2) The licensing, that is, how are we allowed to use the image. Wikipedia is made of free content, that is, everything here may be freely copied, changed, distributed, etc. If you print 30 copies of the cnn.com home page, you are violating their copyrights, because you failed to follow the "All Rigths Reserved" notice that reserves the right to print that page to them. But instead, if you print 30 copies of some wikipedia article, you not in violaton of copyright, because you're allowed to use, copy, distribute, etc... every article here.
 * By the way, do you realize that, by contributing to Wikipedia you are, for example, giving permission for anyone in Nigeria, El Salvador, France, Norway or Bostwania to print unlimited many copies of your text or any modified version of it? They can sell books with your text too. Strange, isn't?
 * Anyway... back to image issue, see this image for instance. The photographer is a guy called Tiago Chediak. This guys holds the copyrights for this image. But after being asked to, he was kind enough to release the image under a free license, allowing anyone to use it, copy it, modify it, etc it, as long as he is given credit. So, we say that this image is a free image.
 * If you plan to upload an image to Wikipedia, make sure it's a free image. If it's not, you need a strong reason to do that. Some unfree images are necessary (like the E.T. image), but the abuse of unfree images use hurts Wikipedia. Some people, for instance, like to upload publicity photos of actors claiming fair use. This hurts wikipedia because it discourage people from looking for freelly released images (or from asking photographers to freely release their images).
 * Wikipedia's goal is to build an freely available encyclopedia. By being free, it's reusable by others. Some teacher im Mexico may start to write a study guide for his students from a Wikipedia article. It's ok. Some indonesian teenager may want to publish a Complete Cool TV Series Guide, and he will use Wikipedia's articles os tv series as a start point. It's ok to do that. Note that, when you contribute material to Wikipedia, you're not just helping to build a "informative website". You're releasing your text for anyone to use as they want. Now that's something to feel proud of.
 * ... but if still thinks adding unfree images of actors would push Wikipedia closer to it's goal, yes, reducing the image quality helps (but you still need a source and a reasone (rationale) for using the image). --Abu Badali 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 24 hours. You have a huge number of image violations noted here and you continue to upload images without the necessary information. You are welcome to resume editing once this block expires but please make sure all of the images you upload have all of the necessary information. --Yamla 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Starting clean
I noticed your comment on your user page. There is a way you can essentially start over clean. What you need to do is to create an archive page (such as here, move all the content from this page to there, clear this page, then provide a link to that page. I can help you out on this if you want.  Now, we do have a guideline that you should not blank current warnings.  That is, warnings which have not yet been resolved.  And you have a large number of image warnings.  Your main problem seems to me to be with images.  If you just stop uploading images (or at least, stop for a while, figure out what you are doing wrong, then start slowly), it shouldn't be a problem to move all those warnings.  Anyway, I can't help you out tonight but I'm more than happy to help you out later in the week.  --Yamla 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I should add that the point of the warnings (and, eventually, the blocks) is to correct your actions. For images, it is either to stop you uploading the images or to cause you to only upload images with the proper information.  The goal is not to hound you into giving up Wikipedia (unless your goal is to cause damage and destruction, of course).  Everyone gets warnings.  Almost everyone gets blocked.  You got rather a lot of warnings because you uploaded rather a lot of images.  --Yamla 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You really must stop uploading images without providing the mandatory hand-written detailed fair-use rationale, however. I see many (all?) of your uploads from today are missing this information (but I'm too tired to mark them thus).  --Yamla 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:CL encounter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CL encounter.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. 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for caring :)
Thanks for your self-note not no piss-me-off :) . But I'd like you to know that you never did. On a side note, I see you had improved a lot, and it's clear to me that your only goal is to improve Wikipedia. Never forget the rationales and keep as few images as necessary to show the look of a fictional characters. Take good care and thanks for the good laugh. Best regards, --Abu Badali 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Planet chloe.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Planet chloe.jpeg. 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.

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. Abu Badali 09:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that kriptonsite, as any other fansite, is not the original source for Smallville promotional images. Avoid its images. --Abu Badali 09:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Johnnyfog, please note that kriptonsite is not a source for smallvilles promotional material In order to tag a image as promotional, we need to make sure the copyright holder released this image to be used by the media. The fact that the image is used on a fansite may be a clue towards this, but it's hardly a prove. We need verifiable information, like a link to the press kit site. I strongly encorage you to avoid fansites as source for promotional materials.


 * Also, there's already on unfree image others 3 unfree images in this character's article. What's the rationale to have one more? Surely not to "illustrates Allison Mack's character Chloe Sullivan on the accompanying article", as this has already been covered by having other images.


 * If you fail to find promotional material for some tv show, try to use (a limited number of) screenshots to depict the characters.


 * Let me know if you need any help. Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to be brief...

 * 1) This is a free encyclopedia (and not a web-publishing space) and we use unfree images only when there's no option.
 * 2) Screenshots are sometimes the only way to depict an character, but hardly the only way to depict an actor.
 * 3) It's not about federal law, it's about keeping Wikipedia as free as possible (see #1).
 * 4) Wikipedia has a huge number of images violating the policy. I suggest you to follow the policy, not the examples.
 * 5) Fansites are not a source for promotional material. Promotional material must come from the copyright holder and it should make it clear that the material is intended to be widely distributed. When tagging an image as promotional, make sure you dowloaded it from the copyright holder's website and that you read the "Terms of Use" (or "Legal notice, etc.) link, and that it encourages the wide distribution of it's images.
 * 6) Do not feel guilty by inadvertently violating the policy.
 * 7) Don't think the images warings are acustation or firger pointings towards you. They are courtesy messages to call your attention to a problem that may be of your interest.
 * 8) * I agree that the red color on these warnings and the fact that we need one warning per image contributes to people being scared of them.
 * 9) Wikipedia's fair use policiy is far from "flexible". Indeed, it's more strict than fair use in u.s. law. The point is that we're building a free encyclopedia, and not a informative website (see #1).
 * 10) Cool down, avoid the tempation to use the caps-lock key to strength your point, and make a carefully choice of adjectives.

Happy edditing. Best regards, --Abu Badali 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lex Smallville.jpg
Johnnyfog, do you think this image is a promotional shot? As a clue, read item #5 above. I'm sure you'll know how to deal with that. Best regards, --Abu Badali 12:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh Abu Badali, you are such a pain in the proverbial.


 * I went to the CW site to get a season six Lex pic that wouldn't be tainted by fansites "which are not sources for promotional material!".


 * Why on earth not????


 * But I digress. Yes, it is a promotional image, by my estimation. Why, are there stricter standards for promotional material? Or perhaps another classification that I don't know about? Because as far as I know, tv images fit into 2 categories: screenshots and press kits. But then I only started editing last month. --User:Johnnyfog 09:12, 10.3.06


 * Do not disapoint me, Padawan. You surely made a great progress in seeking the copyright holder website instead of some fansite. Congrats for that. But keep reading item #5 above, and try to understand what's the problem with this image.


 * "Why on earth not????" Because fansites are, at best, reusers of promotional material. The source is the copyright holder when publishing the image. But as fansites rarely care about copyright issues, we can't tell for sure all images they use were released by the copyright holder as promotional material. That's why we need to know the original source for images tagged as promotional, to make sure they really are.


 * Hope to hear about Image:Lex Smallville.jpg from you soon. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of your cruel tutelage, you...you...you BAD PERSON!


 * Anyway, in that last case the image came directly from the network's site, but there was no explicit permission for fair use. Luckily I think posting an image on a webpage that promotes the show more than meets fair use. No more images from fansites then, I guess. *sigh* User:Johnnyfog 12:57, 10.4.06


 * Fair use do not requires permission. The image is not promotional because the source site's Terms of Service do not encourages it's widespread use: "Site may not otherwise be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, distributed or used in any way unless specifically authorized by The CW. Any authorization to copy Material granted by The CW in any part of this Site for any reason is restricted to making a single copy for non-commercial, personal, entertainment use on a single computer only". You should tag it for deletion. --Abu Badali 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, take a look at this image's source info. When I follow the link, I get to see another image. What's the catch? --Abu Badali 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies, the photo has changed since I last visited that URL. I'm sure I can find it with a google search. User:Johnnyfog
 * Wouldn't you preffer to upload the new image instead? It could be used as the main image in the article, as you're going to ask the deletion for the current one. --Abu Badali 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's this? Vigilant fair use enforcer Abu Badali got an image warning?? STINGS, DOESN'T IT?!!User:Johnnyfog
 * Indeed, there are 2 logos (one for Wilson Sporting Goods and the other for Clube Náutico Capibaribe) that I've uploaded in Feb 2006 and April 2005 that I failed to provide the source for. Usually, logos are considered to have an implicity source, but as I don't really fell 100% confortable with "implicity sources", I will not fight for these images. As I told you in item #6 above,, there's nothing to feel guilty about. --Abu Badali 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

?
Best Damn FUR that has no merit ever

Description: Allison Mack Hello. I'm the person who wrote that FUR. I can't quite understand what you mean when you say "best damn FUR that has no merit ever". Do you mean it is a very good FUR and it's just the admins who are stupid/uncooperative, or do you mean it is a crap FUR that actually doesn't give a good/detailed rationale? Please get back to me because I want to know if you are on my side or Abu badali's. - [rts_freak]  |  5p34k 2 /\/\3  05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Source: The copyright holder of the image is WireImage.com
 * Date: 13 July 2002
 * Author: Jean-Paul Aussenard
 * Rationale: This image should be used to illustrate Allison Mack on the article about her. I believe it qualifies for fair use as it list the source, the copyright holder, the date it was created and the creator of the image. I have searched tirelessly for a free image of the actress, but I couldn't find one. If someone can find one, then pelase upload it. Otherwise I think this image fits the description for fair use.
 * Yeah, he is a bit over zealous in his "work". But I suppose he is quite civil while listing every single image for deletion. Anyway, nice talking to you. - [rts_freak]  |  5p34k 2 /\/\3  14:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Amen to that, brother!!! I love your perspective. I too hate lana and I just had a bad experience with some editors triming down information.

I also had problems with some images I uploaded, but I solve it by copypasting and then editing info from a similar image.

How would you feel about creating a Clark or Lois article? I dont know about you but I'm in love with erica durance. hahahah.--201 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a guy is going to merge the Lex Luthor (Smallville) article. I said that I liked it so that they see some people appreciate it (you did a good job). --201 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of character images
Hi, Johnnyfog. Please, remember to use as few unfree images as possible in Wikipedia. For most tv-series fictional characteres, just one good chosen image may be enough to show how the character looks like. Of course, if in some case you believe just one image is not enough, use others. But avoid having more that one unfree image serving the same purpose (in this case, to show how the character looks like). Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Geez,A.B.
Oh and did you see? Some guy gave me a special barnstar for sticking it to the man. I don't know whether to act smug or be really embarassed. -User:Johnnyfog 9:10AM 12.12.06


 * I wish every newbie reacted like you when beign "introduced" to the policies. Good humor and willingness to cooperatre. About the pic... when I first saw it, I couldn't help thinking that was exactly how some other editors see me... :)


 * Congrats for the Barnstar. The last one I got was called "The Cancer of Wikipedia".


 * Best regards, --Abu Badali 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)