User talk:Lilwik

"Ninjas" (again)
Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_27#Category:Fictional_ninja ?

Well, he kept trying until he eventually won. And now, he wants to make "Ninjas" and "Historical Ninjas" as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_7#Several_ninja_categories

This is just stupid, but the mods were on his side: and now he wants to change the rest. --HanzoHattori 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

re: FURs
Actually, there's a lot of potential redundancy with "Description", "Source", and "Portion".

You are correct, "Description" is an answer to "What is the image an image of?" But that answer can also include where the image is from, who created the original, how much the original is seen in the image. A comprehensive description of the image would be:

A character study done by Alex Ross of Captain Marvel, Jr, for the Kingdom Come limited series published by DC Comics where the character appeared as "King Marvel". The design reflects later costume design used by Elvis Presley, a fan of the character. The portion used is part of a page from the afterwards section of the hardcover collected edition of the series.

Note that this covers not only what is generally used as "Description" but also what you propose as "Source" and what can be used as "Portion".

In general I try to keep it simple and not regurgitate or embellish what the image is supposed to be supposed to be supporting in the article(s). In this case that's which character, who drew it, and where was it published. If a reader has to come to the back-end to find out why an image is included in an article, then the FUR really doesn't mean a thing, either the article has failed and needs to be fixed or the image is there as decoration in violation of the Wiki policies for use of non-free images.

As for "Source", general use with images that I've seen is that this answers "Where did this file come from?" That is, did the uploader scan (print) or capture (video/film) the image them self or did they get it from a verifiable website. From what I've seen there are 5 ways this is filled in:
 * 1) A url, hopefully to something more than just the image itself. This seems to almost universally be accepted as satisfactory for this point.
 * 2) Declarative statement from the original uploader as having created the scan or capture. On par with #1 above.
 * 3) Variations on the "Apparent" hedge I've been using. It's a case of AGF on the part of the original uploader. Also, except for the intersection that you and I have had with this image, I haven't heard boo that it's invalid. It seems that most editors looking at these images accept it as valid.
 * 4) Text of "Unknown/Unspecified" or similar. This I have seen other editor's point to as "no source given" and tag. Not consistently, but often enough that I've stopped using it as a hedge. This is also why in this case I changed to "Apparent", I cannot say the file came from a specific site, nor point to a like file elsewhere, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the original uploader. Both this and #3 I use when there is no FUR of any stretch when I come across the image.
 * 5) Blank, which automatically tags the image as "Without source" and deletable.

This at least is where I'm coming from... - J Greb 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true, the FUR, in toto, is supposed to support the use of a non-free image with in Wiki. Ideally, going back up thread, that piece of long prose, in any one of the three slots, or even "Purpose", should cover it. No need for the others. And it is just as likely that editors running through the images take the "Description" into account as find #3 above acceptable.
 * Also keep in mind that, in some case, the web link is the only place where the image has been published, for profit or promotion, either by all of the copyright holder directly or with their consent. Cover artwork, without the dress of a published magazine, is a good example of this. A cover, with the title, corporate trade dress, pricing box, and add copy, can be sourced to the comic as published. The art can't. The unmodified art sources back to the promotional material: an article hosted on Newsarama, the solicits at DC's or Marvel's sites, Previews from Diamond. But each of those has it's own restraints. File size, quality, embedded watermarks, and so on. But still, the FUR can point to that site and say "That is where this file came from, or, at the least, helps justifies our use of it."
 * As for the original uploader, it's a two fold thing. The first is what I pointed out in #2 above. An attestation that, event though there is no web based source, the images was taken from a legitimately published or broadcast source. The second is a safety net for if information is missing. A case in point of the later: Image:Joker knife.jpg was put to IfD for lack of source, which is not surprising since the original uploader neglected to provide anything of a source beyond "Publicity still from The Dark Knight." It had to be brought to that uploader that the information was missing. When it was, he added it. It was delayed because the original uploader was no longer identified on the image page. Situations like this may become more important if the FUR policies become tighter. Right now we have the latitude of "Character study published in this book by that publisher." What happens if it needs to be a full blown citation, book, publisher, artist(s), writer(s) (if there's text), date, page(s), and panel(s)? The original uploaders are, if they originally scanned it, the sure fire source for that info, since there's no guarantee that the editor(s) that have cleaned up over-sized, wrong formatted, under documented files will have seen the source in question.
 * And the hedge... frankly I can't vouch for another editor's actions with 100% certainty. I can AGF and say "I believe her uploaded a file that he made from scanning or screen capping from the original source." But that's it. The time I don't do that is when 1) the uploader has stated it directly or 2) I've got an independent source that serves the same purpose as the declaration, ie a website or I'm going to make a declarative statement because I've made a scan to replace a muddy, botched, or butchered file.
 * - J Greb 04:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FMALust2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:FMALust2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)