User talk:Mediathink

I want to be a significantly better contributor to Wikipedia --

Full disclosure: part of my career mission is to help companies and their leadership use Wikipedia responsibly and according to policy []. It is likely I will be compensated for doing so. I am aware of the conflict of interest policy and strongly believe that the foundational policies of Wikipedia trump any concerns about motivations for contributing. I think eventualism is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and works fastest when authors and editors are transparent. Mediathink 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Request
Hi. I see you have requested adoption and I am seeking to adopt. Please take a look at my userpage and see if I am a good fit to be your mentor. If you agree to be adopted by me, then let me know on my talk page by clicking the "+" symbol at the top of the page and letting me know. If not, I would still be glad to answer any questions you have at any time. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- MECU ≈ talk 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll be happy to expunge my image knowledge upon you. I've changed the userbox on your userpage and added one to mine. So, please answer the following questions to I can help you better:

Also, please contact me at anytime for any reason. You can't possibly bug me enough. Even if you think it's minor and the 1000th time you've asked me the same question already on the same day, please ask if you are confused or need help. If I don't know the answer, I know people who will. I look forward to working with you. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What you want to get out of adoption? Better skills at editing (Codes and tags and know what really needs editing) and being a good wiki citizen.
 * 2) What you want to accomplish here at Wikipedia? -- Help wikipedia gain more credibility. It's been beaten unfairly by those who misunderstand it or fear it.
 * 3) What you like to do here on Wikipedia? -- I like to browse randomly--I learn so much.  More and more I worry about very subtle vandalism and how vandalism is defined.  I know there are a lot of people who benefit from Wiki losing credibility (MSM).  And Honestly I think the wrong people are being blamed.  I think Metawiki is incredibly cool.  It never ceces to amaze me how this community can parse its thinking.
 * 4) What are your problems at Wikipedia? -- Tags and codes. Particularly images-- as I mentioned.  I'm getting better though.  The sandbox helps.
 * 5) If you have any specific problems or questions I can answer now. -- What is the best way to upload an image.  What is the best way to assure that --as an editor-- I've provided the essential information to assure compliance with copyright policies?


 * There is only one way to upload an image. But I think you meant like your next related question: To ensure you are complying with the copyright terms, provide a source. Where you get an image determines the possible license. There are free images available on the net, but many are not. Using an image under fair use should be a last resort, and also comply with our fair use criteria, especially #1 and have a rationale. You can always seek pre-uploading (and post!) help from me or the fine folks at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... -- MECU ≈ talk 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:PadmasreeWarrior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PadmasreeWarrior.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. Abu badali (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use and publicity photos
Don't want to get into a big thing--just want to understand. You pulled on the grounds that it is unfree despite a clear rationale. Just interested in your opinion of this issue as you did not post to the discussion page as instructed by the tag you apparently posted ("Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed). The rationale was there: it is a publicity picture and no free replacement is available that accurately represents the subject. Did I place this is the wrong part of the image entry? Are you aware of a free alternative that I missed?  Looks like your an expert on this so I could use your help-- particularly as the image had been proposed in the talk section as a replacement for over a week with no comment or objection.Mediathink 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mediathink. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't accepts unfree images when it's possible to create a free alternative (what is almost always truth for pictures of living individuals). Note that it's not necessary for a free alternative to be promptly available. As long as it's possible to produce a free alternative, we don't use unfree images.


 * For images of living people, as long as the person is not a recluse or is missing, it's considered that someone could, at some point, create a free picture. And in the mean time, we prefer to keep the article with no images at all, as experience has shown that the presence of an unfree image make it less likely that someone would take the effort to produce an alternative.


 * I hope you understand. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:PadmasreeWarrior.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:PadmasreeWarrior.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really just that the CC 3.0 license hasn't been declared free enough for our use. Once it is (and it likely will be), you can then upload the image. If the site were to license under 1.0, 2.0 or 2.5, we could take it immediately, but because it's only under 3.0 we can't take it, yet. I have no timeline on when it should be declared free though. If you really want to get the image immediately, you could E-mail the author/owner of the website and ask them for another free license. Though, since they did license it CC they would likely quickly/easily agree to a 2.5, but it's your call. If it were me, I would probably just wait. But explaining why CC-3.0 isn't free for us yet and you want a CC-2.5 license would probably prove difficult. You could ask when the 3.0 license will be declared free on the village pump to get a more definite answer. If it's "soon" then you could e-mail them, but if it's "6 month" I'd just wait. I hope that clears things up. MECU ≈ talk 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out at this time when you sign your statements on talk pages, you just need to put ~ and not ~Mediathink as it seems you are doing. Also, when you start a new topic on a talk page, you should click the "+" symbol at the top of the page which will create a new section for that topic. Don't click the last section's edit and start your conversation there. MECU ≈ talk 19:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Interchange fee
OTRS templates are put onto talk pages because they don't belong on the article, just like WikiProject tags. So the OTRS info refers to the article page. The locking note on the talk page also just refers to the article. If you look at the logs for the page you will see the protection was removed on the 21st of this month which is why there isn't any notice on the article now. The talk page logs show it was never protected. I would agree it would be very rare for a talk page to be protected. That's where folks are supposed to talk (nicely) on how to solve problems. You can always ask me, but the first place to ask such questions are the administrator that locked the page. If they aren't around or don't respond, then you can try Administrators' noticeboard first where you should definitely get some help pretty fast. But be sure to try the responsible admin first, they will know more what's going on and be able to make a better call. MECU ≈ talk 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Padmasree-CLR-sm.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Padmasree-CLR-sm.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikicite update
FYI. – SJ + 05:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)