User talk:Melesse/Archive 9

Fair use rationale for Image:Gregg_doyell.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gregg_doyell.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Learning_Python_First_Edition.jpg
I have tagged Image:Learning_Python_First_Edition.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Medieval_II_Total_War_pc.jpg
I have tagged Image:Medieval_II_Total_War_pc.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mi6couk.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mi6couk.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. Undeath (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Martyrs tp01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Martyrs tp01.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Images
Although I can understand your constant deletion of some of my images, your deletion of Nick Studios, E.T., Jaws and Studio Tour was unexplained, as they were valid. I'm going to reupload all of the images with a proper tag, but if they are still deleted by you, I'm going to chat with administrators.--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete the The Simpsons Ride and Kongfrontation images. They are free images, photographed by users.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See my explanation on the Kongfrontation image's talk page before speedily deleting it.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:DargoronZajecar.jpg
there was no issue with the rationale of that image and most of all - I DIDN'T RECIEVE ANY WARNING PRIOR TO SPEEDY DELETITION!!! i double-checked my talk page history, there was no warning regarding that image. -- P rim E vi L 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no copyright tag regarding the image on their image gallery... I am no certain as to wich licence i should place for this one. Assist me, please. regards, -- P rim E vi L 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ramones album cover.jpg
Hi. You did not address the disputed fair use rationale in the tag I put on this image so I put the tag back on. The image is not fair use in the article punk rock as the tag says. -Nard 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image question
Hello, a few days ago I tagged Image:Insane Clown Posse concert.jpg as replaceable fair use because they still perform concerts. I didn't notice, but the uploader the template while providing a fair use rationale. Today, I the template and explained to the uploader that there is no fair use rationale for images with free alternatives available. However, the category the image gets placed in has already been cleared and deleted (by you) so I'm not sure if it will get processed? -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kara_Scott_publicity_photo.jpg
Hi.

I don't understand why an image that I uploaded (Image:Kara_Scott_publicity_photo.jpg) was deleted (apparently without discussion) on grounds that "it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information", when:-


 * 1) I contested its deletion
 * 2) As I pointed out on the  tag, no free-use alternative exists.

Surely that was enough to have the image kept? --The Machine (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Runescape2008.jpg
How was this image a copyright violation? AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Datpol.jpg
Please explain why you deleted Image:Datpol.jpg without responding to my edits to the image file? I see this as an abuse of your administrative powers. I will wait for your reply before posting an administrative notice. Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use images of living people are only allowed under very very special circumstances. See this page. Seeing as DAT Politics appears to still be an active band, it is reasonable for someone to take their own photo of them and release it under a free license. (BTW, please respond on my talk page so I'll get a notice.) Melesse (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I need to do some more research prior to posting a reply, as you well know, this has been an issue for a very long time with a lot of loose ends. Even the link you proided is actually marked as "This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear." and as such does not properly address the issue. Dbiel (Talk) 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote from a very recent reply from Mr Wales:
 * WilyD is right. We have the ability to get free photos, free authorized photos. We just need people to take up the project to do it. I am very much opposed to using "fair use" photos when we have other options. I personally think 99% of what we have on the site today under fair use should be deleted. Not because it is invalid fair use... I think these are valid uses of the law. But rather that I think we create disincentives for thoughtful people trying to create free content.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 
 * I need to concede to your deletion of the image. BUT I do still want to restate my belief that you are abusing your administrative powers when you simply ignore the posted questions and tags and simply delete an image without comment. Dbiel (Talk) 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore the posted tag. I read it, decided your rationale was not valid (and based on that quote, someone whose input you respect agrees with me) and deleted it. I don't know what more you want. If it so pleases you, go ahead and complain about me at the AN and see if anyone agrees with you. Melesse (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) copied from reply posted to my talk page Dbiel (Talk) 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As requested, please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Dbiel (Talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sudais.jpg
Hello, if you would have checked the image rationale, you would have seen that Saudi Arabia has strict rules about photographing human beings, and that this image is not easily replaceable. I have restored the image, left the notice on, and added a disputed tag, even though I think the rationale is obvious. This way a thrid party can make an informed decision. -- Avi (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the ENTIRE text of the template. I will bold the appropriate part for emphasis:

I beleive you are in error and I request that you restore the image as per our policy. -- Avi (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that this image fails notwithstanding the difficulty required to replace it (one cannot waltz into Saudi Arabia with a camera), perhaps you should nominate it for deletion, as opposed to speedy, here: Images and media for deletion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A Picture of a Living Person
I want to include a picture of a living person on an organization's page (he's the president of the organization) but the first time I tried it got removed. Why was this, and how can I prevent this from happening a second time? Thanks! --InterfaithallianceDC (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification re: Rose Cover.jpg - can't locate
Regarding the automatically deleted image, which stated that the uploader (me) was notified at least 48 hours by you before deletion, I can't find any such notification. There were no warning tags posted to the image and nothing mentioned in the article where the image was used or on my talk page. Hope to clarify this so as to avoid future similar upload problems. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting valid reasons for your tagging 16 images for deletion

 * Note: this message is written to your Talk page since I didn't feel like repeating this comment 16 times on mine. The "tool" you use posted 16 automatic identical messages.

Regarding an image you deleted without giving required warnings and notification, you wrote: "I probably did that by accident, the tool I use has rather small text and I do make mistakes with it on occasion. Nonetheless, that image wasn't being used properly (along with the majority lot of the images on the Al Jolson article). Text can do a perfectly adequate job of describing what movies he's been in." Melesse (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Immediatey after writing your response you proceeded to delete 16 other images that were uploaded under a clearly valid fair use rationale. They were all tagged by you automatically with no comments, discussion, or talk, from you personally, leading me to think your javascripted tagging tool may have been misprogrammed or have a bug.

The images marked for removal included everything from personally photographed items to highly descriptive supporting images. They covered various sections of the article and, as far as I can tell, had sufficient fair use rationales.

The first image that I contacted you about was deleted without warning. You responded with "I probably did that by accident..." You made no apology for your "mistake," and did not offer to replace it, but simply brushed it aside by writing that "text can do a perfectly adequate job..." I appreciate you opinion, but my understanding is that Wiki's Fair Use Rationales and Policies do not allow administrators that kind of discretion. That would be equivalent to a reviewer giving a bad review to a movie by saying that, in your opinion, reading the book should "be perfectly adequate." Can you provide Wiki policies about the right of an administrator to delete images from an article where they personally feel that the "text is perfectly adequate" for the article?

I appreciate your consideration of this issue along with a speedy removal of all improperly tagged images that may have also been made by accident.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

talk page deletion
Hi Melesse: I think you should undelete User talk:Yomangani if the user did not request its deletion. The reason you deleted it appears to be that it redirected to a deleted image, but it would be more appropriate just to blank the page, removing the redirect, rather than deleting a user's talk page. Isolation booth (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Why did you deleate my talk page. Buc (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Al Jolson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Al Jolson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I am requesting a review of this issue. Your most recent response is copied below to keep everything unified. "No bug, I looked at every image on the Al Jolson article and tagged them when I saw an issue. And as for the text thing, I was paraphrasing from point 1 of the non-free content policy." You gave no reasons despite a number of attempts. I may be wrong, but when many hours are invested by an editor to improve an article, an explanation is warranted by whomever decides to erase those hours. In the case of an image, there is time invested in finding or creating, modifying, uploading, describing to Wiki, and placing those images properly in an article. Multiply those hours by by 16 and your unexplained tagging them for deletion seems to go against the guidelines of the Wiki Project. Summarizing your reasons for this mass deletion, you write only that you "saw an issue." That seems a bit brief.
 * Full response requested

All 16 images that you have marked for speedy deletion meet all requirements for fair use.

1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject. 2.The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product. 3.The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy. 4.The image has been published outside Wikipedia; see source above. 5.The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. 6.The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. 7.The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title. 8.The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself. 9.The image is used in the article namespace. 10.The image has a brief description that identifies the image, notes the source, and provides attribution to the copyright holder.

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your most recent comments on my talk.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)