User talk:OsamaK/July 2008

1890map1.jpg
This file has been happily sitting on Wikipedia for a few years now, in fact it was one of my first contributions to this site. It was drawn in 1890, as shown in the image, and I am pretty sure it is out of copyright. Also, if this happens again could you let me know on my talk page next time - if I had not had this on my watchlist this image could have been deleted ;)

-- Blake  01  21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:7_of_hearts_-_metastasis.JPG
I got your template message regarding the source of this image. I'm not really clear on what needs to be done. It's a card that was originally published in 1803. I added some information on the original publisher, but does any additional information need to be added?

And what's with the banner? It's very non-welcoming of discussion.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. If someone wants to verify the image, they can get a copy of Metastasis. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the above as well as your reply at CR's talk. Please note that having an url of where the image was taken was never a requirement for PD image although it is helpful without doubt. What this means is that lack of URL of the clearly PD image cannot be grounds for the image deletion. To give you just one example, the lack or URL is just as good a a dead url at the image page. The WWW is a very fluid medium and pages come and go every minute. We cannot run a bot every hour or so to verify whether the url of the image of Leonardo's painting currently used on Wikipedia is still alive and if not, go 'round in search for another URL. The "source" of the old PD art is the artist or a museum or both. BTW, having an url does not resolve even a verifiability problem because unless the image is taken from the museum's web-site, the only way to verify an image taken from elsewhere is for you personally, to go to a museum, take a very high resolution picture (prohibited in most museum) and verify it with an image in an article pixel by pixel. What this all means is that when doing anything (including image patrol on Wikipedia) such thing like common sense has to be continuously used. Happy edits. --Irpen 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that although the source is helpful, I have never been aware of any policy regarding public domain images in which the source is required. By virtue of it being in public domain, the copyright status is clear: the copyright has expired and in theory you can find that image anywhere. The image source problems you are bringing up are for violations of "fair use" images in which the source is definetly needed. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, all. Thank you for your discussion there. Image source is very important. Wikipedia policy doesn't make differents between free and non-free images' source. At least, in all policy that I have read. I haven't said ever that you should bring the URL. Simply, source can a book, taken photo, or a trust website. Anyway, we can open an issue in the VP. By the way, we have open that issue in Wikimedia Commons servel times for canceling source on PD-olds, but we got no consensus.--OsamaK 09:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Metastasis image
Okay, I still don't understand what source you want. It's from Metastasis, published by John Nixon in 1803. Please tell me what additional information is required? -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about now? I don't really understand the relevance of this information.  It's public domain.  What does it matter if I scanned it or someone else did?  -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiMedia Commons
I'll try to push stuff over there. When I have some free time i'll move more media there. In the mean time I'll upload to wikipedia small files. Large stuff will go to the commmons when I get it.Lyta79 (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The image I just uploaded is a temporary fix for a template that's misbehaving. In addition the whole WikiMedia Commons business needs to be made easier for editors: automatic log-in if logged in on any wikipedia; same user interface; etc. I know WikiMedia Commons has other uses besides wikipedia; but it could look up the HTTP Referer data and use that top decide which interface to present. Philcha (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got your message. The trouble is that there isn't any obvious template for loading images to Commons the way that there is for the standard Wiki upload page. For those of us who are technologically challenged this is a major hinderance. If such a template exists and you can point me to it, or you can create one, then I will happily use it. But until I can just link to the image then fill in the blanks the way I can with the standard page I have neither the time nore the ability to use this feature.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but ...
Thanks but is taking me some time to get to grips with all the different aspects of the Wikipedia.

I promise to have a look at what you wrote and what to do later. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeons.gif
I indicated on the initial upload. This image was GRS Mead 1900. Copyright has expired the image is PD. jbolden1517Talk 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PD Old
Please give the specific policy where it states that you MUST have the image source when it comes to public image domains where the copyright has expired. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:1647Almanack.jpg Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:1647Almanack.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

---The image was public domain (published in 1647). Nobody owns it, no permission is required. Could you please restore it?

AfD nomination of Millennium Items
An article that you have been involved in editing, Millennium Items, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Millennium Items. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:MGlinka.jpg
Excuse me? Why did you tag this as unsourced for deletion when the source is specifically listed in the image description? Also, please give the uploader notification if you are listing their images for deletion or challenging source. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Image source problem with Image:348px-Sergei_Rachmaninoff_LOC_33969u.jpg
Osama, I noted when uploading this image that it one I had uploaded from Wikimedia Commons and cleaned up using Adobe Photoshop. Since I do not know what was written for that image, I am unsure how to proceed. Jonyungk (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reminding me that there is such a thing as Commons. I have uploaded hundreds of pictures there, but I won't upload a picture there unless I am absolutely positive that it does not infringe on any Swedish copyright laws.--Berig (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag removal
There's a great reason for removing tags off images of people from the 19th century: they're in the public domain. Biruitorul Talk 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said they're "probably" PD. They most definitely are. Find me one published image created before 1900 of an individual who died before 1900 that is still under copyright, and I shall revise my opinion. Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Source
Please do not inform me anymore of any image source problems. I would prefer them being deleted. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the reason why you've encountered such opposition in your warnings is that many of these pictures were uploaded years ago when there was no need for a source. Also it might be best to link to the exact policy (not a discussion etc.) where it states that source is required for PD or with a brief explanation as to why a source to a PD is required. That warning on the top of your talk page doesn't leave room for dialogue and is quite combative for people who do not know what you are referring to. Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your image tagging
The images you have tagged are clearly in the public domain, regardless of whether they are sourced or not. You really need to remove the tags -- the project will be seriously damaged to lose all those images. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt to make you understand the problem with your tagging
The images you are tagging for deletion are clearly and obviously in the public domain, which qualifies them to be used on Wikipedia. By holding to the strict letter of the policy and tagging the articles, you will harm the project by denying it useful free images. This is a disservice to the project, and your tags need to be removed. You can help to do this yourself, but at least stop trying to put up roadblocks to others doing this work. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Thanks for the information OsamaK. --ATS_500 Talk

PD images
To skirt any further possibility of disruption, please stop tagging PD images in any way pending the outcome of this thread at ANI. Although all PD images should carry source information and the date of first publication, not creation, has sway as to whether or not an image falls into the public domain, there is a likelihood that most of the PD images you have tagged for deletion are indeed in the public domain. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Osama, I haven't looked at all of your image tagging to see if you made any mistakes - but if you're doing it correctly, you should be able to tag unsourced PD images without worrying about being blocked, that is perfectly within policy. However, just to avoid controversy for a little while, perhaps you should focus your effort on orphaned PD images with no source (since they're not used in any articles, there is minimal impact if they are deleted - and there are enough of them to keep anyone busy for a long time). Alternatively, there is a lot of cruft and garbage in the categories for "User-created PD images" and "PD tag needs updating" (stuff like old userpage photos, spam logos, photos left over from deleted spam articles, etc). That stuff needs to be gotten rid of. I'd recommend working on that for a few days until the people who are upset calm down, then you can go back to what you were doing. Kelly  hi! 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OsamaK, as I noted in the ANI thread, you have not strayed from Wikipedia policy. However, there is a clear implementation flaw here, since most of the tagged images are overwhelmingly likely to indeed be PD. Any mass deletion without strong consensus would be wholly disruptive, hence my friendly warning. Let's please wait a bit, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting a bit definitely wouldn't hurt. Like I said, find something uncontroversial to work on for a while. I'll watch your talk page, but if you find yourself blocked and I miss it, drop me an e-mail and I'll look into it.


 * Drop me a note on Commons - are you an admin yet over there? We are definitely hurting for Arabic-speaking admins. Kelly  hi! 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nata4.png
Go ahead and delete it. No arguments here. Peter1968 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Got a question about an image
Hi, OsamaK. You recently tagged an image I created (Image:Regiment Nato.PNG) with the "duplicate of an image on Commons", but the link to Commons is empty. Did you perhaps put the wrong template? I just thought I'd bring it to your attention so you could figure it out. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing User:Sykko/templates/npredbutton
I just wanted to say I appreciate the help :) initially I was hoping it had a transparent background and never switched it back when I found out that it didnt. %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GIF Image
Hello, you tagged Image:2007wuva.gif with a "bad gif" template. I uploaded Image:WUVA-FM.PNG in it's place. Image:2007wuva.gif can be deleted. Thanks... NeutralHomer T:C 23:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you ;)--OsamaK 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)