Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:57, 10 October 2006

Archive

1. Before Aug 21 2006

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

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

Amtam.jpeg removed

Was it really neccessary to remove ALL of my source information from the image page?? It took me an hour to accumulate it and the image wasn't even posted on any articles!

A hard day's work

Hi image cleaner and self-pronounced fair use inquisitor,

Thanks for your multiple messages. I know it's a foregone conclusion (that's what the Inquisition was like, wasn't it?), but lemme say a few words nevertheless.

Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg

You might want to talk to User:Thivierr about that picture, but why me? Are you (erroneously in any case) accusing me of violating copyright?

Image:D Koller.jpg

The title of Koller's 2006 book is "Tanz mit mir ... " Geschichten und Anekdoten aus meiner Welt der Musik. In English: "Dance with Me ... " Stories and Anecdotes from My World of Music. Well, it's a memoir. It's about her life. The Misplaced Pages article is also about her life. As a compromise, we could add a few lines about that particular book of hers to the article. Would the image be able to stay then?

Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG

The image description read (before you changed it):

Image of Alistair Beaton, taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use.

{{fairusein|Alistair Beaton}}

One of the few images of A Beaton available. Not a snapshot, it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes. Originally, it was an illustration of the interview printed in the Camden New Journal. The author of the image was not given.

So why do you cross out taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use and it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes and add a tag saying This image has no source information? This is absurd.

You may not have been able to "found the image on the source" , but do you expect an online periodical like the Camden New Journal to keep all its back issues online forever just so that "the copyright status can be verified by others"?

Don't you trust me as the uploader of the image? Do you think I'm lying about its source? Why on earth should I?

Image:T Judt.jpg

The image of Tony Judt was used "for identification and critical commentary on the program and its contents", because the content of the program—an interview—was Tony Judt and his work. What more can I say?

Final words

As I can see, you have removed the Hester Prynne image again, so you do believe you are the highest authority. On the other hand, the image of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, which I pointed out to you, is still there, and my corresponding question remains unanswered.

I could, up to a point, understand your fervour if you came up with a replacement photo for each image you consider illegitimate, an imageWikipedia could actually use (according to your own strict interpretation of the guidelines). That, I believe, would make your job much more interesting and productive. <KF> 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this obsession?

Thanks for your answer. I just don't believe it. You have now removed that bloody Hester Prynne image three times, from two different articles and after it was posted/put back by two different people. Now I realise you have even put it up for deletion—as if your life depended on it. I can see (a) no harm and (b) no breach of law whatsoever in keeping that stupid picture, but there's no discussion with you. I guess you'll only be satisfied once all images not taken by users themselves have been eliminated from Misplaced Pages and casual browers have turned their attention to web sites such as http://www.answers.com , where many of the images you are persecuting can survive. 23skidoo thinks "the days are numbered for images of any type on Misplaced Pages. Sad but probably true", and I do wonder cui bono. Bye, <KF> 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I have to disagree with your 23skidoo friend. As I told you, I have myself uploaded a bunch of images to Misplaced Pages. I like images, but I prefer them free. As I told you before, it's not just about the "'harm" or "breach of law". It's about gathering free reusable information. I understand that some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable. But we shoud not abuse this.

"I prefer them free." And what about the thousands of others who may have slightly different preferences?

"Some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable." Ergo: If something is acceptable, it cannot be "abused"; abuse is ruled out per definitionem.

And from your previous message: "The source for Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG, as for any other image, must be verifiable. Otherwise, how do we know that it was "clearly been taken for promotional purposes"?" The source is verifiable. All you have to do is either travel to Camden and get hold of a copy / printout of that old issue, or electronically contact the paper. You're not seriously suggesting that all images on Misplaced Pages whose source reference is a dead link must be deleted? There's a phenomenon called link rot, remember? Anyway, I verified the source.

More and more, I consider this discussion a waste of my time. "Art is long, life is short". I usually find discussions with other Wikipedians enjoyable, but not this time. I apologize in advance if in future my direct replies to you will become both shorter and less frequent. <KF> 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for your attentiveness.

Thanks for doing me that BIG favor and deleting my template images. Again.

It's bureaucratic nonsense. Your perseverence is nice but it doesn't help much in the battle over copyright law if you keep dismantling my templates.

I know intellectual articles about Nietzsche and religious philosophy don't suffer much without colorful and non-ugly photos, but the trivials subjects I'm sure YOU wouldn't dare sully yourself with DO.

Do you mean to tell me that NO allegedly "copyrighted" image can be used for a template? A user-created one will get deleted just as fast for being orphaned!

At first you made me realize the errors of my ways in regards source info, but now you are becoming a nagging nuisance. Even modifications to my user page don't escape your attention.

I'm curous how you seem to monitor every move I make, NO MATTER HOW BENIGN. Police someone else! If only for a day! --->Johnnyfog

May I never cross your path again.

You irritate me.

Thanks for saying I'm an ok editor though.--->Johnnyfog

Image deletion

You have left more than ten messages on my Talk Page in the last five hours. As I clearly state in large bold letters, on my Talk and User pages, I am technically away on a Wikibreak. I have requested that people do not leave me messages requiring my response. Please do not leave messages on my Talk Page until my scheduled return in November. I have a lot going on, and I really cannot keep logging in here. Thanks. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete it

If I could arrange the immediate deletion of Image:Tidus sword.jpg, I would be very grateful. I had hoped to use it but upon realizing wiki regulations I realized my idea was not feasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Excellent. I will remember that in the future.

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

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)

Fashion photography

‎I see you put a {pov} tag on the fashion photography page. The criteria for inclusion on this list is having a Wiki article that discusses the photographer's work in the field. Since the criteria for notability is well-established (see WP:BIO for example), and has a self-policing mechanism (the AfD process), the list is easy to maintain. You will notice that each photographer listed does meet these criteria. Since you did not start this discussion on the talk page, I am answering you here. I'm also removing the tag, unless you want a broader discussion with other editors on the talk page. I'll look for your response here. SteveHopson 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "photograph deletion" mission

Hi, I think your time would be better spent trying to properly license images rather than simply tagging them for deletion. Dionyseus 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Little help here

You said: "Hi, Yamla. Would you have the time and willingness to help with (what I think is) a very simple issue with the potential to become a bad thing? I'm trying to have the image Image:KeiraKnightley_PridePrejudice.jpg to have a fair use rationale attached to it (as it is tagged with {{Promophoto}}, which requires one) but the best I could get from an interested user (after some reverts) was "This image will only be used for the Keira Knightley article". Do you think is this enough for a fair use rationale of a publicity photo of a living person? I believe we would benefict from a third opinion here, as the user has already cleary stated that he trully believes this rationale is enough. Thanks in advance. Best regards,"

This is not a sufficient fair-use rationale and I have tagged the image as such. I suspect the uploader simply didn't read the image description help page. A friendly warning, you've made three reverts to that image page within the past 24 hours or so, please see WP:3RR. I'm not accusing you or threatening a block or anything, just pointing out the 3RR policy. --Yamla 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although the license clearly requires a detailed fair-use rationale, I have found it causes less confusion if you leave the license in place, add a brief comment stating that the license requires a detailed fair-use rationale, then use {{fairusedisputed}} instead of {{subst:nld}}. In other news, at some point in the future, I'd like to set up a Misplaced Pages "group" for policing image copyright and fair-use violations. The main benefit would be to provide more standard warnings and easy-to-understand simple explanations for what people are doing incorrectly. The goal would be to ensure more editors who upload images have a better understanding of what is required. The major problem is that I don't have enough free time so this may not happen for a while yet.  :) --Yamla 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Maps?

OK, since you seem to be the resident expert on images, I have a question for you: What is the wikipedia policy about screen-captures from Google Maps? As an example, let's say I find a building I want to write an article about. The building is visible in Google Maps. Obviously, I can point to Google Maps as a link (if I can figure out how, which I haven't so far). Or, I could capture it and make a picture of it to display in the article. Presumably, their images are taken from public-domain sources, i.e. U.S. satellites. But there could be more to it. What's the rule? Wahkeenah 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy Beckley Stearns

I'm only working on de Evia at the moment, not Stearns; stick to the subject, please. Mowens35 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you will note, the USA discussion of homeopathy only goes to 1880 and then jumps to the 1950s, with nothing in between. Mowens35 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Moskowitz, MD (you really think he's important enough for a Wiki article???)

here's his online resume, which really means he's got good academic background and profession, but not really worth a Wiki article ... Mowens35 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

<copyrighted material removed>

Copyrighted material

I was merely explaining who the man is whom you thought was important for an article. He isn't. Mowens35 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the resume.

What I'd suggest is just removing it. While we could remove it from the history, we'd normally only do this when it is specifically requested. The resume would indeed be copyrighted. A fair-use rationale could, I suppose, be made that the resume is being used fairly (that is, under fair-use) to discuss someone's qualifications. But the same could be done just with a link to the page and fair-use isn't permitted in user space anyway. --Yamla 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The resume was only meant to support my contention that the subject of the resume posted online doesn't need his own article in Wiki. Ignore it otherwise. Mowens35 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kate Winslet article

I reverted your deletion of the lead image from this article on the grounds that the uploading/fair use criteria says screenshots may be used for identification of a film and/or its contents. Kate Winslet was part of the film, therefore under the strictest definition, she is a content. Also, if you are going to delete the lead image from an article, I think it's just common courtesy to provide a replacement image. 23skidoo 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, please give me your definition of "contents". Canadian Oxford Dictionary describes it as "what is contained in something". A participant in a movie is one of the contents of a movie. 23skidoo 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the question on the Fair use talk. I've quotted you, so, feel free to correct-me if I misrepresented you. --Abu Badali 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermodels

Hey!! There are alot of supermodel stubs here at wikipedia. The only non stubs seem to be the VS Angels. I was wondering if you could please help add more/edit articles of supermodels such as Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Gemma Ward, and Bianca Balti. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism

Hi! Could you disambg your link to Nihilism on your user page :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quick and yes, Thanks :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and permissions

You stated in my talk page that obtaining permission from the copyright holder is not enough to use the image on Misplaced Pages. I feel an explanation on this matter is required. Is Misplaced Pages moving towards a "free images only" policy? Also, Misplaced Pages states that material obtained from a press kit qualifies as fair use in the absence of a free alternative. Thus, tagging an image that is already tagged as press material / fair use for deletion doesn't seem very coherent. - antiuser 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and promptness to clear up the issue. antiuser 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

You're welcome, yes I put a lot of work in a really messy (or empty) article.

P. S. Why can Drew Barrymore's article have a main picture of fair use when she has other that is free?

Carlosr chill 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you took that photo? Where you in a helicopter? Whenever a free alternative is available, it should be used. Where's this free image of Drew Barrymore you're talking about? Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A helicopter?! NO WAY! I was in my private jet of course...

Ok, I give up, I found that image in Google, as I suppose you havee guessed by now. So what do I do? Do I just take it off the article? Or can someone erase it from Misplaced Pages now? Can you?

The Drew Barrymore thing was just something I read in Shakira's talk page, 'cause that's not a very flattering picture of her.

P. S. Sorry for putting this message in your user page first, I hadn't notice that it wasn't your talk page. Carlosr chill 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and good humor. We need more people like you here in Misplaced Pages. The best thing to do at this point is to mark the image for deletion. You can do that by adding {{Db-author}} to the image description page. Some admin will eventually notice the warning and remove the image. If you know of any free image of Drew Barrymore or Shakira (or any other celebrity), upload it to commons and add it to the relevant Misplaced Pages article ASAP. Thanks, --Abu Badali 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And done. I also erased it from the article. I'm sorry, it won't happen again, I just wanted a worthy picture for Xcaret (and Shakira, by the way). Guess I'll have to wait for someone to upload one of his own. But i totally understand, it's all for the well being of Misplaced Pages. Take care and keep going after those bad guys with copyrighted pictures!

Carlosr chill 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyonce

That's the site I got the promo picture from. It is a promo pic, but Sony must have released it. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Many sites have the same promo picture. I got it from that one. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster says on the site, "I've added a new B'Day promo picture. Click on the image to check it out." ] [[http: //www.elwico.pl/~quasar/bee/galeria/bday_promo/in.html]]

Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to contact the webmaster and ask the orginial source of the photo. I will get back to you in a two days. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SEGA's images

Hello. Please leave me alone. I just got a barrage of messages questioning the validity of the images I have uploaded. They are ALL fair use, and I spent time discussing several of these images with Misplaced Pages administrators before uploading. There must be something more productive you can focus your attention on. There's plenty to do here on Misplaced Pages.

Thanks - SEGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEGA (talk • contribs)

Why did you edit my personal user page without a note?

Please do not edit my personal user page, particularly without a note. Frankly, its rude. If you have an issue with something that is 100% fine and even encouraged, however I ask that you please use the discussion page. Thats what it is there for afterall. If you are at all academically consistent you will please follow the rules set forth in the WP: FUC guidelines under non-compliance. Simply putting a tag on the history page is insufficient to be considered notification. Additionally, you did not even solicit my acknoledgement of the issue. I would appreciate a note so please notate my discussion page accordingly. You simply should not edit without informing the user of a good reason, and certainly NOT A PERSONAL USER PAGE. Thank you in advance. --Tbkflav 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

After re-reading my comments above and on my user page I realized I had written it when I was a little hot under the collar...put it this way, it had been a bad day! In any event I have removed the inflammatory comments from my user page after a quick note from Shadow1 and re-reading the comments myself...I could definitely see how they would be interpreted as a personal attack. While my original intent was not to launch a personal attack but to question why the image was removed, as well as to highlight the value of notation before changing something, the reality was that the comments were not professional and overly intense. You did have a valid point according to the WP:FUC policy (point 9) and that has been noted. As a new user, I am still familiarizing myself with the various WP policies and this event highlights their importance. If I recall correctly the image appeared to be fair game at the time and didn't seem to be protected work, hence my use. I probably wouldn't have cared if the change had been made to an article I had contributed to or written rather than my user page. If a note had been left as to why, the point would have been moot. In any event, thank you for posting a note later on and for taking my abuse in stride! The good thing is we learned something: For me, it’s not to go off half cocked, and to be a bit more vigilant with respect to image use. For you, it’s to post a note prior to changing a user page. Take care, and best wishes for continued success. --Tbkflav 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

vocalgroup is not spam, but an official foundation

And they seem to have changed their URL, so 68.64.226.198 corrected the non functioning URL which were already present. KittenKlub 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC

Hello again, Abu badali! I responded to your request on WP:AN/I yesterday regarding User:Tbkflav's personal attack against you. The user has agreed to remove the section, however, they brought up another interesting point: You didn't notify them before removing the image. This isn't a problem, but, in the future, please give users a heads-up when you remove an image from their page. Thanks! Shadow1 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

fotos

Já que sua lingua materna é o portugues e na sua aba diz ser do Brasil, prefiro escrever nesta lingua onde posso me expressar melhor. Eu não entendi a sua mensagem. Porque riscou as fontes? Disse que é um fan site? claro, e um dos oficiais, o maior da França. Qual o problema ali? todas as fotos sobre o universo de James Bond tem como fonte original, estejam elas no site que estiverem, nas revistas ou jornais que estiverem, a EON e a MGM, as duas empresas detentoras do copyright sobre tudo referente a James Bond. Por sinal, este copyright está devidamente especificado nas fotos. Todas as fotos sobre este universo que estejam na Wiki ou em qualquer site da net são copyright da EON, mas provavelmente nenhuma é retirada de seu proprio site, já que a produtora distribui as fotos para divulgação pelo mundo todo, tem em diversos lugares, dentro e fora da net. São fotos de legitimo fair-use, são feitas para isso mesmo.

O que deseja que eu faça afinal? A fonte é a que coloquei, e ela recebe ou coleta da fonte matriz, digamos,assim que é a EON/MGM (produtoras dos filmes). Não só este site, mas qualquer site, qualquer revista, jornal ou livro, tem sua fonte de imagens na EON/ MGM que as distribui para todos, mesmo que as recebam de intermediarios , é divulgação, interesse deles, certo? Exatamente o famoso "promotional" do fair use aqui.

Ok, você não precisa entender disto, mas acho que dei aí a explicação sobre o fato. O que posso fazer ali? Colocar duas fontes, a fonte de onde carreguei e a fonte matriz? Se escrever em portugues fica mais facil para mim. Até Machocarioca 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Vou continuar no portugues porque meu ingles é basico e não conseguiria escrever isso tudo que disse em ingles sem parecer que eu tivesse uns 5 anos de idade. Se fosse umas frases rapidas podia ser, mas para falar tudo isso não dá. :-)

Não Abu, o material de divulgação da EON/MGM não "pode ser" autorizado para esse ou aquele veiculo, não é assim que funciona a promoção e divulgação de filmes. É press kit para qualquer veiculo de informação interessado em Bond. É interesse deles ou de qualquer produtora de filme.

Como te falei, esse site é o principal em francês. Ouros sites tipo esse, como jamesbondinternacionalfansite, commanderbond, chittychittybangbang, mi6.co.uk, por exemplo, são praticamente braços propagandisticos da EON. Tem mais, atualmente, o material de promoção de filmes é praticamente todo digital, vai direto em CD, DVD ou disquete para os interessados, mas o material de filmes mais antgos da serie, o press kit, era em fotos mesmo, claro. As fotos que marcou são dos anos 70,80, esse material vinha originalmente em papel mesmo, pouca coisa deles , ou nada, tem no proprio site da EON. Dos anos 90 para trás nada disso tem no site oficial da EON. Se formos criar caso com todas as fotos do mundo Bond que não sejam do site oficial, amigo, vamos tirar praticamente todas e acabar com a parte Bond, que é otima, da Wiki. Tudo é de intermediarios mesmo, mas tudo material de promoção saído da EON/MJM.

Bom, o que vou fazer ali é o seguinte: colocar de novo a fonte com a inscrição licensed by EON/MGM ao lado. E faço a tag de fair use rationale embaixo, ok para vc? Machocarioca 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

All images you marked as "orphaned" are in theis respective aerticles, ther's something wrong here. ?!?! Machocarioca 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Ah, agora entendi, foi vc mesmo que as retirou? A questão é, se ler direito, esses screenshots estão em lugares do texto em que a narrativa está exatamente falando sobre o que está na foto. E acho que isso ajuda sim e muito a wiki, que como enciclopeda, deve ser rica mesmo em imagens e pelo que li na sua aba, vc mesmo diz que sem fair use não conseguiriamos fazer isso, só com material livre, é impossivel.

Bom, vou dar um tempinho de subir fotos de fair use para ilustrar artigos, daqui uns dias coloco elas de novo, menos talvez. Mas sempre que tem muito texto descrevendo um filme procuro colocar alguma pra ilustrar. De qualquer maneira vou tirar eeses teus tags de orphaned da minha aba de usuario, porque elas não tem nada de orfãs, vc q as tirou. :-) Em uns dias coloco algumas de novo. Estou trabalhando nisso aqui e acho que dou um upgrade no visual dos artigos.Machocarioca 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Concordo, mas como te disse, se vc prestar atenção lá, elas são informativas, estão exatamente na parte do texto que fala das cenas que elas mostram. Eu tenho cuidado com isso , onde e o que coloco e com o melhor visual que podem ficar, pequeno, escoltando o texto, apenas isso. Nunca vai me ver colocando foto enorme aqui, é apenas um ponto de apoio visual dentro do artigo. Tenho tanto apreço pela Wiki qto vc. Vou dar um tempo de colocar mais, as q estão, vou deixar algumas ficar, ajudam o artigo em si e qdo vc reverteu acabou revertendo junto os posters lead, que são os oficiais, historicos e substituiram os que os caras puseram de capa de dvd, que nao tem nada a ver. Vou diminuir o numero em Shakespeare Apaixonado e Good Will Hunting. As Good as it Gets so tem uma. Abraço Machocarioca 09:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Abu, vejo que reverteu novamente as tags das fotos. Me parece isso pura implicancia Abu, já que 90% de todas as fotografias colocadas na Misplaced Pages, com relação a todos os assiuntos e talvez 100% de toda e qualquer ilustração sobre cinema, qualquer filme, não veem das fontes originais pois isso é impossivel.

Como vejo que essa posição é uma interpretação sua e a minha é diferente e nossas opiniões valem o mesmo por aqui, gostaria que me mostrasse onde, nas regras da wikipedia-en, está escrito o que colocou ali:a fansite is not an original source for promotional material. Estando isso impresso, considero uma regra ,portanto não cabe discussão. Se não estiver escrito, é sua interpretação e me considero no direito de discordar e trocar as tags.

É importante que me mostre onde está escrito essa regra, porque Jimmy Walles terá que mandar retirar metade das fotos por aqui, já que ninguem a cumpre, nem nenhum admnistrador jamas cobrou nada sobre isso, só vc, tornando tudo uma visão pessoal sua, que não pode se sobrepor a visão pessoal de qualquer outro usuario, a menos que estabelecida em votação da comunidade. AbraçosMachocarioca 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

seu chato

não contribuo mais também pfffffffff

Images

Think you could find replacement pictures for those uploaed images of mine that you saw fit for removal due to their their "irrelevance" by Wiki standards (as you've so effortlessly managed to do). Thanks. --User talk:ChuckyDarko 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Copying message wrongly left on my user page

Toda imagem na Wikipédia precisa ...

Toda imagem na Wikipédia precisa da informacão da origem para que se conheça o detentor dos copyrights e o copyright status da imagem. Vc escreveu isso, e é exatamente a informação que dou nas tags, qual é a origem, quem é o detentor do copyright, ora. Não consigo entender qual o problema. Todos sabem qual é, não sei qual é a diferença para voce nisso.

Qualquer imagem do mundo Bond, já lhe disse, o copyright é EON/MGM, não importa onde se pegue. Qualquer foto de astronauta americano em foto oficial, de homens na Lua, de sondas, é da NASA, não importa onde se pega. é freecopyright. De Bond, é copyright EON/MGM. Todas as fotos de posters de filmes, ou cenas de filmes colocadas na Wiki são copyright da produtora, peguem onde pegarem, este é o detentor dos direitos, sempre. Não entendo qual seu problema em entender isso, Abu.Machocarioca 06:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

A Wilhelm Scream

FUC #1 doesn't apply, as there is no free alternative to this image. If you have a free image that is not inferior to the one we have, feel free to replace it. However removing it altogether does no good to the Misplaced Pages.  Grue  17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Grue on this one. Stop fighting over this; next person to revert from anyone without a discussion will be blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fab Five Freddy

Not sure what kind of links you are expecting, the an is about 10+ years older then the picture now and as such finding a link to a press pack from so long ago would be quite difficult. --User:Zer0faults 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Unspecified source for Image:MosepBinneed.jpg

You posted a message on my talk page about the above image. It doesn't appear this image exists anymore at the site. I'll see what I can do to find a suitable replacement. Thanks for pointing this out. Dmoon1 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Second WP:FUC issue

I've left the user in question a notice to remove the fair-use images. Thanks for letting me know. Shadow1 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Callisto

Please, just leave it alone. It's an old show, and there's no way to find the original source now.

It seems all your edits are just removing images or finding ways to get them removed. Its not like Universal Studio’s is going to sue Misplaced Pages because it has an image of Callisto on her wikipedia article. --DrBat 01:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

But finding the site I got it from wouldn't be good enough for you, because you want the original source.

Again, it seems all your edits are just removing images. And is it just me, or are going after all my edits now? --DrBat 13:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous. What, do you think Universal Studios will sue Misplaced Pages because there's an image of Callisto on her article?

Why is it all your edits are just removing images and trying to get them deleted?--DrBat 01:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that all your edits are trying to get images deleted (and I'm not the only one to get annoyed by it, as evidenced by the other complaints in your talk page). --DrBat 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

FYI, 3RR goes both ways. You've violated it as well. --DrBat 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

LMZ00 has placed negative comments on my talk page. And I would like this to be stop. Could you do something about this? See here below:

Are you retarded or something? Seriously. And out of curiosity, what's the highest level of education you've completed? :) Lmz00 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:LILVOKA"

Fine, FINE! In the future, I'll try and be more patient with such as yourself and . Thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day! :D Lmz00 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lmz00"

Fine, FINE! In the future, I'll try and be more patient with morons such as yourself and LILVOKA. Thanks for stopping by, and have a nice day! :D

The Results of an Edit War

The Results of an Edit War! Thanks LILVOKA 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified Sources

I'm sorry I tagged the images Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg and Image:Allison Mack1.jpg in corectly. I'll tag them with {{fairusein}} and there should be no problem. Ivan Kricancic 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen in the Smallville articles, many of the images come from "Kryptonsite.com." If I upload new images from that site, will it be ok? Ivan Kricancic 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've just emailed Kryptonsite asking for permission on the use of images from their site, and they said it would be fine; and I've also added links to Kryptonsite on those image pages, as they said to do this. I hope that clears things up. Thank you for your assistance in this matter; it was greatly appreciated that you showed me how to properly upload images. Ivan Kricancic 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll keep that in mind. Again, thanks.Ivan Kricancic 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway, those seem to be promotional images of the actors/actresses, so it should be considered fair use.Ivan Kricancic 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The images are fair use for the purposes of displaying the items in question

They are from a proper source and they do have a rationale. I don't see why you feel the need to go on a one man killing spree of all fair use images on wikipedia. The images con form to all conditions of the fair use tag so they should not be deleted.

I've noticed you've had some conflicts about images before. You are not the highest authority on everything, so don't pretend to be. Kryptonsite is a proper source; besides that, it is a promotional site. Furthermore, for the fair use tag, I have written a rationale on each image page. These images are fair use and they should stay. If you have a problem with them, which you shouldn't, then upload some images that you believe are proper.

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit uncivil earlier (I was writing at 3.00 in the morning). Anyway, I consulted some other wikipedians and they think the images should stay and that they have a good rationale for fair use. I hope this ends the matterIvan Kricancic 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they should stay as well. Dionyseus 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Evelina Papantoniou4.jpg

Hi Abu badali,

The Image:Evelina Papantoniou4.jpg is a generic picture from a Greek magazine which was several years old that I scanned and have been using as my wallpaper picture for my desktop. There was no copyright tag on it which is why you do not see one on the picture. So trying to find a "source" for it when one does not exist is kind of useless. Regards. Mallaccaos 20 September 2006

In that case, we cannot use the image. The copyright holder must be identified, and Misplaced Pages's fair-use policy does not permit using images from the inside of a magazine solely to depict the person illustrated. --Yamla 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Shakur image

How come the shakur image was not free? It's been on the shakur article for over a year now?...please don't say you hate shakur? :O:O..Bosoni

I will return it 4 now. Peace Bosoni

If you want to remove the picture of pac which has by the way been on wikipedia for a long time, you will have to find a good substitute. Bosoni

Reply

Not that its any of your business, but they were archived, your last message however will be removed because it is redundant, thanks! - Deathrocker 02:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:NedLamont; I didn't upload the original image

I wasn't the one who uploaded the original image. I had to upload a new version because someone photoshopped it with the KKK. I just used the source previously listed on the page. What am I supposed to do? mirageinred 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your reply. It still upsets me because he is a prominent politician and I also happen to admire him. Oh well. mirageinred 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. mirageinred 23:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

Hello, Abu badali. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Misplaced Pages fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: thanks for caring

Of course, most of my out-of-control tantrums in reaction to notices are mostly tongue in cheek and I do not really hold any bad feeling toward you either. I am hoping to improve as an editor and fight off clunky articles with a stick, like the rest of you stalwart administrators. Anyway, I think the point is to be as tidy as possible but still have fun doing it.

It's still too bad about that Fairuza Balk photo. But I'm moving past it. Really. UURRRGGGHH!!!

• phew* Later then, Johnnyfog

Fair use

Given that you are the one who reverted me, I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply to my remark at Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use#Lead section. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:BipashaBasu.jpg

I deleted the image. -Nv8200p talk 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read licenses

I can understand the need to remove unsourced licenses, but when WP:ACP causes more work for us it's always NOT appreciated. Re: read the licence. Thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, I just prefer to err on the side of keeping the images :) Btw, there is a discrepancy between Sejm licences here and on Commons (if it's fair use, it can't be on Commons...). I raised the issue with a Commons admin who knows more about Polish licences then I do. One more problem to solve... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did

Yes, the images that I tagged as created by myself were created by myself. - Ivan Kricancic 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete the fair use images I uploaded, fair enough, but leave the images that I created myself alone. I created them myself and I release them into the public domain. - Ivan Kricancic 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was not created in 1962! I created this image. And as for the part where it says "I'm using that picture with permission" - that was for a different image I was going to upload, but then I instead created an image myself so I would not have to go through a big argument again. As it stands, I created those images. Ivan Kricancic 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The tags are not wrong. And I did not just take a picture of a picture. Stop harrassing me. If you are angry that I argued with you over fair use, fine, but these images were in fact created by me!! Ivan Kricancic 12:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop harrassing me! I did not remove legitimate messages, I removed what I believe is an unfair attack on me by you. Please stop harrassing me, tehre are betetr things in this world to do. - Ivan Kricancic 14:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What I did to gain access to this image, was I actually left the house, went and talked my priest who owns the document, and then explained to him about the use of the image. He said it was ok with him to use a picture of the document, and then he went on to say that most Church publications aren't copyrighted anyway. - Ivan Kricancic 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Lion Tamarin pic=

Hello Abu, read the picture´s file history to check the source. Well, anyway, here´s the source information again: Jessie Cohen, NZP photographer http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/PhotoGallery/SmallMammals/ further information about copyright: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/copyright/default.cfm

Best regards Exlibris 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing "legitimate" messages

Hello, Abu. My Talk page is, as everything in my User space, my property, so I'd like to ask you not to question my removal of the needlessly verbose template-generated messages you have flooded my page with. Don't question etiquette when you, yourself, appear to lack them. All of the images in question were uploaded back when there was no strict control of image tagging and sourcing, and really, I cannot trace back images which I found on Google years ago, so they will likely get auto-deleted.

Your human-written messages will never get deleted from my page, but no, I will not change my position regarding template-generated messages. --Sn0wflake 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mind you posting the templates, as a matter of fact, thanks for the work you are doing for the Wiki. What I mind is you cricticizing me for deleting entries which I feel I have absolutely no way of fixing... from my own talk page. --Sn0wflake 04:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me to stop removing legitimate messages from my talk page; It is my talk page, and if I feel those messages are illegitimate, I will delete them. Besides, you removed a message from your talk page - a so called 'personal attack'. Put it back and I will stop removing your illegitimate messages. Now, leave me alone. - Ivan Kricancic 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinserting personal attack at user request

The following text was added to my talk page by User:Ivan Kricancic and later removed, as a courtesy, by User:Meegs. I'm now reinserting the text after a [request from User:Ivan Kricancic.

You know it's true

The only reason you tagged those three images for deletion was because I kept fighting your stupid thoughts on why you think those other images aren't fair use!! You only do things like this to make youself feel big, to frustrate otehres, to get your edit count up, to suck up to administrators so you can become one and becuase you have no life! Seriously, I'm just gonna not bother fighting these deletions anymore (so just get someone to delete them now, as I'm not gonna argue) because i actually have a life besides Misplaced Pages, and I know there is always going to be dickhead like you who have nothing betetr to do than revert the hard work of others! You know it's true. Go fuck yourself!! P.S - I bet you'll go cry to an amin about this "uncivility"! You are a pussy with no life! - Ivan Kricancic 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'll revert my talk page. - Ivan Kricancic 14:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Vigilance

Hi, just wanted to commend you for your vigilance in keeping wikipedia free of copyright violating images Nil Einne 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jk beatles george.jpg

I can't remember why I uploaded this image, but have a feeling it was because it was accidentally deleted or something. As such I'm not sure where it comes from. Sorry. Evil Monkey - Hello 07:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Greenday_Mud.png and Image:Aimovie.jpg

Hi, Scrumshus. Do you know who created theses images and theirs copyright status? The "source information" you provided was only a direct link to a jpg scan of a magazine's page, where no info on it's creator and copyright status could be found.

And please not that the {{Magazinecover}} tag is not appropriate for this images, as they are not magazine covers being used in articles about the magazine issues. Thanks, --Abu Badali 17:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there an image tag that says something like "This image is in a magazine article" or something? Because the cover thing was the closest I could find. As for the creator, wouldn't the magazine editor be? I'll add that.  Scrumshus  18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing good work in enforcing WP:FUC, I salute you with the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. It's totally absurd and contentious to have to fight against people who think fair use is a tool to wield around at will. Hbdragon88 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)