User talk:Abu badali/Archive1

About Maradona

Hey Abu, could you please explain the meaning of "floating image, removed misguided section title"? Do you know who is Maradona? Have you ever played football? Regards. Pat.

Hi, Pat. The edit I did on the Maradona article was only for a better page display. I didn touched the contents. Yes, I know who Maradona is. I ever see him on a match in my city once, in Brazil. And yes, although I'm not very good at it, I have played football a lot of times.

Sign your messages next time. --Abu Badali 03:41, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Abu,

I understand now, you are from Brazil, you really don't like Maradona.

For brazilian people the only player was Pele and that's all.

And you touched the content because you deleted a nice photograph.

Regards,

Pat (this is my signature, o do you need my phone?)

Hi Again, Pat.

In Brazil, Maradona is regarded as one of the greatest soccer players of all times. Of course, we still preffer Pelé. About the article, the nice photograph is still there. I didn't remove it, just moved it right so that it won't interfer with the text. --Abu Badali 00:37, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Abu, I had a problem with the browser, that's why I couldn't see the photo. Sorry for that. Obrigado. Pat.

Elena Filatova

Hi, Dissident. The page you created for the kidofspeed is growing fast. I just wanted to know how did you know lena's surname (Filatova). I hadn't being successful in googling for it. --Abu badali 16:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The domain name kidofspeed.com was on at least one of her pictures. Doing a whois on it revealed her full name before she changed both that and her e-mail address. Both can still be found on Slashdot though. -- Dissident 20:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pelé

Re photo of Pele: I found a site using "Fair Use" images with him plus other celebrities. I'll post it to each as soon as I'm done in a day or so. JillandJack 15:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good MAD edit

I liked your addition of Dr. Strangelove where you put it. It worked really well. Wish I had thought of it. Stargoat 13:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Stargoat was talking about a link I had put on the See Also section of Mutual assured destruction (MAD) to the Dr. Strangelove movie. The movie touches the subject of MAD , but a whole paragraph explaining how it is so at the MAD article was considered unsuitable. --Abu Badali 18:29, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

New Messages

Why does wikipedia keeps saying I have "New Messages", if I don't?

Justin Canha and the Google Test

Hello, Rich. I just saw your justification to not speedy delete the Justin canha article, in the article's history page. Responding to my speedy deletion reason: "This is an article about someone with less than 500 hits on Google" , you said (sic): "Google hits do not a speedy deletion make".

Are we abolishing the Google Test?

Among other reasons to do a Google Test there is: ...to decide whether a person is famous enough to have an article or is just making the page because of vanity

--Abu Badali 17:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.

Secondly notability or lack thereof is not a reason for speedy deletion neither is vanity. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

I agree that Justin Canha almost certainly “should” be speedied, but under the current policy it needs to go to VfD. Rich Farmbrough 19:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Just one more thing, Google Test was really voted for deletion. But the result was keep. --Abu Badali 17:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Crestville

== . ==

Hello--Crestville 18:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crestvillee edited the subpage above (thusly, and may have been trying to say hello to you. Rich Farmbrough 15:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jokes considered harmful

And what's the problem in improving a Parody? I'm affraid you're the one that didn't got the joke. --Abu Badali 20:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Never heard of it. I was told when I was younger that GOTO statements really were considered harmful... Maybe that joke got out of hand, too?

In this case, I thought you took the proposal seriously and were disagreeing and trying to NPOV it by adding "considered by some" instead of just "are harmful". - Omegatron 20:54, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please help on Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Hello! I recently noticed some edits by an IP 200.150.59.201 user on the English page for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. I identified some of them has not having neutral point of view and reverted a couple of them. However, he used the argument, "Obviously you're not from Brazil." So, I was hoping to recruit a Brazilian editor to review his edits and revert anything that is untrue or extremely biased, with more expertise than I could. Let me know if I should find someone else. Thanks for your help! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Article about Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Hi!

I've just seen what you've changed on the mentioned article, and I think it's very good now! I would like to have contributed more, but my English is not good enough!

Milena 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)^{Leave me a message}

Brasil as superpower

hi, sorry for interruption, could you please see to the NPOV of exclusion of Brazil from this article. It was there until a month ago, and some guys keep excluding South America and Brazil from what I believe is its just place (and I am not alone, since these previous edits were there long before, to include Brazil) Perroot 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Kinsella's images

I noticed that you marked a lot of images that Kinsella has uploaded for deletion today. He's obviously a new user, so I was wondering why you didn't just leave him a message explaining image tags and what source info is required, and then put them up for deletion after a few days if he didn't tag them. I appreciate that we need to be careful with possibly-copyrighted information, but it's not a very good way to welcome new users. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Xuxa

Please note that I have replaced the prior image with a low resolution copy of a record album cover. Please delete your notice. Jtmichcock 03:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the photo to the Discography section. Jtmichcock 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagens deletadas

Cara, como eu faço para colocar os dados de copyright na foto para que ela não seja deletada. Quando adicionei não entendia essa regra, mas agora que entendi quero corrigir minhas fotos para não serem deletadas. Como faço?

Image:WanderleyLuxemburgo.jpg

Hi Abu Badali, But I found the image from [1] to replace the no source image from Image:Vanderley cruzeiro.jpg. --See Hoy Kim 05:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maradona Image

Attilios: I don't know wht Image:Diego_Armando.jpg has been listed for deletion. It's a magazine cover and source is showed. Please feedback and... Good work. Attilios.

abu_badali: Hi, Attilios. As I explained in the images for deletion entry, we can't simply use any picture just because we've cited its source. We need a free license for the image, or use it under Fair Use. Note that a low resolution copy of a magazine cover would be Fair Use in an article about the magazine itself. But we can't just use their work to illustrate any article. Regards, --Abu Badali 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attilios: Dear Abu, I didn't understand that cover images could be used only for articles about the magazine itself. I checked the Fair use article, but it's rather legal. Can I ask you to explain me, in a simply way, in which way can I use things using the fair use license? Thanks in advance. Attilios.

abu_badali: Attilios, the Template Template:Magazinecover you used when firstly uploaded the image explains the issue itself. It reads (emphasis mine):

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use.

So, that image would be usable in a article about Sports Illustrated, but not about Maradona, nor Football, nor Sports, etc. ... --Abu Badali 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attilios: Thanks for the info about magazine covers, but I was referring to images in general. For example, how can I decide when a generic image taken from a site can be defined as "Fair use"? For example, a photo illustrating an artistic place when can be considered "Fair Use"? Ciao! Attilios

abu_badali: Humm... the point is, it's not about the image, it's about the use. We can use copyrighted images the same way we use copyrighted texts in citations. Just like we can copy (cite) parts of the The Selfish Gene in a text about this book (a review, for instance), we can also use low resolution version of images when talking about this image. But if I'm writting about selfish genes (the concept) in general, and not about the book, I wouldn't be allowed to copy parts of the text under fair use. The same applies for images.

A great example of image fair use in Wikipedia is the article Lenna. The article is about a copyrighted image, but it uses the image under fair use, as it is talking about that very image. The use of this image on the article on Lena Soderberg (the girl depicted on the picture) is questionable.

Of course, IANAL. But don't be shy to ask, whenever you think I may be helpful. --Abu Badali 16:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attilios: Yeah, I'm understanding, too still considering things overcomplicated about images. Therefore I think I'll stop to post images for the near future: I'm tired to receive signals about images posted for deletion. Ciao! Attilios.

abu_badali: This is unfortunate. Hey, do you have a digital camera? Why don't you take some pictures yourself and upload them? I'm being serious! I've done that once, it's really gratifying! --Abu Badali 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Attilios: Yes, I have one. You can see pictures from mine at Subiaco, Italy and Ringebu (Norway), for example. But it would be nicer if we could use with lesser restrictions pictures present in the internet: for example, what a harm if we get a picture from a state-owned site (i.e., an official site of an Italian commune) and add their images to represent the commune itself on our encyclopedia? Another matter: I think Wikipedia should use some amount of money to pay for use of geographic maps and Atlas. It is the only thing that a Britannica or Encarta will always have more than us if things will remain as at present. Eager to know your opinion about these (and others, if you want) questions. Hallo by Attilios.

abu_badali: Indeed, most governments release the images they produce under some free license, usually Public Domain. For instance, here in Brasil, the state owned news agency Agencia Brasil releases pictures of news events for any use, as long as you cite them as the source(see Photographs by Agencia Brasil). In the U.S, as another example, all images produced by state owned spatial agency NASA are released to the public domain (see Category:NASA images). And as a funny complement, images produced by U.S police departments when you get arrested, the Mug shots, are public domain (see Category:Mug shots. And, in many cases, theses are the only free image available for some celebrity (like O._J._Simpson or Sid Vicious). --Abu Badali 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Attilios: Wow! Let's become fan of US police to arrest as much as people as possible to permit us to use their pictures on Wikipedia! Attilios.

Re.:Maracana Image Tagging

The image is not professional. It is available on several sites (none of them official) by the web. It is a non-credited photo, therefore there is no such thing as a term of use in this particular case. Lesfer 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no information about it anywhere. What do you want me do do? Fake it? Sorry, but I won't. If you still won't buy it feel free to look for the credits yourself. I don't have to prove anything since you are the one who have doubts. Lesfer 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I also apologize for any offense and for the misunderstandings. I'm glad this issue is solved, after all, everyone of us are users with the same goal which is improving and contributing with Wikipedia. Abraços, Lesfer 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to your last wishlist question

No (not today) ;-) That is: no, it is not possible to simulate any natural process using a Turing Machine (and today Turing Machine is the most powerful machine). Example of natural process that is impossible to simulate by Turing is - human brain. Is that strictly provable? Yes, it is: human brain can decide whether Turing Machine will stop. Turing Machine cannot decide whether Turing Machine will stop. Therefore, Turing Machine cannot simulate brain performing action of deciding whether Turing Machine will stop. Therefore, Turing Machine cannot simulate brain. QED :-) --Dijxtra 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright and floods of messages at "my talk" page, user:HappyApple contact

Hello, i noticed you changed tagg from almost all the images i have uploaded to Hwang Woo Suk article, the copyright issue was previously discussed on the talk page on that article. The community agreed that certain number of images should be taken out, and this was done as of (January 4, 2006, i noticed you tagged many other images as well, but i please urge you to do not flood my talk page with many warnings, i think it is a treat from you, in case you havent noticed, there is a wikipedia policy about this on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I will add properly source (because is important to state Copyright status) and fair use rationale on all images that requires it, But i did with images on Hwang Woo Suk article so i urge you to don't be so offensive by changing the taggs by using your criteria, be civil. Best regards. HappyApple 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hwang Woo Suk article and fair use images

Hello, i noticed you quickly feedback at my page, and i want to state that i understand your point and i respect it. I wish you understand mine, and the fact is, Hwang Woo Suk article is a current event (or it was as of early 2006) and unfortunatelly there are not (GDF) or excent to copyright images related to that article, and because of this i uploaded those images. To removing them would leave the article with just words, and doing so would let the article quite boring (not counting the article has turned extremelly large) to the reader if it doesnt find graphic material which can give a visual concept of what's he or she is reading. I would try to find another images with friendlier copyright to wikipedia to replace the previous ones, but as i stated it is a pitty there are practically almost none pictures of photographs which can be used in Wikipedia relating to Hwang Woo Suk, if a fair use is not claimed. I hope you may understand. Best regards, HappyApple signing off. HappyApple 16:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From user page

> Your header is what caught my attention. I also refer to myself as a compulsive linker. I was wondering it anyone has heard of a name or an acronym for this?

{CLS: Could it really stand for Compulsive Linking Syndrome?}

peace,

LRS

Even Flow Merging

I agree with your proposed merging of Even Flow into Ten. I put it on the list of proposed mergings. I'm not sure what to do from there. If you want me to, I'll merge them. I don't see a reason to wait, but if you can think of one, I won't. I'll wait for your reply before I merge the two.La Pizza11 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your image removals

Covers to magazines that are indicitive of a model's profession/body of work can not be used? If that is the case, I'll give you a head start on many more pages you might want to change: Cindy Crawford, Elle Macpherson, Kathy Ireland, Ana Beatriz Barros, Alessandra Ambrosio, Marilyn Monroe, Naomi Campbell, Rachel Hunter, Pamela Anderson, Jaime Pressly, Kelly Monaco, Victoria Silvstedt, Christie Brinkley, Paulina Porizkova, Heidi Klum, Rebecca Romijn, Elsa Benitez, Yamila Diaz, Veronica Varekova, Carolyn Murphy, Cheryl Tiegs, Angie Everhart, Stephanie Seymour, Anna Kournikova, Halle Berry, Anna Nicole Smith. AriGold 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Glad I can help. AriGold 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's the right move, by all means proceed as you see fit. But just out of curiosity, if the consensus comes back in the here that magazine images are ok to illustrate a model's work, will you go back and reinsert everything? AriGold 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I ujust added this (where you asked your question): "I'm sure it's been addressed before, but my thought process was always that in articles about models, like the ones we've been discussing, the use of those images might be justifiable, as they're indicitive of the person's career, not just simply used to identify the likness of the person." I guess that's my take, thought I admit I do not have a strong opinion either way. AriGold 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted images

It's O.K. (see here) for me. Sorry for my English and for missing answer :) --[TWICE27.5^TM] / [αω'^':-)] 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of Brassiere

Your edit of "14:17, 8 March 2006" on Brassiere was quite problematic, since you marked it as a minor edit, yet you appear to have substituted a completely different and much older version of the page (one which seems to be inferior in some respects, and which of course ignores all the edits made since that date). Furthermore, Image:Bust supporter 1893 USpatent507373.png is really an unintentionally quite laughable piece of work, which has already been made fun of at BJAODN, so that for you to put it back into the page is a severe disimprovement. Furthermore, I resent the implication that Image:1881-empire-bra-vie-parisienne-henri-montaut.gif is "unsourced" -- in fact, it's elaborately and ornately sourced, one could say sourced to within an inch of its life. So I'm going to revert your edit on "Brassiere", and if you have an issue with ANY SPECIFIC PORTION of the article, then please work on that particular section, instead of substituting in an older version of the whole page. Churchh 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that! It was an accident. I somehow managed to unintentionally use an older version of the article. I believe the mistake happened because I was browsing through the article history to find out what the last used top-image was. Sorry. My fault. Mea culpa. Great mistake.

By the way, the "unsourced image" I was (trying to) talking about was the one on the top of the page, Image:SG1.jpg, that is so far, indeed, unsourced. What I believed I was doing when I destroyed the article was replacing this image by the previosly used one: Image:Buestenhalter-2.jpg. I'll try it again now :) . Thanks, and sorry again! --Abu Badali 20:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK now, but I replaced one picture with a different picture in the edit immediately preceding yours, so I naturally assumed that was what you were referring to... Churchh 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fred

Disambiguation pages are a navigation tools to distinguish articles that could otherwise have the same name. In particular, only persons commonly known by only first name can be added there. See, Michael or Nick for examples. mikka (t) 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

STOP ERASING PEOPLE'S IMAGES

I've notice you have been erasing everybody's images in Wikipedia. Don't you have other things to do?

Why don't you write a new article, or help other users to do better articles? Is your job here to erase what we post? Get a job!

All the images I post do have FAIR USE. Magazine covers do have fair use, and we can post them ANYWHERE WE WISH. There's nothing saying they only can be used to illustrate a magazine's article. NO, YOU SHOULD STUDY LAW BEFORING TRYING TO PLAY THE DETECTIVE HERE. If a person is on the cover of a magazine, no matter if the person is famous or not, anyone can use that cover for ANYTHING.

Go back to school, buddy!

And stop hunting me here!! I have notice you are looking all my posts in Wikipedia and anything I post here, the next person to post is you. Are you in love with me or something? Please, get out!!

And also, don't use other Usernames to erase what we post. Everybody knows it's you, because you are the only person here who erases fair use images.

Wikipedia is a FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, so since it is free, you don't have the right to erase other users's post, with no argument.

So isn't magazine cover fair use here to illustrate articles about celebrities?? So why does Halle Berry's article has a magazine cover to show her face??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Barry

And what about Shakira's?? Her article has many images, including many cd covers!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakira

Won't you erase it too??

And how about Jennifer Lopez's??? They are using a cd cover to illustrate her article!!! That's a crime!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_lopez

Won't you erase it too???

You need to find a good psychologist to help you...I have good names, if you need them, I am here to help you, ok?

my reply

In reply to your comments in my talk page:

Please, Xuxo, this is the second time you are rude torwards me. I have no interest in being your adversary. I want to colaborate with you, just like with any other wikipedian, to make this a great free encyclopedy.

Removing images we don't have the rigth to use, or that are improperly used is part of the job of improving Wikipedia. Magazine covers, as explained in the text shown in the {{Magazine cover}} template itself, can only be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question (see the 1st bullet there). This means, among other things, that magazine covers can't be used to illustrate the person portrayed on them.

Magazine covers are not Fair Use per se. Actually, nothing is fair use per se. Fair use, as the name says, deals with the use of the image (or text, or any work). Using a copyrighted magazine cover to talk about a magazine is a fair use. Using a copyrighted movie poster (or scene) to talk about the movie is a fair use. Using a magazine copyrighted cover as a replacement for a picture we don't have (of some celebrity, or whatever) is not a fair use.

I share your sentiments that it would be really great if magazine covers could be used anywere we wish, for anything. But unfortunatelly it's not true.

About the article you cited, I would say that the use of a magazine cover in Halle Berry is hardly justifiable (thanks for poiting out!). The Shakira and Jennifer Lopez uses of album covers may be arguably justified as illustration of their works (just like the Xuxa article has an album cover illustrating the discography section).

I don't have others Wikipedia usernames and I never intentionally edit articles anonymously.

I never studied law, it's true. As a matter of fact, all I know about Fair use I learned from Wikipedia's article on Fair use.

Don't be shy to return your toughts to me. I'm completly open to talks envisioning the improvement of Wikipedia, but I may refuse to talk when people are overly discourteous to me.

I hope all personal misunderstandings are solved by now. Best regards, --Abu Badali 13:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image on Elsa Benitez

Sorry, i do not agree with you. Theres THOUSANDS of biographical articles with Magazine covers, and no one has said anything about it. Besides, the image IS fair use and that's all that matters. --- Lancini87 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blaze Bayley image

That image is from the cover of the Iron Maiden fanclub's monthly magazine. The 1995-1996 issues came unmarked with no lettering ont he front. Thanks - Steph11

==(Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg)==

Hello, Why have you listed the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg for for deletion? Regards. ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

Hi, Abu badali. I've read the discussion over at the Template_talk:Magazinecover and from what I gather there is no clear and conlusive restrictions reached that the magazine covers, in this case at the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg, can not be used. Plus it mentioned the magazine in the Anastasia Perraki article since she worked as a model for it and the modeling agency she works for, from where the picture comes from is hyper-linked on the image page. Regards. ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

Abu badali, I've read the Talk:Halle Berry aticle as well as the Template_talk:Magazinecover and Template:Magazinecover. I do not see anything which places the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg on grounds for deletion. I've read the Template:Magazinecover template rules. Were are these specific Wikipedia policies in which the objections from the Template_talk:Magazinecover have all been refurted and resolved with images like the Image:Anastasia Perraki1.jpg are breaking the rules and have to be absolutely deleted? By the way, the magazine is not mentioned in the article just to justify the fair use claim policies. Its mention was in the article from day one, before I even picked which picture to up load for the article, because it talks about the modeling jobs she has had. I didn't even realize I was following Wikipedia rules when I did it since I just now noticed that such a rule for magazine covers exist. Regard. ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

1. According to the text on Template:Magazinecover (that you have read), magazine covers can only be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, which is not the case here. --Abu Badali 00:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and understand what you are saying but according to the text on Template:Magazinecover under Notes it says: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. which is the case here, since the article talks about her working for the magazine as a cover model, not a model inside the magazine, but on the cover of it and her name is mentioned on it. Take care, ~Mallaccaos, 17 May 2006

Wiki:pt

Olá Abu badali, Eu reparei que está contribuir em artigos relacionados com a lusofonia e gostaria de convidá-lo para participar na Wikipédia em português, actualmente temos mais de 135 mil artigos. Sua ajuda será muito bem vinda. Se por acaso tiver algum problema ou dúvida deixe uma mensagem na minha página de discussão. Continue com esse bom trabalho, Rei-artur 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop hunting me, please

Why are you erasing the pictures I have posted here??

You have no right to do it! The Ana Claudia Michels's picture is a MAGAZINE COVER. Since then, I can use it in Wikipedia. You've been saying that it does not have fair use to illustrate a celebrity's article. YOU ARE THE ONLY USER who sais this lie in Wikipedia, because every celebrity's article in Wikipedia does have a magazine cover to illustrate it. But, I've noticed that you just erase MY POSTS, while there are thousands of articles with magazine covers, and you did not erase them. Why don't you go to Kate Moss article and erase the magazine covers? And that about Naomi Campbell??? And how about Heidi Klum. What do you say about Claudia Schiffer and Yamila Diaz. Why don't you go there and erase them and hunt their posters too? Answer me that!

And it is not only me, because in the Ana Claudia Michels article, I posted the magazine cover, then you came and erased the image. Then another use came and re-posted the image, arguing that is was a magazine cover used to illustrate the article and it HAS FAIR USE.

Saying again, you have no right to erase magazine covers image here, because they are not fobidden in Wikipedia. Don't you have other things to do in your life?? Do you work for those magazines??

Only one person could come here a erase a magazine cover: THE OWNER OF THE MAGAZINE. Since you are the owner, I do not know what you get with it.

Stop hunting me and get a job, please.

Since you are so gentle...

Erase all the magazine covers in Wikipedia.

Good job for you. And, only erase MY MAGAZINE COVERS after you erase every ones in the Wikipedia.

See you in 10 years!

Maradona

You removed references of Maradona being considered one of the best footballer, claiming that he was considered so only by his own fans. I don't know what did you mean by own fans, but the references were perfectly valid. I restored them. Mariano(t/c) 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about the all time thing. You have probably seen also in the talk page that I wasn't even sure whether it was "time" or "times". So considering there are native English speakers to decide on the subject, I would prefere to leave it as it is. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 07:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

I've corrected the licensing of Image:CatStevens Hurt.jpg and reinserted it into the article. Let me know if there's a problem. Thanks, Mrtea (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a pleasant reply on my talk page :) Mrtea (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned fair use image (Image:Christinaapplegate.jpg)

Hi Abu,

I had added the image which was a magazine cover, so qualified under fair use(as per fair use guidelines at that time). The article's edit history shows that you have removed the image. If you feel that the image does not qualify under fair use you may either mark it for deletion or request an admin to delete it.Gaurav1146 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IP user and Iron Maiden pictures

I have posted these incidents on the ANI about User:68.112.25.197 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks on my userpage and elsewhere. If you would like to come by and comment, support, or even refute my claims, please do so. Thanks for your hard work on these articles nonetheless. Cheers! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Carmen Electra

Why do you and your buddy Ed_gs2 insist on posting that mug shot of Carmen Electra on her page? It is inherently biased. It carries the assumption that she's a career criminal. In fact, the charges for which that photo were taken, were dismissed. Your insistence on posting it amounts to pushing a point of view. Wahkeenah 10:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• "rv image removal without edit summary" - You know very well what the issue is. I would like very much to hear your justification for promoting the point of view that this actress is a criminal. Wahkeenah 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, we'll see what you can come up with. Meanwhile, kindly explain why it being the only "free" image (lifted from a website notorious for scandal-mongering) compels you to post it. Wahkeenah 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Your last comment might have "crossed in the mail" with the above. Anyway, it's not so much that the picture is unflattering. If someone took a picture of her walking along the street in public, that would be fair game, even if it was not the best picture. But posting a police arrest photo is tabloid stuff and carries its own inherent point-of-view, which is to ridicule the actress. The only good thing is that this page has not been vandalized nearly as much as the pages of some other glamour-girls, such as Pamela Anderson. Wahkeenah 04:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Tell me, if you can, what wiki rule requires that you post a photo in an article. Wahkeenah 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If there is no such rule, why do feel compelled to post that picture? Wahkeenah 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Precisely, a small incident. But you're as stubborn as I am, so I might as well wait and see if you can find another photo that doesn't paint her as a criminal. Wahkeenah 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Not the greatest photo (I would have brightened it a bit), but at least she's not under arrest. Thank you for doing the gruntwork on this. :) Wahkeenah 06:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
            • The more I look at the free image, the better I like the mugshot. Between that one and the one of Shakira that you foisted on us, I'm guessing you don't really like women all that well. Wahkeenah 15:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of images

Please stop removing fair use images, this can be considered vandalism. If you have a concern please discuss on talk pages. Just because you think something is not fair use, it doesn't mean it isn't.

For actors screenshots of movies are fair use, for models magazine covers are fair use, etc.! Please take the time to read the guidelines! Thanks. Optimale ^Gu 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Joaquim Cruz image

It isn't an orphaned image, please see article Joaquim Cruz.

Read Optimale's message above. Thanks.

Machocarioca 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Zico

Hello, Abu!(Sou brasileiro também, ou será que você é de Portugal? Vou falar em inglês porque acho que é mais apropriado). The image Zico em campo.jpg is already posted on the japanese wikipedia (well, I'm not sure that is japanese, but is something like that), and when I tried to use it (zico.jpg is how it's in there) appears the img of "Zico the movie", so i uploaded it again, but it's already on an asiatic wikipedia. My image is at "Brazilian national football team". Ty~

Image tagging

Look mate, what IS your problem with where images come from? They make wikipedia a better place, regardless of source (and for the record I think that ALL of my images qualify as fair use). You're actually working against everything that is good about wikipedia, systematically going after people and questioning everything they do. Who told you to do this? Why take the 'law' into your own hands? Ask yourself this: who are you protecting? You wanna play cops and robbers, go and joing the freaking police. Do something useful, rather than wasting your life on here. What is your job? Cos this ain't real life buddy, and if its your only hobby, I feel bad for you. I mean really bad. I thinks it's quite sad that your only reason for using wikipedia is to actively reverse what other people do, rather than to actively create content. I will review all the images you 'helpfully' tagged for me, but I'm getting real tired of you ducking me man. Peace out. Megawattbulbman 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn right you're doing something wrong. And you still haven't answered my question: WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? Just WHO do you thing is offended by unfair images? I can see from your talk page that this is clearly a sad fixation of yours, so I'm not going to fight you - I really don't have the time, I've got better things to do, unlike you you sad little man. So delete my images if you must, but just answer me this - WHO ARE YOU BENEFITING? (Apart from yourself obviously, satisfying your own sad delusional little ego trip that you're a 'virtual policeman' - probably too pussy to be one in real life).

Daniella_Sarahyba

• • You said: "we cant claim FU when we have free alternatives". Well, I am not aware of any other picture of Daniella naked. the same applies to Marisa.--Levanocu 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe you agree that her body is somewhat more important for her professional success that her brain. In an encyclopedia, the biographic articles are often mainly about the professional attributes of the individuals.--Levanocu 22:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Fonssagrives

Lisa Fonssagrives was an early supermodel and the cover Image:LisaFVogue.jpg which is one of Lisa Fonssagrives' more than 200 covers on Vogue would be representative of a significant impact of the magazine on both the field of supermodels, her individual career and her impact of style on the magazine. If this is clearly stated on the image description and within the articles for all three would this in your opinion qualify for fair use? Thanks. This whole image business is getting to be harder work than it is worth for many users, which is I think unfortunate. Wikipedia and its readers in the long run will be the ones to suffer. Doc 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The magazine Vogue is discussed in the Supermodel article as is the relationship between Lisa Fonssagrives and Vogue and that this issue is representative of the over 200 covers of Vogue on which she appeared. I have asked for your input here several days ago and you have chosen to ignore this request. I am more than willing to discuss this and would welcome your input. Short of this, I have done my best to meet the guidelines required by Wikipedia. This cover is not for 'decorative' purposes but to be illustrative of the importance of the model to the magazine and visa versa and their mutual importance to the existence of supermodels. Doc 17:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that all images could be considered decorative in some sense and that on that basis, if we should consider words adequate description then perhaps all images should be banned from Wikipedia. Images do, I believe help to define an article, and has been said many times "a picture is worth a thousand words."

The question here seems to me to be if we can meet the "fair use" standard, which, as I understand it requires showing the relevance to the article in question. The "look" and style of this model is pivotal to whole beginning of supermodels and the magazine and its relationship with this model, with that number of covers, is central to the magazines connection with forming future supermodels. While it might indeed be decorative to have a gallery of all 200+ covers, that would be unreasonable. I do believe that one cover can be representative of this mass and add more than words alone and as such qualifies as "fair use". If there is other or additional wording that I should add to the article, I am open to suggestion Doc 18:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the image does just that. It defines the look, which few if any pubic domain images will do. I was not suggesting additional wording to "justify" but to further clarify the relevance, as the image alone did not seem to do this for you. To me the image speaks for itself. Doc 18:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This page's user is not interested in your opinion. Wahkeenah 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I in fact did read that policy before my last post, and I do believe that it meets the criteria. In fact using the quick test that you quote, the only image that could replace this one with the same impact would be another Vogue cover, which I presume would meet with the same objection from you as on this one. Doc 00:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A Vogue cover, any Vogue cover with this model on the cover is iconic for these articles, in my opinion. No photograph other than a Vogue cover with this model could take its place. Yet your claim is that this disqualifies any Vogue cover. That's my point and I do believe that this qualifies for fair use. It is low resolution, it in no way compromises the value of the original or takes away any profit potential to the copyright holder and uniquely represents the relationship between magazine, model and the superstar it defines. Doc 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't care what you think. Wahkeenah 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Orphaned fair use image (Image:J-tieupmaki-p.jpg)

User:Karada uploaded the image, not me. I just reverted it from a vandalized state at some point. You may want to check with him, because I honestly don't care if it is deleted or not. Thanks, Thatdog 05:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Amber Rose image

I returned the dvd cover image for now. It is better than nothing. However, note discussion at Talk:Amber_Rose_(porn_star)#picture --Easyas12c 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD cover

The wikipedia policy is doubletalk that makes no sense. But you win this one. As always. Wahkeenah 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Award

Due to my uploading of a 'disallowed' image and the professional and understanding response I received from you I would like to award you the...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for being so kind to me when i made mistakes:) Dbertman

Confused

It seems that you (I say you based of what nearly all of the other topics on this page back me up with) have systematically gone through many pages that I have added images, with both correct copyright tags and correct source creation info, and deleted their information. You know leave me with many images begging copyright status and sources, when I had taken care of that in the first place. Please respond on what I must do. Thank you, User:Tenaciousd

Removal of M. Miller fair use image

Okay, thanks for the good explanation. After reading it over a couple times, it really does make a good bit of sense. Thanks for clearing this up, and the image will be free for deletion. --Merovingian {T C @} 05:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for your trouble

I understand what I have done wrong. Thank you for filling me in. Keep up the good work. User:Tenaciousd

Thanks

Thank you for your update to Image:Keira.thejacket09.jpg. It is much appreciated. --Yamla 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultra-fast image removal

Obviously, I have never done any of this before - what was the sequence such that my listing for deletion, non fair use, of the Bridget Moynahan image, was gone so fast? I did not even indicate the uploader and such, not understanding how to correctly list, and boom! it was gone! --Dumarest 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Image - Andy Creeggan

You deleted Image:Andag1.jpg from Andy Creeggan citing that it is not used to for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question. I would argue that it is used to identify Andy Creeggan and demonstrate his appearance in that video (just like a screenshot, say, of 24 may be used in an article about a character to ID that character, rather than to ID the show or episode... I'm interested in your point of view; please elaborate. (note: You can reply here if you like; I will keep watch on this talk page) TheHYPO 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TheHYPO. According to the bold text on the {{musicpromo-screenshot}} template you used on Image:Andag1.jpg, that images can only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question". Let me know of any further questions. Best regards, --Abu Badali 12:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that; My question is why you feel that identification of how someone appeared in that video does not qualify. Note the image Image:Jean-Luc_Picard1.jpg is also a TV screenshot; like thousands of TV and movie characters on wiki, the image is used to ID the character, though the image is not being used to specifically identify the episode or scene in question. I understand that the copyright for screenshots say 'and its contents' at the end, but it's the same fair use law for music videos as film and tv shots; and that phrase should apply equally to music video screenshots, which are tv screenshots; just because whoever made the template didn't use the phrase 'and its contents' shouldn't necessarily alter the qualifications for use. TheHYPO 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, TheHYPO. I believe when the template says "identification", it means identification of "the music video in question", not identification of anything desired. I agree that there are tons of fair use abuses on Wikipedia, but a thousand erros don't make a right. I also believe that when {{movie-screenshot}} says "it's contents", it's not allowing us to use a movie screenshot just to illustrate an article on some person depicted on that screenshot. Also, these templates were not made at some editor's will. They should follow the Wikipedia's Fair Use policies. If we find something too permissive in some of the templates, it's going to be changed to match the policies. Best regards, --Abu Badali 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the article discussed the music video in question, it would be an acceptable use? TheHYPO 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That image is acceptable as fair use in any article doing critical commentary on the video. Just mentioning the video is no good. Some few lines about the video, is no good. (I'm not implying you intend to do that, I'm just warning you about a very commom type of Fair Use abuse on Wikipedia). The text should be the cause behind the image use, not the reverse.

Even if the article is changed to make a deep critical disscussion on the video, we should avoid using that image as the main image on the article (at the top), as it would be still being used to identification of the subject.

Of course, this is all my interpretations of the fair use policies on Wikipedia and I'm open to discussion.

TheHYPO, I appreciate your intentions to put an image on the Andy Creeggan article. I agree that images greatly improve Wikipedia's article. But free images, although harder to get, are a thousand times better choice. Have you tried to find some free image for this article? I have had some recent success in findding freely licensed images to use in Wikipedia by searching pictures on Flickr and, when they are not already free, contacting the photographer and asking if he/she would be interested in having his work used on Wikipedia. You know what? Most of them love the idea and release their work freely. Why don't you give a try? Best wishes, --Abu Badali 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Andy is no longer with the band, and basically is out of the public eye; this notably decreases public available images of him (particularly ones from a period of time when he WAS in the public image, pre-1995; There are band publicity photos, but not great quality scans of them from photos that old, and those photos would probably be just as fair use (though perhaps more applicable). I have a magazine the band was in back then that has a fairly good image of him, but again, is a magazine scan any better? There are very very few other-than-tiny scans of photos of him from back then, leaving public use images fairly sparse. TheHYPO 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No license tag

It was incorrectly tagged with "promophoto". The no license tag means it can be speedy deleted in 7 days. ed g2s • talk 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You two need to form an alliance: "Deletions 'R' Us". Wahkeenah 14:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has a source, but it's not a promo photo, hence "no license". ed g2s • talk 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Kate Smith

Here's an article where a CD cover is used for illustrative purposes of a person's article. Now, is that a violation of fair use? Or is it a sufficiently ugly illustration that you're OK with it? Wahkeenah 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Please stop removing fair use images, this can be considered vandalism. If you have a concern please discuss on talk pages. Just because you think something is not fair use, it doesn't mean it isn't. The cover of an album or single is fair use! If you remove the picture from the top of the article because it's doesn't fit the wiki criterias, so try to put it in the other place of the article. Again: DO NOT REMOVE, JUST CHANGE THE SPOT!

fizzerbear 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can assure you that this user is not the least bit interested in your opinion on this subject. Wahkeenah 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Hunter

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If you want to remove an image, please discuss on the page first. I have reverted your edits, and noted them as vandalism. Rgds, -Trident13 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I refer you through the "three revert" rule procedure, can you please read the following from the Fair Use Policy: Rule8 - Policy "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose" How many SuperModels do you know who have posed in Playboy? If I have not heard from in the next 24Hrs, I will refer this case to through the "three revert" procedure. Rgds, - Trident13 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - its always better to discuss these things through, and you make more friends! I believe it was one of the highest fee's ever paid for a Playboy Centrefold model - not that I am a subscriber or an expert on this matter. Let me do some more investigation on that one - I have collected some references, but not one's I am fully happy with. My point on the artciles discussion page was: "How many super models do you know who have appeared in Playboy?" which is why she was paid so much. Hence why I believe inclusion of the image, much as though I hear your "fairuse" point, is allowed under the "illustrate a specific point" clause of Point8, which the words would not fully do/some readers would not believe without pictorial back-up. I am not a fan of gratuitous nudity, and believe that as a "family"/end user un-controlled orientated use media, Wiki should minimise use of such images/publications. But I do believe in this case it is worthy/allowed inclusion in the article. Rgds, - Trident13 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:OJSimpsonBillsZone.JPG

I uploaded this image under my previous username. Anyway, I prefer not to keep it on Wikipedia, but currently, I'm doing something different here rather than focusing on fair use images or their rationale. Sorry. Thanks for notifying me on my talk page. -- ADNghiem501 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

Please note with regard to your removal of the fair use image from the article Jack Abramoff: The commentary on the TIME issue is in the image caption. It was originally in the article as well but was removed by another editor in the past as "redundant", therefore the consensus view seems to be that the commentary in the caption is considered the same as commentary within the article. Please also note that, if you think that mention is not quantitatively sufficient (or a "loose mention" as per your edit summary) that your opinion on what is sufficient is welcome. Please also note that Ta bu shi da yu, who went on a "mission" to remove improper fair use images (as you apparently are now) several months ago, reviewed this fair use justification and commented that it was a very appropriate fair use - for what it's worth. KWH 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your image removal

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Daduzi, award you this barnstar for tireless work in monitoring fair usage and levels of civility above and beyond the call of duty

I thought disambiguation link repair was a thankless task, but looking at the number of angry exclaimation marks on your talk page fair use monitoring seems a task sometimes worse than thankless. So consider this thanks. --Daduzi ^talk 11:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mallorysnyder.jpg

You said on WP:CP that you felt that Image:Mallorysnyder.jpg was not fair use. However, I was thinking that perhaps it was, since it is being used to show who she is. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for your time! -- Where 03:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah; good point. I didn't see that. Okay, I deleted the image as a copyvio. Thanks for your help in this matter! -- Where 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion

You had placed a lot of messages related to deletion of images on my talk page. I had replied earlier that as per the guidelines at the time when I uploaded these image magazine covers came under fair use. But now those guidelines have been slightly modified and magazine covers come only under fair use if they are used in an article related to the magazine.

But I have some questions about two screenshots that I had uploaded which are Image:DonnaReed.JPG and Image:JamesDonald.JPG. I believe that screenshots do come under fair use. Please let me know why you have marked them for deletion. Gaurav1146 10:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairuse

Thank you for bringing the images to my attention, I have a greater grasp on the issue and will step aside for now. All the pictures have been G7'd to save time and effort. Again, thank you, and if you need anything from me feel free to contact me. Yanksox 03:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Angie Harmon/Video Voyeur image

I was so annoyed, yet realizing that you were right, that I went and created a new article for the image where it is used in proper fair-use. So, please don't delete the image now.--SVTCobra 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That was really great! Congratulations for your article. It seems very good. That image now has a (fair) use inside Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oooops!!! It seems that the text on the Plot section was a copy of a review from Rotten Tomatoes. Unfortunatelly, we do not have the permission to copy (not to redistribute) their contents. I have removed that section. Please, do not feel down by this. It seems you have watched this film and you really liked it. It's time for you to write a plot summary of your own. Hands at work ;) --Abu Badali 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the movie and thus cheated on the plot summary. From what I have read they told a story, that could have been compelling, so one-sided that I'd probably gag during a viewing of it. However, from reading about it and it's real-life implications, I thought the movie deserved an article. But my original mission was to try to find an image for the article Angie Harmon, and I have tried again. I hope my work was not in vain. --SVTCobra 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a Life

Please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.245.95 (talk • contribs).

Kathy Ireland

• Hello Abu. Thanks for your message. You were right about that image as it was not being discussed in the text. I have corrected the problem by including a description of the importance of her Sports Illustrated work to her career. Johntex\^talk 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hello Abu, thanks for your question. I don't think pictures are really needed on any articles at all. However, I think that one is as useful to that article as most pictures here. Her modelling for Sports Illustrated was certainly very important to her career. I see no reason we should not include a picture of her famous 25th anniversary Sports Illustrated cover in a discussion of that career. As I understand the law, the image is legal to use because it is small in size and small as an overall portion of the work. Since it is useful and legal, I don't see why we'd want to take it out. If we look at it another way, we could create an article specifically about that issue and how that issue was important to Kathy Ireland's career. Surely no one would object to the use of the image in such an article. However, there would certainly be calls to merge that new article into Kathy Ireland. The information is no less relevant here with the information contained in one article. Johntex\^talk 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, some inclusionists would argue that Wikipedia does not have a specific policy that something has to be "notable". They would argue that if the topic is sufficiently important to be "verifiable" by reputable sources then it is necesarily fit for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Some "mergists" would argue that the information belongs in Wikipedia, but that it should be merged into Kathy Ireland or Sports Illustrated. "Merge" seems to me to be the most common outcome of AfD's these days. That is why I think it makes sense to look at this as a hypothetical case where the articles have been merged. The logic path is: (1) the image is clearly fair use in an article about the issue of the magazine (2) the issue of the magazine relates to Kathy Ireland and content about that issue could be merged to her article (3) Regardless of how we title the article ("Kathy Ireland" or "SI 25th anniversary swimsuit issue" or "Depictions of swimsuits on the cover of sports magazines", the title does not change the fact that the picture is going alongside description/analysis of the issue in question.

I think this is on very firm ground not only in law but in Wikipedia policy. For example, WP:FU states "However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." (emphasis added).

I think that the 25th anniversary issue was notable enough to her career to include in the text about Ireland. Following WP:FU, that means that fair use could apply to the magazine cover within the article on Ireland.

Perhpas you would be more comfortable if the discussion on the magazine cover takes up more space within the Ireland article? Johntex\^talk 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. In a way I agree with you though. The image is helpful to the article. Whether we have to jump through some hoops to keep it is a matter of the beuracracy that we have created for ourselves as a project. I guess we should look on the bright side. The article *is* improved by explaining more directly how the magazine cover is relevant to the subject, rather than just leaving it up to the reader to understand the connection, so I will try to keep a smiley face. :-) Johntex\^talk 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to find an ugly photo taken by a tourist. Then he'd be OK with it. Wahkeenah 23:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:UbuntuLogo.svg listed for deletion

It looks to me like you need to look closer to home, if your going to complan about fair use images. At least make sure your fu images are used. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll warn him as well. I had believed the two versions were differnt however they were not so ill warn him. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Images-Again

Abu badali, if you continue to remove images from the Heathers page and any other page on Wikipedia for that matter, you'll be blocked. I see this isn't the first time you've ran into trouble with removing content/images from Wikipedia, and if you continue it then you'll be blocked from Wikipedia for good. Consider this a FINAL warning. Jackp 07:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your message on Jackp's talk page. For the record, you appear to be in the right on the Heathers issue. Jackp is not an experienced user, has no ability to ban anyone, and indeed is very close to being indefinitely banned himself due to his apparently impenetrable cluelessness. Rebecca 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your quote to Jackp - "sorry for my ignorance, but as I had never been blocked before, I welcome the input from an experienced user like you. Thanks," - made my morning. Cheers. --Merbabu 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Unspecified source for Image:Heidi Klum OTTO.jpg

The image description specifies exactly where the image came from, as well as the usage restrictions set by the copyright owner. What seems to be the problem? κаллэмакс 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Oi. Vejo que você é brasileiro também. Por acaso você não teria vontade de contribuir também no Simple English Wikipedia em artigos relacionados ao Brazil? Obrigado. --Paulistanum 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

OK... I see where it says that now, sorry for the miss-understanding. Using Flickr I will look for a more appropriate image however (which carries the same licensing as the other one).... as it is pretty clear via community concensus that people would like a different image, hopefully this aproach should sort it out. Regards. - Deathrocker 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:ZIL 131 02.jpg

Hi Abu. You tagged the above image as a copyright violation from [2]. This site says images may be used on non-commercial sites, with attribution. Attribution exists, and Wikipedia is not a commercial site. The image is therefore not a copyright violation. Regards, Proto::type 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia do not accepts non-commercial only licenses. See {{Noncommercial}} --Abu Badali 14:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the info! :) Deleted as a copyvio. Proto::type 14:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gisele links list

Hi Abu. I would rather discuss with you about appropriate links for the Gisele article rather than having a link-off war. According to the guidelines for wikipedia it is appropriate to have a link to fan sites listing. The Squidoo lense is not my personal site and does not promote me. It is an regularly updated, appropriate web site which is used to keep track of interesting links and information relating to the subject matter.

If the Squidoo lense is not the best fan site listing then I encourage you to find a better one and let's use that. --User:Heathweaver

I see completely see where you are coming from (even though from your remarks and from the comments to you above I think you act as a bit of a purist and maybe go a little too far); but, after looking over the guidelines of Wikipedia links for fansites I think this issue is very gray. Quoting again: In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

As the creator of the Squidoo lense I am, of course, bias; but, I don't see any really great fan sites that would be worth linking. Also, I believe that many people are served by a well maintained link list that keeps up-to-date with the subject matters life. Maybe we could request for a consensus of which additional site to list that would serve this purpose.

PS I have no relation to Dr. Young I have been researching his work and am a bit doubtful about a number of facts so I am submitting a page. Sharpcast is a new product that I am a huge fan of, I have contact with the company as one of its customers, but I have no other affiliations.

I just think that Squidoo is a good way to research a topic before submitting it to Wikipedia as you can put whatever and then as facts are researched they can be moved them to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heathweaver (talk • contribs).

Help In Exposing Deceipt

Abu, I am entering an article on an author who, although he writes a best selling diet book, misrepresents his background and qualifications. How does one go about stating these types of facts in Wikipedia? --Heath Weaver 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First, of course, make sure you have Reliable sources for these informations. In the article, you may write like "John Smith claims to be a phisician, and mathematician, etc.. [1], but, according to so-so-so [2], Smith had never been a phisician." --Abu Badali 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever....

The file can get deleted, I don't know how to delete pictures...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toosmart215 (talk • contribs).

...

I know your right about the fair use on user pages issue, but could ya give it a rest. Does it really matter? "...and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself." Doesn't this line from the user page template pretty much O.K it? If not, and if you wont have it, I will remove the images. Tenaciousd 03:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Tenaciousd

Done and fixed. Sorry for the trouble. Tenaciousd 05:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Tenaciousd

Adminship?

I always see your excellent work with images and fair use and I'm wondering if I could nominate you for adminship as you clearly need the tools. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel I could become more helpful as an Admin, and believe there will be others to support your opinion, I would be more than honored to take this responsability. --Abu Badali 04:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this opinion. Yanksox 04:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Yanksox! --Abu Badali 04:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created the nom Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abu badali. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• The RFA questions need to be answered before I place the RFA in the WP:RFA page. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• You may want to move the answer of question number 1 to questions number 2 or 3 and rather explain on what are you planning to use the tools instead of explaining how you got the free images and the Carmen Electra dispute to number 3, as you will likely get some oppose votes if you don't. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you activate your e-mail? It's important not just for an RfA, but also if users need to contact you. Yanksox 01:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Also can you stop asking other people to vote for your RFA in people talk pages as it's considered as bad form here and will get you oppose votes. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please vote if you don't like Abu's confrontational attitude

You can vote for whether Abu will be an adminstrator or not at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Abu_badali

If you don't like his confrontational attitude, I suggest you vote to oppose it as I did. I have been contributing numerous articles on wikipedia dealing with the 1920's and early 1930's. This person has literally driven me away from wikipedia because he refuses to let me place a public domain image on the 1930s article that illustrates how fashion became more conservative in that decade and how long skirts became in 1930 whereas the year (1929) before they had been worn above the knee. This person (Abu badali) has me banned and I will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. I had hoped to complete the articles on all of the early Technicolor films produced in 1929-1933 as well as numerous articles on the early talkies. Unfortunately, due to his confrontational attitude and unwillingless to help me correctly tag the image I am no longer going to contribute to wikipedia. I think it will be a mistake if you make this person an administrator as he will only drive away people who are only trying to improve wikipedia and contribute articles to it. AllTalking 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you wish to support Abu badali, you can also cast your vote, as I did. --Yamla 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote?

Thank you for the note. You haven't been reading my comments very carefully, have you? I don't like this notion of having to put up with an ugly photo of a celebrity just because it's the only "free" photo available. I don't think it enhances wikipedia in any way, in fact it makes us look fairly desparate. I do understand the technicalities of why you're doing it, I just don't think it helps the look of this website. So I will neither endorse nor denigrate your candidacy. Wahkeenah 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ayurveda Pic

Thank you for the notice. However, I'm not sure about the picture any longer. The website We Make Money Not Art, had a Creative commons license on it (on the main page) when I uploaded the image from this page. But I cant find it any longer. Anyhow, here's proof that I'm not lying. The page still is listed in google under websites that are "free to use or share, even commercially". I've provided the source of the image and its creator. However, I've left the no-source template intact. Looking forward to your insight in the matter. Thank you.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts on this at my talk page. TIA. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(Why didn't I think of this before) Sorry for bothering you again, but could you please see this and this — archives showing how the site looked before. If you scroll down to the bottom, you can see the creative commons license. Now, if I am correct, once a particular document is released under a free license, then the author does not have the power to revoke it, right? If that is the case, then shouldn't the license still hold? I'm particularly keen on this one because there are no other free images available to represent Ayurveda. Thanks for the reply. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

possible copy right problem

Image:Imgp0479 - lions club 800x600.jpg This is a picture someone took of a Lions_Clubs_International logo. As a Lion, I know LCIF enforces the copyright on its logo. It charges money for pins and other items containing the logo. I would recommend checking with LCIF about this. :) Dlohcierekim 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one Image:HK Lion International at the Peak of HK island.jpg Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gisele

While I totally agree with your removal of those two images, you really shouldn't mark edits like that as "minor". Deleting two pictures from an image is significant, however justified it might be. Soo 10:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen

Hi, Zanimum for the good work checking sources for the Gisele article. And thanks for updating the info on Image:Taxi2004.jpg. But still about this screenshot, I'd like to hear your opinion... do you belive the Gisele Bündchen article needs this unfree image? The image doesn't seem to add much information about the movie... it's just an image of Gisele, and we have lots of free images available for Gisele. Don't you think we can get rid of it? What's the role of this image in the article? Thanks, --Abu Badali 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It is a different aspect of her life that isn't portrayed in any of our free images. I'd personally keep it for now, but keep a strong hand on any other images uploaded, since we do indeed have a surprising wealth of Creative Commons images available to us. -- Zanimum 15:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. But what bothers me is this use of unfree images when we have lots of good quality free ones. The "movie career" is undoubtedly something that deserves mentionning, due to its peculiarity, but I don't see how what that image adds any new information. It's just "Gisele". And we already have so many "free Giseles". Would you have any objection if I remove the image? --Abu Badali 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to you removing the image, and I'll personally deleted it as a fair use orphan if you do. However, it does show she's "not just a pretty face", but can emote, something not really seen elsewise. Perhaps ask for another opinion on the village pump. -- Zanimum 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a sense of humor and

Hi Abu Badali. I like this addition to your user page, and am glad that you're not taking your RfA personally. Please don't let it get you down; you do great work around here and are very much appreciated. ×Meegs 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rv on Pele article

Did you revert my change to the Pele article because you thought I had restored the copvio picture? I didn't restore the copyvio picture, I restored an older picture than used to be on the page. Granted, this second picture is the subject of unknown provenance but it is not copyvio as far as I know. Could you restore my edit if you were mistaken? If you weren't, and were removing my edit as per policy (perhaps because the picture's dubious provenance means it cannot be in the article), then please accept my apologies. --Jim (Talk) 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hester Prynne

Hi, and thanks for contacting me.

I wonder what is wrong with the image you have orphaned now twice. Had your message to me not read, 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, I would have contacted you beforehand.

You may have realized that I put it in an article on Hester Prynne rather than Demi Moore, although either would have been legitimate: The photo does show Hester Prynne, a fictional character, doesn't it?

What do you want? Have one third of all the images on Wikipedia deleted?

Best wishes, <KF> 16:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So what about the following images (a random pick, which took me a few minutes only):

Image:KylieMinogueIShouldBeSoLuckyVideo.jpg

Image:Rachel weisz.jpg

Image:Flynn robin hood.jpg

Image:Batemanas.jpg

Image:TwoWomen FF 300x225 071420050956.gif

Image:Rachelward-2.JPG

Image:Bataud1.jpg

Image:AudreyHepburnInSabrina.JPG

Image:Mubarak 1.jpg

Image:Hughgrantmug.jpg

What makes each of these images more legitimate here at Wikipedia than Demi Moore's?

As always, this is not a rhetorical question.

All the best, <KF> 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove or tag them. Just answer my question. And ask others for their opinion. I guess Wikipedia would have been sued hundreds of times if the use of all those images out there were so fundamentally wrong.

On a different note, I suppose there's a lot of important work to be done here at Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd at least consider spending my time on a task I could also complete in the foreseeable future.

I'm going to log off now, so I'm not likely to reply to messages until some time tomorrow. Good night, wherever you are. <KF> 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop that crusade of yours. It's bordering on the ridiculous. I've just been reading your current talk page, and you seem to have a long history of antagonising other contributors. Please get your priorities right. You'll hardly get any reward for this activity, whether within this community or outside. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and most of the things to be achieved here can be achieved through teamwork. Let us not work against each other.

As you correctly remark somewhere, you do not have absolute authority over what is going on here. Even the guidelines you so strictly adhere to are—you won't believe it—man-made (i e open to discussion and change) rather than God-given. Willing executioners, unconditionally obedient to a "real," imagined, or usurped authority, have not always played a laudable role in history.

I don't know how old you are or what you do for a living, but you might want to check your actions here against your decisions in real life. Concerning Wikipedia, if you lay off for, say, a couple of weeks, other contributors will fill in for you if the task you're performing right now is really an urgent one. I suppose monitoring the gallery of new files to see if some newbies have uploaded copyrighted images or vanity photos or other contentious or unacceptable material is very necessary, but removing screenshots and magazine and book covers from articles after they have stayed there for months, if not years, should not be our priority.

Also, consider that there is such a thing as compromise. For example, instead of removing an image (usually without discussing it, which makes people put it back again in the first place) we could keep it and add a more detailed fair use rationale. (Some of the images I have listed have one.) Being confrontational and co-operative are not mutually exclusive, are they?

Best wishes, <KF> 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Baldness Treatments

Don't understand the objections. The page I link too is not commercial and just contains a bunch of links to scientific papers, patents, etc. It is pretty benign compared to what else is on the baldness treatments page. Also, with millions of out-going links from Wikipedia diluting page rank to nothing, a link to a particular website does no good with Google rank. So what is the problem? Pproctor 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you in any way related to that site? If so, you should avoid posting links to it. Also, collections of links are rarely a good external resource. It's preferable to link to the real object instead. --Abu Badali 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we interpret the rules differently. You shouldn't link to commercial pages. But where does it say you cannot link to non-commercial ones, review articles, etc.? Similarly, links to pages summarizing links are a lot tidier than listing each link individually. Pproctor 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image from Kate Winslet

I dispute your removal of the screencapture of Kate Winslet as under the fair use rules it is perfectly acceptable as a participant in the film qualifies as part of "its contents". However I did not revert your deletion as the image chosen was poor and included unnecessary dialogue subtitles. But a screencapture from any of her films -- so long as she is illustrated -- is perfectly acceptable under Fair use. I've had this debate with others before. 23skidoo 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean discuss?

about the picture of the twins on the multiracial page? what's wrong with it? Colorfulharp233 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

i guess you're right, i never thought of it that way. thanks. and why is my answer showing up in this box? Colorfulharp233 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:My Wife and Kids.jpg

I have now located a source and have removed the template. --Thorpe | talk 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will delete the image then. --Thorpe | talk 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Images

Quite a few of the John Kerry are in Public Domain as taken by the United States Navy, and under U.S law it is part of the government thus isn't copyrighted. Thanks 216.189.165.232 02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Category: User talk archives