Talk:Alicia Rhodes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Image
(I had placed {{fairusedisputed}} on the image page. Dispute moved to Image talk:Alicia Rhodes.jpg:)
- Hi-res reproduction of professional artistic work. Lupo 10:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- (508x750, 62 KB) is not a too high resolution for fair use. It's not even 1 mega pixel. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:45, 22 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe I've met Lupo's demands. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:48, 22 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe "fair use" images should not be larger than needed. The image was used in the article at 180px across. After channging the layout at Alicia Rhodes, it was used at 200px. I believe this is large enough for use in an infobox or otherwise on Wikipedia, and a "fair use" image doesn't need to be larger. Hence I've scaled the image down to 200×225px, which is all we need. Now, could you please provide a fair use rationale addressing the four points of fair use? It shouldn't be hard: low-res, unfit for serious print publication, sufficient only for web use, so we don't diminish the original image's market value. Also cropped. A problem may be that I couldn't find a copyright statement on the source site: it may not actually hold the copyright of the image, and is thus not a good source for a promotional photo... Lupo 07:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Dispute moved to Talk:Alicia Rhodes by EliasAlucard. Lupo 09:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- All I can say is that you're being a tremendous pain in the ass right now. I've met all your demands, and you still haven't given up yet. You have no reason to deem it as no fair use image. Hell, it was a perfect fair use image from the first upload, and you still haven't given up by altering it. Why don't you just remove the image since that's what you want? By the way, on Wikipedia we don't work after what you believe; if you got any rules that say fair use images must have a lousy resolution to be deemed fair use, then I think you should give a link to such Wikipedia rules. If not, then knock it off with the complications. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:50, 23 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
- Watch your language. Provide a fair use rationale, and it'll be fine. Lupo 09:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe "fair use" images should not be larger than needed. The image was used in the article at 180px across. After channging the layout at Alicia Rhodes, it was used at 200px. I believe this is large enough for use in an infobox or otherwise on Wikipedia, and a "fair use" image doesn't need to be larger. Hence I've scaled the image down to 200×225px, which is all we need. Now, could you please provide a fair use rationale addressing the four points of fair use? It shouldn't be hard: low-res, unfit for serious print publication, sufficient only for web use, so we don't diminish the original image's market value. Also cropped. A problem may be that I couldn't find a copyright statement on the source site: it may not actually hold the copyright of the image, and is thus not a good source for a promotional photo... Lupo 07:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I believe I've met Lupo's demands. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:48, 22 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
- (508x750, 62 KB) is not a too high resolution for fair use. It's not even 1 mega pixel. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:45, 22 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
- No, I won't. If you have such compassion for it, and to not allow this image to be listed here, then provide it yourself. While you're still at it, go ahead and delete this image because frankly, I'm not going to waste more time on this. Either way, someone else is going to upload another image of her later, and you can waste your and their time on a new dispute similar to this one. EliasAlucard|Talk 12:10, 23 Sept, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale requirement
EliasAlucard said:
"...if you got any rules that say fair use images must have a lousy resolution to be deemed fair use, then I think you should give a link to such Wikipedia rules..."
Quoted verbatim from Wikipedia:Fair use:
The image or media description page must contain:
- Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
- An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.
- For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.
I hope this clears up that line of argument. The image will be deleted as a copyright infringement if proper justification for fair use is not given in compliance with US fair use law and Wikipedia policy. Rob Church Talk 11:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I still don't see where it says that fair use images must have low resolution. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:42, 28 Mar, 2006 (UTC)
