User:Herostratus/pix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Graphics deletion and other graphics issues

Contents 1 In re: Lauren Jones and image deletion of Lauren_orange_bikini 2 Deleted image 3 Image Deletion 4 Image:Dallas Area Rapid Transit M-Line.jpg 5 Image:farma_zvirat.jpg 6 Image scriptlet 7 Image deletion 8 image 9 Stephen McGee 10 "My", not "The" 11 More RFU baloney... 12 Images 13 RFC re photos 14 Image:CDLSampleQuestions.pdf 15 Non-free photos of bands 16 Werbowy.jpg

[edit] In re: Lauren Jones and image deletion of Lauren_orange_bikini

Hi there! I was just curious as to why the photo was deleted? If stated as a bikini model, why is it not allowed for that photo to be used as reference? Please clarify so that if I have simply put the wrong copyright I can learn which copyright is appropriate. I would love to give rights to Wikipedia to use this photo and am the model and Andy McFarland the photographer. Please let me know how to proceed further. Thanks! Lauren Jones

Thanks for the reply! Herostartaus, I have joint ownership of that photo with Andy M. and with his permission, which I have, can I reupload the photo for use? How can I see that the photo will appear on wikipedia. I would like to try again; I simply picked the wrong copyright choice. Thanks! Lauren Jones

[edit] Deleted image

Hi, I am trying to post an image, which I believe I own the intellectual property to, on Wikipedia for anyone to use. Incidentally I am a lawyer, albeit not an IP lawyer. This is the first time I have tried to post an image, and I must admit I find the instructions complex and not particularly user friendly.

While I was trying to explain the entitlement, you deleted the image without anything other than a pro forma apparently automated reason that made no sense in light of my comments.

Please contact me and discuss what I should be doing and what I did to trigger you deleting it. Winstonwolfe 06:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry your first message and this one crossed. Your suggestions are very helpful. According to the prompts on the image I should have been able to switch it to public domain in the file, but that doesn't appear to be happening - I'll try reloading and see if it works :-)Winstonwolfe 07:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Deletion

Recently I uploaded Image:Fault is history.jpg, which the logs say was then deleted by you for the reason "licensed for Wikipedia or non-commercial use only." This edit summary seems to say nothing of the reason the image was deleted (unless there is some convention for deletion I am just too young an editor to understand). I found the image here, and at the bottom of the page you can see the words "For personal non-commercial use only. All rights reserved." These would seem to allow upload to Wikipedia since it is non-commercial use. Could you enlighten me as to why the image was deleted in more Plain Language? Thank you in Advance :) --Ybbor^T 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dallas Area Rapid Transit M-Line.jpg

Hello.. I noticed you deleted a picture I uploaded from DART's website.. I even added the terms/conditions:

Can you please explain why this kind of licensing doesn't apply to the Wikipedia..? drumguy8800 C T 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the portion I bolded and italicized seems to cover use here at the Wikipedia pretty clearly.. drumguy8800 C T 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:farma_zvirat.jpg

Hiya, you deleted an image by the above name and I'm not clear on why, it's a book cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grendel's mother (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Image scriptlet

Since you are thinking about tackling images, might I suggest you use User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js (documentation). howcheng {chat} 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Greetings. I tried to answer your question on Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you're willing, we could certainly use help deleting the backlog of images in our "deletion" categories. They are:

• Category:Images with unknown source - If the images is in the subcat for over a week ago, and if it still doesn't have a listed source, it can be deleted.
• Category:Images with no copyright tag - After a week, if there's still no copyright tag, delete it.
• Category:Images with unknown copyright status - No listed copyright status after 7 days? Zap it.
• Category:Replaceable fair use images - If it's fair use and "replaceable" (meaning a free image of the subject could possibly be created), delete it after a week.
• And last but not least Category:Orphaned fairuse images - If it's "fair use" but not used in any articles, it gets deleted after a week.

We could sure use the help! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

thanksChildishknack 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen McGee

I'm new to Wikipedia, so forgive my ignorance...

I'm wondering why you deleted the photo I had on the Stephen McGee page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSully (talk • contribs) .

[edit] "My", not "The"

In your future communications, please use "My" rather than "The" when referring to Wikipedia's goals. I am a significant contributor yet it is clear that my input has not been considered in this case. In fact, I don't remember having any discussion about most of the images that seem to have disappeared today, without even any discussion on the talk page of the articles themselves. That is highly improper. Your conduct is seriously impoverishing Wikipedia, and this is made even more sad by the fact that the companies producing the items in question have uploaded the photographs for just such a use (to make their products better known). There is considerable controversy at this moment, as I'm sure you well know, about the deletion of promotional photographs. So you seem to be doing this simply to prove a point, rather than to mitigate any real threat. This may tend to create enmity with many productive editors, as many of the deleters seem, from their edit histories, simply to delete, and not create much or any content. Again, let me reiterate: I do not agree with your policies nor the unilateral manner you are carrying them out, with regard to the deletion of promotional images without discussion on the pages from which they are being removed. I ask, sincerely, that you please modify both your language and your behavior in the future. Further, please think of how it must feel if you were in the position of being wiki-stalked in such a manner as you are now doing to me (considering the countless number of hours it took to locate and input those images in the first place, for the benefit of our community and users). Badagnani 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you'll find, however, that the types of editors attracted to visit and comment at such places seem to be ones with a predilection toward the negative side of things, i.e. always wishing to delete content submitted by other editors (even ones such as myself, who are scrupulous about only adding promotional photos and giving them the "promophoto" tag). The editors, on the other hand, who are most productive and constructive, adding large amounts of useful content, often don't choose to concern themselves with such confrontational agendas, or try to control (generally meaning "remove") the valid content added by other long-time editors; they simply keep adding content in their areas of specialization, selflessly. (Case in point the photos of extremely rare and obscure Asian liquors, many unknown to most people even within their countries of origin, which took innumerable hours to locate, and all of which have been summarily deleted without meaningful discussion, despite the fact that the producing companies have not and most likely will never object to the use of such photos in our not-for-profit educational forum). There seem to be, unfortunate as the case may be, two types of editors most active here: those who choose to add content and those who do their best to remove it, due to whatever imaginary threat. So I think it's going to be fairly predictable what the outcome is going to be. The debate over promotional photos may be found at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Badagnani 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More RFU baloney...

I'm in a bit of a spot for implementing the new RFU procedures, and I was wondering, if you had some time, if you could add your thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok. Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks for your comments on Tina Karol's image. Please make your point heard on identical cases in the images from Ruslana and Werbowy articles. TIA, --Irpen 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your valuable opinions expressed at the image's discussion even though your opinion at some image's differs from mine. Also, I would like to give you my complements for this honorable action. Keep up the good work for a better Wikipedia and here is something for you that helps fight the stress. --Irpen 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC re photos

Since you replied at the Tami Farrell image... would you care to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? Thanks... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CDLSampleQuestions.pdf

I have found this in a pear-to-pear network that is similar to kazaa. The author has released it in the public domain. I know some people that have used it to study for their CDL license. --Jessica93 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free photos of bands

Hello again. I've put some thoughts together at User:Quadell/non-free photos of bands about whether (and when) non-free photos of bands are replaceable. If you have an opinion and want to weigh in, I'd value your input. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werbowy.jpg

hi i tried too refrase the clame on fair use for the picture.Our goal is that the image stayes,were ever the image will apear in the article or how sily the arguments might hear.Please can you trie to brign more editors in the discussion,this is not about one photo but how we can bypass the deletionist in the future--Pixel ;-) 14:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)