User talk:Quadell/archive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives
  1 (4/8/2004 – 9/14/2004) 1 - 50
  2 (9/16/2004 – 10/15/2004) 51 - 100
  3 (10/16/2004 – 11/18/2004) 101 - 150
  4 (11/18/2004 – 12/8/2004) 151 - 200
  5 (12/8/2004 – 12/30/2004) 201 - 250
  6 (12/31/2004 – 2/11/2005) 251 - 300
  7 (2/11/2005 – 3/5/2005) 301 - 350
  8 (3/5/2005 – 3/29/2005) 351 - 400
  9 (3/30/2005 – 5/21/2005) 401 - 450
  10 (5/22/2005 – 8/06/2005) 451 - 500
  11 (8/06/2005 – 10/14/2005) 501 - 550
  12 (10/16/2005 – 11/22/2005) 551 - 600
  13 (11/23/2005 – 1/12/2006) 601 - 650
  14 (1/12/2006 – 2/2/2006) 651 - 700
  15 (2/2/2006 – 2/21/2006) 701 - 750
  16 (2/22/2006 – 3/24/2006) 751 - 800
  17 (3/25/2006 – 8/28/2006) 801 - 850
  18 (8/29/2006 – 10/13/2006) 851 - 900
  19 (10/13/2006 – 11/4/2006) 901 - 950
  20 (11/4/2006 – 11/29/2006) 951 - 1000
  21 (11/29/2006 – Christmas) 1001 - 1050
  22 (12/27/2006 – 5/10/2007) 1051 - 1100
  23 (5/10/2007 – 6/17/2007) 1101 - 1150
  24 (6/17/2007 – 6/25/2007) 1151 - 1200
  25 (6/25/2007 – 7/4/2007) 1201 - 1250
  26 (7/4/2007 – 7/9/2007) 1251 - 1300
  27 (7/9/2007 – 7/12/2007) 1301 - 1350
  28 (7/13/2007 – 7/16/2007) 1351 - 1400
  29 (7/16/2007 – 7/21/2007) 1401 - 1450
  30 (7/21/2007 – 7/27/2007) 1451 - 1500
  31 (7/27/2007 – 8/2/2007) 1501 - 1550
  32 (8/3/2007 – 8/14/2007) 1551 - 1600
  33 (8/14/2007 – 8/25/2007) 1601 - 1650
  34 (8/25/2007 – 9/13/2007) 1651 - 1700
  35 (9/14/2007 – 10/5/2007) 1701 - 1750
  36 (10/5/2007 – 12/10/2007) 1751 - 1800
  37 (12/10/2007 – 12/21/2007) 1801 - 1850
  38 (12/21/2007 – ) 1851 -
Current talk
This archive contains messages from October 13, 2006 to November 4, 2006.

Contents

[edit] 2008 Mariner Image

I noticed you placed a Fair Use disputed tagline on the image of the 2008 Mariner (Image:08MercuryMariner thum01 MR.jpg), on the basis that a freely obtained photograph should be available as a substitute. The vehicle does not go on sale until early 2007, and is not available to the general public for photography at this time. The image was obtained as a promotional image for the press release regarding an upcoming vehicle. This is why the "promotional" tag was placed on the image, which was obtained from Ford Press Release materials as explained and documented in the image information. Did you read the source info and check the linked information to verify the proper fair use justification? Or did you just blunder on ahead without studying the information first? I do understand you are on a mission to squash all promotional "fair use" images, and that is fine for you, but I hope you will reconsider your action on this particular image, and remove your dispute tag, at your ealiest convenience, before the image is speedily deleted by an administrator who may also not be particularly attentive, which would I think have the effect of diminishing the Wikipedia, contrary to the image use policies and philosophy. Thanks for your consideration. --T-dot 23:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article for Overthrow of Sukarno

Hi how are you? I saw the article's history page and found that you were the one who listed it as good article. But apparently someone has delisted it because the article lacks images. Could you join the discussion on the discussion page, please? We will greatly appreciate it. Cheers -- Imoeng 06:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daytona International Speedway image

Please review this image Image:Rc19403.jpg to see if I tagged the image properly. I have uploaded a significant number of images from the free use Florida Photographic Collection. This must have been one of the first ones, for I pasted in a better description on later images. I would appreciate it if you would contact me directly next time you see a weakly sourced image of mine. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 14:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flies with honey

You've been quite tactful in most of your dealings with uploaders of improper "fair use" images, and I congratulate you in keeping your cool, even when maligned and yelled at. But I want to encourage you to go the extra mile in being tactful in these cases. The reason is, if people dispute the rfu tag, it makes more work for us, and people are less likely to dispute if they are treated with more respect than necessary. For instance, this user has uploaded a lot of his own images, and a lot of pd images, but he has also uploaded a lot of so-called "promotional" images of guns, and those are of course not acceptable. I tagged the images with rfu, and left him a very courteous note. It's worth reading.

There will be some people who will fight tooth-and-nail for every piddling image no matter what you do. But especially tactful messages might reduce the number of disputations. That's my hope, anyway. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll keep watching myself. I understand that a lot of these images that are going to be now deleted were uploaded in good faith by users that tried to follow all the available guidelines, and we should make it clear to them that they should not feel accused. Indeed, I see a lot of opportunities for being tactful comming down the road... :) --Abu Badali 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sip Kwon Do

deleted after five days per WP:PROD - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - you're an administrator?? and you're asking me about basic deletion policy? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 October 13/Images

Are all those tagged images going to be automatically deleted after an x-day listing period? I suggest you take a look through all those images you tagged, most of them would fall under fair use legal guidelines, and some of them would even cut the Wikipedia guidelines. For example, how is Image:Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C.jpg reasonably replacable. It's a fair use image of the world's largest conventional engine. Very few people are going to know what it is, let alone have access to a ship which uses such an engine. There are other examples I've quoted on the copyvio discussion too, I'd like you to take a look at them again. - Hahnchen 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I answered your questions there. I resent the accusation that I was being "lazy" and "using a shotgun approach". I carefully looked through each image, and those images which did not seem to be replaceable I did not include. A lazy person would never have spent the hour and a half it took to list all those.
Even if "very few" people are able to replace an image, it's still replaceable. Someone took the photo, so it stands to reason that someone else could as well. (Now if the engine were no longer in existence, that would be a different story.) I'm afraid that none of the images I listed are irreplaceable, and therefore none of them pass our first fair use criterion. See this for more information. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Las marquesas.jpg

It's entirely possible that I just tagged the image inappropriately. Have you looked at what the image is and how it was created? Or just at the fact that it's tagged {{fairuse}} and someone added a {{replacethisimage}} to it in the Marquesas Islands article? Tomertalk 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Quadell, just a sidenote...consider adding an extra = to the = _FILENAME = of the template you used to send me that notice...the way it's set up now, it creates a separate section from the one you intended to create, which is a bit confusing initially. Cheers, Tomertalk 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Colored pencils.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Colored pencils.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--Sherool (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

I've got WP:CP on my watchlist and just wanted to mention that I enjoy your edit summaries on that. :) Great work btw. Since now I am here (this talk) anyway. What do you think of Wikipedia:Non-free images. Garion96 (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IFD

Greetings, Abu. I see you have occasionally listed images on WP:IFD when someone disputes the {{rfu}} tag. The trouble is, the people at IFD are more used to dealing with orphan images, duplicate images, and other encyclopedic concerns, and are often not as well-versed in copyright law or copyright policy at Wikipedia. I think if you list the images on WP:CP instead, you'll get better results. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the tip. But actually, I have previously nominated images for deletion based on FUC#1 and it never failed. The policy is clear in this point and the admins watchin ifd seem to usually be happy with only a breief explanation on what's wrong with the image (ignoring the "votes" that always follow). You may want to give it a try. --Abu Badali 17:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Ilinden uprising krushevo flag.gif

Please do remove the Image:Ilinden uprising krushevo flag.gif. As you already know, I have uploaded a JPEG alternative HERE, cause I had some problems with the GIF version. This valid jpeg version was supposed to be used in the following 5 articles: Ilinden uprising, Krushevo Republic, VMRO, Macedonia (region) and History of the Republic of Macedonia (I have placed Template:Fairusein5 and a fair use rationale for each article separately, but now I see that you have edited that, probably because it is currently used only in one of them).
Although this image is properly sourced and tagged (correct me if Im wrong), it was removed unilaterally from Ilinden uprising and the explanation that was provided was quite poor IMO (please check the version history of Ilinden uprising).
At the same time, paradoxally, the other editors of that article insist to use the following picture: Image:Ohrid Banner1.jpg for which there's no even basic information, there are absolutely no sources, no links, nothing and the current licencing tag is improper as that image is a historical flag and not something like an artistic painting. Shortly speaking: the uploader is avoiding several wikipedia rules (plz check the discussion page for this image) and Im sure you will do something about it. Because of these reasons I decided not to add my picture to all of the 5 articles as it was planned, cause I see that the rules are offten being avoided and disrespected: a licenced image has been removed, while an unlicenced one remains untouched. Thank you. --Vbb-sk-mk 06:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the fair use rationale for Image:Manuel Fernandez.JPG

"It's use on Wikipedia ..." I believe that it's "its" here. :-) --Jtir 10:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Lost-actor images report

I'd forgotten about that completely, so I very much appreciate your diligence and, additionally, keeping me in the loop. I am confused why a character photo can't be fair use in an actor article though, if a free or better licensed image of the actor hasn't been found. I thought my fair use criteria I added (I believe it was without any previously) would help it to remain, not get it deleted.

I don't care about that image as opposed to another one as long as the replacements aren't bad, so the orphans can be cheeerfully deleted.

Here's the reasoning I added. What is flawed about it? Clearly there's a flaw, or it wouldn't have been put up for deletion. "Fair use rationale: This is an image of a photo of an actress, in character (demeanor, situation/environment, dress, hairstyle, makeup) on one of her signature series/roles. It is used on the actress's article page not to promote but to uniquely, visually identify the actress with a promotional image of arguably her most famous role to date. No free alternative has been found, and this image will not inhibit the sale of the series or any merchandise featuring the actress or her character." TransUtopian 13:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Could be created"? Can you link me to the policy update for that please? TransUtopian 14:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! TransUtopian 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks a lot
for your timely message. Although I know I'm not left all alone, it's good to see that others do feel the same way. Thank you! Lupo 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Image:Isurus oxyrinchus.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. I uploaded it as a US government PD work. It turns out I was wrong on this since it was a state government and the rules are very different. I did not tag it fair use and am not sure it can be justified as fair use, how about deletion? --Oldak Quill 16:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Short alley.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Short alley.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Arnold-palmer.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arnold-palmer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Mercedes terrell 4.jpg

Ok, so, what do you want me to do? Remove the promotional tag from this picture or something like that? Please explain this to me carefuly. Thank you. --Aeternus 09:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's not much you can do, unfortunately. The image just isn't allowed on Wikipedia, because of Criterion #1 at WP:FUC. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] argenta gap image

RE: your comments: The website owner seemed to be a regular wikipedia user, so based on that I assume they would know the rules and thus were allowing me the rights on the image needed in order to display it on wikipedia. However i'm afraid i dont have any solid proof, maybe another email to them is in order. Regards.--SGGH 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pics fair use

Hello Quadell what problems are their with the pictures you have chosen that I uploaded.

All my pics are Official Images what info do you need to stop deleting them ?

Cheers--VWphaetonfan 05:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm afraid more information will not help. According to our fair use policy, we can not use non-free images (like the ones you uploaded) except in very limited circumstances. One requirement is that it be impossible to create a new "free" image that would convey the same information. For cars, that's never going to be the case, so the images will have to be deleted. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete till you find a replacement of the pictures provided. I bet you don't they are very hard to find & should go in the purposed "free" catergory. --VWphaetonfan 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass RFU issues

Hi, we bumped into each other recently in regards to a third editor's fair use claims. I'm actually concerned that the majority of User:KnoxSGT's image uploads fall into the replacable fair use category. Most of them are images of minor league ball parks sourced from ball park review sites. I've tagged a lot of them, but his response is to simply revert my tags. I need some help. He's a valuable contributor otherwise. ccwaters 14:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked over it, and tagged some. I'll try to keep an eye on it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this (Image:YORC.JPG) is a artist's concept of a stadium currently being constructed, so it actually passes FUC #1 until next spring. :) Thanks for you help. ccwaters 18:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MT30 low res.JPG

Hi, thanks for the message. I cannot argue that a free alternative for this image could be created. However it couldn't easily be created my many Wikipedians and certainly not by me. If it was an image of a jet engine, that's simple enough - we just need someone to go to an airshow or have access to an airport to take a picture of the thing hanging on a wing. However a marine engine is in the very bowels of a ship and only accessible by a limited number of a ship's crew, never mind the general public. Having said that I cannot say it is "not replaceable at all" as instructed. What do you think? Sorry for taking up your time. Mark83 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with your logic 100% and agree a free alternative could be created. However I think I'll take your advice and let the processing admin decide given the question mark over how easily such a free image could be created. Thanks for your time, Mark83 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar! Thanks!

Image:Smilebubble.png Dude, thanks!
My first Barnstar, man, I appreciate you appreciating my efforts :) ! Quadell, thanks buddy! This made my day. --Anas Salloum 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{FuckInMoviesChart}}

This template that you created I just stumbled across, as it's now orphaned. SHould it actually go somewhere, get subst:'d to something, or is it just better off deleted? I'm thinking of Subst'ing a copy into BJAODN. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was formerly in List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, but it was removed back in June. I'd prefer if it were updated and re-added, personally. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, as a single use tempalte it should probably get subst:'d then, with a note in a comment or on the talk page for editors, so it's easier to update, I think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Bldgoval.jpg

Why did you remove the Template:Confirmation from Image talk:Bldgoval.jpg? -- Jreferee 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The {{Confirmation}} template is supposed to be added by the Wikimedia PR department when they receive notice from the copyright holder that they release the content under the GFDL (or another free license). If you are the copyright-holder, and you are willing to release the material in this way, then send PR a note saying as much. (They will confirm this with bushnellbuilding.com to prevent spurious claims.) If you have already done this, be patient, and the PR department will add the template once it's confirmed. If you are not the copyright-holder, or if the copyright-holder does not wish to license the picture under the GFDL, then the Confirmation template will not get added. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Once you have received a confirmation that permission has been given, you should forward it to the Wikimedia Communications committee at the e-mail address "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org", where it will be securely archived. Forward both your request and the answer received to that e-mail address, preferrably together as one message (e.g., as attachments to one message of yours that would say that you received such-and-such release of which article or image). You should add a note to the effect that permission has been confirmed on the article's talk page (not in the article itself) or on the image description page, but avoid disclosing unnecessary personal details such as email addresses or telephone numbers. You may wish to use the {{confirmation}} template for this purpose.

I received a confirmation, I forward it the Wikimedia Communications committee, and I added a note on the article's talk page the effect that permission has been confirmed by using the {{Confirmation}} template. Do you have a link to the the policy that says the template is supposed to be added by the Wikimedia PR department? -- Jreferee 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I don't. Looks like I was wrong. I'll add the notice back for you. Sorry about that, then. Anyway, if the image was released under the GFDL, you can re-tag it as {{GFDL}}. (If it's some other license, then you can change the tag appropriately.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, you may want to fix the tag. It says "url" instead of the actual url. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Quadell, you should feel free to ask me to look up permissions tickets for confirmation. That said, nothing comes up searching for "Image:Bldgoval.jpg", so I need more information. We probably shouldn't be using a template labelled "confirmed" when we haven't verified receiving the permission -- as I am sure you can imagine, we get a lot of "Yes, you can use this on Wikipedia" permissions. You can look at commons:Template:PermissionOTRS for what I think is probably a better system. Jkelly 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Right... we should make the process as easy as possible, and reduce any chances for confusion. Thanks for looking into this and helping out. Did you receive a response from us with an OTRS # in the subject header? Jkelly 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I have found the ticket, and updated the image description page. Jkelly 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food

I put the food article on my watchlist and already reverted it once today. I'll fix it whenever I can if someone screws with it again. 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete of Image:Aps 01.jpg

Often when an admin is involved in a contested speedy delete, they allow another admin to make the final decision. I am not terribly upset, just feel like your opinion was given greater value than mine. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I'll try to avoid processing the ones I've commented on in the future (although sometimes it's hard to remember). – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-replaceable images

I don't think the point of the "non-replaceable images" clause is to encourage the deletion of all "fair use" images made of living people. It is to avoid using fair use for trivial reasons or out of laziness. I think official portraits, promo headshots, and other things of this nature are well within the bounds both of our fair use policy as well as within any legal problems. (When a free alternative is available, as is sometimes but not usually the case, it should of course be taken and privileged—but these are quite rare at the moment.) I think we should make sure that we are enacting the spirit and not just the letter of the policies; I think it leads to unnecessary grief and difficulty to do it any other way. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Persondata"

Yet more ugly and pointless tables and boxes - I will delete these whenever I see them. Adam 15:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They're not invisible to me - am I Superman? Adam 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I can see them, I hate them, they are ugly and useless, and I will delete them on sight. Don't you have something useful to do here? Adam 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from further reversion until tomorrow. If I can still see them then, I will delete them. Adam 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reupload of deleted material

Quadell, could you take a look at this user's recent uploads? I believe most of them are reuploads of recently deleted material from Category:Replaceable fair use images. According to WP:CSD G4, they could be deleted on-sight. And maybe the user should be warned. Thanks! --Abu Badali 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Andrew's recreations

Thanks, I took care of it, and I'll watch him. He has uploaded a number of good, PD images, and I hope he continues doing good things for Wikipedia. But I hope he quits with the non-free images too. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! But he's at it again. This time he used different filenames, but the images are the same. Earl Andrew is an admin and is aparently acting in willfull disregard for the policies. This is very sad and I hope we can educate him on these matters. --Abu Badali 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangit

I was hoping to finish Oct 19 so I could post a witty edit summary for once!  :) --Aguerriero (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I never let you have any fun. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Chiarelli and other pictures

All pictures are fair-use, why did you delete them? --Deenoe 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image you have deleted where related to Ottawa municipal election, 2006 (all mayoral candidates), so they all qualify for fair-use. --Deenoe 21:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We had permissions from some candidates to use the pictures. Like Jane Scharf, Larry O'Brien and Piotr Anweiller. --Deenoe 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Weiss AfD

I didn't know that having that external link wasn't allowed. Thanks for the understanding and assistance. By the way, though, I don't think that sites critical of Wikipedia are necessarily "bad." Those sites can help expose abuses that are going on on Wikipedia that we (regular Wikipedia editors and administrators) might not be aware of because we're too close to the subject, one example being this Gary Weiss episode. Cla68 22:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KeithPatrickCardinalOBrien.jpg

Re. the image and fairuse. "Originally upload by Gerald Farinas and mistaken as Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, Archbishop of Montreal." Don't tell me, tell the person who originally uploaded it, I only re-uploaded under a more appropriate name. -- KTC 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Please feel free to participate in what I hope will be a fruitful discussion. - Mcasey666 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:10FP.jpg

Can you help with this image. What are you looking for? How can we fix this to let the image remain? Thanks FrankWilliams 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A favor?

Could you take a look at the listing for Pilot (House) on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other? I have looked at it with regards to what can stay and what must go, but I would like to hear the opinion of someone else experienced in these matters (and unbiased by my conclusions, so I won't be tipping my hand just yet). My comment on the article's FAC can provide some background on my opinions about the issues informing the case, if you want that (and the fact that the article has an FAC should tell you why I'm so concerned to get this exactly right). --RobthTalk 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeep Made in China

Thanks for pointing out the "fair use" of the Jeep made in China (Image:2005 Jeep 2500 Made in China-PR.jpg). It is an edited version of the press release photo, but I put the "promotional" tag in it and gave the reasons for its use. I also included the following statement:

  • A photograph of an actual Jeep 2500 from China would be appreciated! If someone has been in China and took a "free" image of this Jeep, then they should upload it in the "Jeep XJ category in the Commons area" and replace this one! Thank you CZmarlin 01:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

However, before an actual "free" picture is available, I think it should be good to show the current image because it illustrates the similarities and differences with the Jeep models that were made in the USA. I think this is significant to show that the vehicle that was introduced in 1983 is still being manufactured (albeit with an updated grille and headlamps) in China. What would you suggest to do so that readers can have a visual of the current Jeep product made in China? Once again, thank you for your consideration on this matter, CZmarlin 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XPress article : Complete deletion uncalled for

Though i did copy/paste the company description from the company's official page, i'm not aware if this on its own is considered a copyright infringement, but it certainly doesn't call for the complete deletion of the article!!!

--Basem 9:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use replaceable images

No issues with those two: both easily replaceable since they are of contemporary and widely available products. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Table Alphabeticall

I have seen one edition (I think it is the 1604 edition, but I have to check). I am digging into this subject a bit more and slowly learning about it. So the article should get longer and more detailed as I learn more.--Filll 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ANA-7E7.jpg

Are we going to do this again? It's the same reason as last time (Image:MMA.jpg). If this is an automated process, it needs to be stopped or put into check. I'm not going to go through this with you every time you send me a note about a CGI image about a future product which does not yet exist (I have uploaded many of these sorts of images.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. The image description did not say that the product is an "artist's conception" and has not been released. I should have read the relevant part of the article, though.
This is not an automated process. I simply look for non-free images which appear to be "repeatable", tag them, and notify the uploader. When the person who tagged an image is wrong about the image being non-repeatable, you can let him know by adding {{replaceable fair use disputed}}. Although if this is too much work, no one is forcing you to do so. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that whole process gets old. You're not the only tagging images where no free substitute is available. I think it's safe to say that if it's an aerospace product that has not yet been released, then the image is fair use. In those cases, I use photos taken from press releases. Given the nature of the aerospace industry, you will encounter this quite often. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 way tailgate

That picture was scanned from a magazine ad, the only way to duplicate would be to find a similar 1968-1972 wagon, get permission from an owner to give a demonstration, and take a picture of it. Please withdraw your objection. --matador300 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated how it would be possible to create a free version of this image. It wouldn't be easy, but it would certainly be doable. The image is therefore replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
All that accomplishes is removing the image since what I described is about a probable as a airplane crashing on your house. --~~ 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] fair use at Image:08-10BillHilf2004 lg.jpg

I am actually unsure here. I thought that promotional shots were by their nature fair use (which is why for example, we have so many corporate logos and promo pictures of cars on their pages). In general, I am pretty clear on fair use, but I have not heard the criteria expressed as you did in your message to me. It is obviously important for the article on Bill Hilf. ... aa:talk 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people are under the impression that it's okay to use promotional images of items and people, unfortunately. The Wikipedia Foundation recently tightened up the rules in this regard, and started enforcing them. (This is why you may see fewer and fewer promo pictures of cars, for instance, in Wikipedia articles.) Here's the reasoning: It's almost certainly legally acceptable to use promo photos, but it goes against Wikipedia's goal of creating a completely free encyclopedia. In the case of, say, Bob Hope, there's no way anyone could take his photo now, since he's dead -- so a non-free image of him may be acceptable. (It's "non-replaceable".) But it's certainly possible for someone to photograph Bill Hilf and release the photo under a free license, since he's still alive, so that photo is "replaceable". Jimbo Wales recently added "counter-example #8" to WP:FU to make this explicit.
So what can you do? One possibility is to e-mail the copyright-holder and ask if we can use the image. (You may find some assistance at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission in this.) Some people are quite happy to freely license a photo, when they find that this is the only way their photo can be used on Wikipedia. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have personal reasons for not wanting to ask Microsoft (that's their photo) for permission to use it here. I also won't speculate as to their stance on the matter. I do believe Mr. Hilf has edited that article himself (there are a few edits from Issaquah), but he's obviously not the photographer. At any rate, I would suggest adding a "deprecated" tag to the {{promo}} template, as I was going on that. I think it's kind of a pain in the ass that Jimbo is making policy decisions like that. Another example of this is my labeling images I upload (pictures I've taken) and labeling them {{GFDL}}. Then I got a bunch of whiny auto-messages stating I needed to indicate what the source was. It turns out that long after I started deliberately seeking out items to photograph for Wikipedia (such as in Hawaii and elsewhere), somebody created a {{gfdl-self}} template. I can't keep up with all the policy changes, and this one is a subtle one (just as the gfdl/gfdl-self one was). I have a full time job and I am also trying to finish a book. I have precisely zero time to be editing or relicensing or chasing down permission for photos that were previously okay. Please understand that I'm not angry at you, I just think it's inconvenient that we have to have this conversation. Most of the edits I make these days I make because I am reading material here as basis for a book I am writing, or similar.
I appreciate your work in making the place more Free. I do think that's a good thing. It might be harder to find a picture of Bill that is as good as the one that's presently there than you think.
Feel free to leave me messages for other images of mine, but please (I've uploaded tons) do your best to figure out what's going on with the image (like, if it looks like I took it and it's labeled {{GFDL}}, just label it -self and ask me to confirm) so as to save me the time. Thank you in advance. ... aa:talk 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally understand. I went through your image uploads, and changed all the {{GFDL}} ones to {{GFDL-self}} (except the ones you got from Flickr). I also checked all your other images, and they're all kosher, so you shouldn't get any more notifications about this sort of thing. (I'm bored, and I enjoy this sort of thing.) Good luck on your book! – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Drat. Some of those flickr images are mine. See http://flickr.com/photos/avriette/ . I store my photos digitally on one machine, and upload to flickr as well. Frequently I will be at work or traveling and realize I have a photo I can contribute to an article. I can't always get to the machine with the photos, but I can usually get to flickr, and laziness (and the convenience of the hash used for the filename being obviously unique) causes it to be left with an unintelligible name. For what it's worth, and if you're that bored, I am 100% happy with all those going into commons so other wikipedias may use them. I have been toying with the idea of writing a perl script to do this for some time, but have yet to actually do it. Sigh. Thank you for the well wishes. And, truly, thank you for doing the grunt work. Somebody needs to do it, and I'm glad you enjoy it. ... aa:talk 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1970Telstar 2006-08-11.jpg

The image is of an original Telstar football in mint condition. It is an iconic piece of design history not to mention sports history. The chances of coming across an original Adidas Telstar in such good condition are slim, but if anyone does by all means replace this one. However, please note any old black and white soccer ball will not do. I did write something to this effect on the image page so I am not sure what your point is. --Trounce 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess, I don't know that much about football. How many of these were manufactured? How rare are they today? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your post on the talk page of the image--Trounce 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass removal of replaceable' tag

Quadell, User:Mcasey666 removed the {{rfu}} tag from more the 100 images, without placing the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. Accoding to him, they are "pending the outcome of RFC". He was refering to the RCF about unfree images of canadian politicians he created.

I tried to revert some but they are simply too many. Would we have to retagg all images again, in a revert war?

Should we really null all image tagging until the "outcome of RFC" is reached? When and how is a RFC considered finished? Will he readd all tags he removed if a "outcome" is reached and it's decided that the policy will not be changed?

Thanks! --Abu Badali 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'm re-instating the tags, but I won't be deleting the images in question right away, after 7 days are up. I'll give it a little more time, in the interest of peace. But you're right, the tags shouldn't be removed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Aqsa Image

Hello. I wonder why the Image was in violation. Edits there are mine, and the Image itself is taken from Arabic WikiPedia [1]. I edited the page for the English Wikipedia. Also, what's wrong with using Google Earth. Is there a way to site it more properly to avoid copyrights violations. Thanks. Almaqdisi talk to me 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I agree that it would be great if there were images of the mosque we could use, and I hope someone can provide free images of it. But those two images (including the Google Earth image) were copyrighted, and not available under a free license (such as the GFDL.) As a general rule of thumb, we want to use free images, not non-free images, in Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia remains copyright-free. This doesn't just mean "free" as in no-charge, but "free" as in legal to copy.
There are some, limited situations where it's okay to upload non-free images, but these cases are complex and difficult. If you don't have a good grasp of our fair-use policy, it's best to only upload images that you know are in the public domain. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Quadell, thanks. I was not aware of these issues. I will read more and look for other free images. Almaqdisi talk to me 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

It has been a while since I've done this and after I read the policies fully, I haven't uploaded a single image that would violate any Wikipedia policy. You would know this if you bothered to look at my history. I will upload what I want to upload as long at they quality as fair or free use as per Wikipedia policies. Please don't place unwarranted warnings on user's talk pages. This could be considered vandalism as per Wikipedia policies. Roguegeek (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure my response was also rash and, I too, apologize for that. It is my intention to have any article I work on to only be using free use images. In the case where I uploaded Image:Honda RC212V.jpg, I uploaded it knowing it would have to be replaced next year when the product is publicly show. Because there has been no public appearance of it just yet, there hasn't been a chance to photograph it and, therefore, it would pass first fair use criterion. Any instance going forward where I would upload a fair use image that passes all criterion, it a personal priority of mine to replace that image with a free use image as quickly as possible. Roguegeek (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a little FYI. Anytime I upload an image that I believe passes all criterion of fair use (especially first criterion), I will place in the talk pages my reasoning for it. Roguegeek (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

I see you beat me to the finish of October 25. Now I'm stuck trying to remember what the lead up to that punchline is... :) --RobthTalk 19:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use of Images / Big Brother Australia 2006 Article

Talk:Big Brother Australia 2006 Amazonis 05:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)