| Revision as of 19:31, 23 September 2008 editDavidDCM (talk | contribs)878 edits →User Oguzhantr← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:35, 28 September 2008 edit undoStavros1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,993 edits ConcerenedNext edit → | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
| ::I thank you for your fast response to this issue. :) --] (]) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | ::I thank you for your fast response to this issue. :) --] (]) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==B Roads in Norfolk, Again?== | |||
| Hello Ian13, | |||
| Can you have another look at ], ], ] and ] again, as these article seem to be under threat again from another editor. Once again it is the Notability question which has arisen. I thought that the reason for these roads to be notable had already been established but once again this is being questioned and I think there is likelihood that this editor may redirect these pages once more.<small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 22:35 28 September 2008 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 21:35, 28 September 2008
|
|
Help required !!!
Hello, I urgently require some help from you. Actually, a user uploaded an Image Image:MangaloreanCatholicsRules.gif on the Mangalorean Catholics article, and released it under the Public domain. But however, when I checked the Individual articles on them, no free Images were present. I checked the entire Wikimedia Commons but those images were not found. That means these are copyrighted images copied from other websites, and then merged into a bigger Image. Is it allowed as per WIKIpolicies. I have contacted you since you are an administrator. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's likely you are correct and it is a copy-vio as a derivative work of copyrighted material. I have tagged the image as needing sources, and evidence of permission from those sources. They have one week to respond and fully tag the images, else it will be deleted. You can actually do this yourself using {{di-no source}} and {{di-no permission}}. I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply..One more copyright violation - Image:Goan Special.jpg on Goan Catholics article. (3 out of 6 images are not free) (IMG 3,5,6). Kensplanet (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- All tagged up. Ian¹³/t 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please delete Image:St, Paul's church, Mangalore.jpg immediately. This was uploaded by me when I didn't have enough knowledge of free Images. It is a 100% copyrighted image. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Vanished. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please delete Image:St, Paul's church, Mangalore.jpg immediately. This was uploaded by me when I didn't have enough knowledge of free Images. It is a 100% copyrighted image. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- All tagged up. Ian¹³/t 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your reply..One more copyright violation - Image:Goan Special.jpg on Goan Catholics article. (3 out of 6 images are not free) (IMG 3,5,6). Kensplanet (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have a question regarding an Image. Hope you don't mind!!! Kensplanet (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, ask away. Ian¹³/t 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you check Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg, the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, well, permission alone is not sufficient. This is because images from Misplaced Pages are used elsewhere. We require that images are either licenced under a free licence (GFDL, cc-by-sa etc., and it must allow commercial use), or meet US fair-use criteria. Because of this, yes, a rationale is probably needed as we are using the image under a claim of fair-use due to the absence of a free licence. Ian¹³/t 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you check Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg, the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, ask away. Ian¹³/t 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can't I use Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg for the Mangalorean Catholics article? A Non-free image can be used for a limited no of articles. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sadly not. On each of the articles that a non-free image is used, for the fair-use claim to be valid it must not be replaceable with a free image. In the case of Mangalorean Catholics, the image was being used to represent a typical or well-known follower, however there are alternative persons, some of whom are alive. Any person who is alive is automatically seen to have replaceable images on the basis that you can just go and take one yourself (despite how infeasible this may be), invalidating any claim that you can use another's copyrighted work. So, in this instance, it is likely that the image is replaceable with a free alternative, and therefore fails NFCC #1. Ian¹³/t 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg
Hello, may I know why was the image deleted? The copyright issues were discussed earlier and were approved by User:Elcobbola, an experienced image reviewer at WP:FAC. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the nomination said "the picture does nothing to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (NFCC #8), and this is something I agreed with. Where it was used in the article (here), I saw no specific commentary about the image, and failed to see that a readers understanding of the topic could be increased by looking at that image. If you can link me to the relevent WP:FAC discussion, I'll be happy to take a look. Ian¹³/t 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
why
did you delete the page about charae carter? she was a contestant for a national pageant that is well known (miss america) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gqprince (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted Charae Carter as there was little indication of notability, and has few/no potential secondary sources. With regards to her being well known, Google doesn't think so, with only 17 results, all passing references, and it seems like they aren't all even about the article's subject. Cheers, (editconflict) Ian¹³/t 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are articles up about dionte johnson and ernie wheelwright, also from columbus ohio, and those aren't people that you would find in an encyclopedia? what is this rule, articles can't be about real people, then who are the articles about? Gqprince (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
- The people you cited seem more well known, amongst other things. Please take a look at WP:N to discover our notability criteria, and see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for information why we need lots of reliable sources about living persons in particular. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your mention I did it.check it out and say your idea please.
Image:Barank.JPG
If persian wiki admin warned about that image to you I must say that image is completly legal and also i have MS baran kosari (image owner) premission too. thanks alot for your attention--Hassanmirabi (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Permission to use it on wikipedia is not sufficient. You must add an appropriate copyright tag to the image. Additionally, the copyright holder should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that it is formerly recorded that the image is licensed under the licence you add. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 17:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
in the bottom of that page has wrotten in persian "using information and pictures with mentioned to source haven't any problem" you can ask about it's legitimacy by other persian languege's users --Hassanmirabi (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) forget it I changed that picture with one of picture that I took it myself last year.then it's copyright is for me isn't?--Hassanmirabi (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, if you took an image, you hold the copyright/ Ian¹³/t 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "Kirk.plaque.Riverside.jpg"
According to the deletion log for the file, you speedy deleted the image, as per CS 17. If I may ask, what was the patently irrelevant fair use template used? Can it be fixed and replaced? - Arcayne () 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
![15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)](https://n.global.ssl.fastly.net/User_talk:Ian13#c-Arcayne-2008-09-20T15:13:00.000Z-Regarding_"Kirk.plaque.Riverside.jpg"){kind=link}
- It was immediately marked for deletion after 48 hours when uploaded (it should have told you this in big letters) because no non-free use rationale was provided (see Template:Non-free_use_rationale). Users are given 48 hours to fix the problem, otherwise CSD I7 (invalid fair use claim) is implemented. This is because to provide an image under a claim of fair-use, but without a rationale, is a copyright violation. You are welcome to re-upload (or I can undelete if necessary) if a valid rationale is present. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't upload the image, but I am pretty sure I can create a fair use rationale if given the opportunity. Could I trouble you to undelete the image and notify me? I will supply the rationale shortly thereafter and notify you, so you can take a look and make sure we are green-good-go. Again, thanks for getting back to me, Ian. - Arcayne () 06:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about this, but looking at the image, any rationale given would fail. If the plaque still exists, fair-use cannot be claimed because a free alternative could be sought (you could (well, in the eyes of the law at least) go there and take an image of the object yourself). This obviously doesn't apply of the plaque doesn't exist any more, or an historical version of it is significant, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't intimating you were wrong. As I am not inclined to venture out to the Dead of Iowa to visit a town seeking income revivification, until someone snaps a picture while roadtripping, the article is out of luck. I am somewhat concerned if that leaves the article in the lurch a bit. What is your impression? - Arcayne () 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- As luck would have it, a little creative commons hunting turned up a picture of the plaque freely licensed. I have uploaded it to Image:Future Birthplace of Captain James T Kirk.jpg, so please feel free to add this to the article. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image you mentioned has a banner that says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid." The picture was on the Riverside article page before I did some copy editing. It wasn't there when I looked last, I didn't remove it.--Sultec (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it hasn't been reviewed yet, but I see no reason it will fail given it is listed as CC-by-sa-2.0 on the flickr page. This is a different image (of the same subject) to the one I deleted if you are confusing it with this? Additionally, it seems you did inadvertently remove it last night. Ian¹³/t 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. Good thing there are other editors to fix up things. I would never intentionally screw up a page as badly as I did. I will have to study the diff again and try to figure out how I managed to do all that damage when all I was intending to do is remove the square brackets around redlinked items and put italics around some book titles. --Sultec (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's no problem, we all have to learn. :-) Ian¹³/t 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. Good thing there are other editors to fix up things. I would never intentionally screw up a page as badly as I did. I will have to study the diff again and try to figure out how I managed to do all that damage when all I was intending to do is remove the square brackets around redlinked items and put italics around some book titles. --Sultec (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it hasn't been reviewed yet, but I see no reason it will fail given it is listed as CC-by-sa-2.0 on the flickr page. This is a different image (of the same subject) to the one I deleted if you are confusing it with this? Additionally, it seems you did inadvertently remove it last night. Ian¹³/t 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image you mentioned has a banner that says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid." The picture was on the Riverside article page before I did some copy editing. It wasn't there when I looked last, I didn't remove it.--Sultec (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- As luck would have it, a little creative commons hunting turned up a picture of the plaque freely licensed. I have uploaded it to Image:Future Birthplace of Captain James T Kirk.jpg, so please feel free to add this to the article. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't upload the image, but I am pretty sure I can create a fair use rationale if given the opportunity. Could I trouble you to undelete the image and notify me? I will supply the rationale shortly thereafter and notify you, so you can take a look and make sure we are green-good-go. Again, thanks for getting back to me, Ian. - Arcayne () 06:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
User Oguzhantr
Hello Ian13,
you probably remember User:Oguzhantr. Last month you deleted all his uploaded pics, as they were all copyright violations, than you blocked him for a week, as he had vandalized articles about military stuff. Well, he returned, and immediately uploaded half a dozen pics that are all copyvios or useless stuff (I think he uses Misplaced Pages as his private webspace to host pics). As I am very busy right now and don't have much time, I'll just drop this message to you and wont mark each of them with a speedy deletion request. I'm sorry for that. But I'll now leave him to your administratorial guidance :) (Oguzhantr's logs)
--DavidDCM (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- All images have either been deleted as copy-vio or posted at IfD now. Additionally, I have blocked the user for 3 weeks (obviously 1 week wasn't enough). False copyright claims are a very severe issue, and if it continues afterwards it will probably be best to launch a discussion at the administrators noticeboard about a significant ban. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for your fast response to this issue. :) --DavidDCM (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
B Roads in Norfolk, Again?
Hello Ian13,
Can you have another look at Talk:B1149 road, B1156 road, B1436 road and B1149 road again, as these article seem to be under threat again from another editor. Once again it is the Notability question which has arisen. I thought that the reason for these roads to be notable had already been established but once again this is being questioned and I think there is likelihood that this editor may redirect these pages once more. stavros1 ♣ 22:35 28 September 2008 (UTC).