| Revision as of 22:50, 25 June 2011 editΔ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,263 edits Archiving 11 sections← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:02, 26 June 2011 edit undoXavierGreen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,428 edits →Your wanton removal of imagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).] (]) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).] (]) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to ] and a ] both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in ] which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ] 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | :Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to ] and a ] both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in ] which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ] 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.] (]) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:02, 26 June 2011
The Sopranos non free use rationale
Hello, could you be so kind to tell me how can I change the non free use rationale for The Sopranos picture in order to use it in Italian American article? I wonder how - just because the picture already has another non free use rationale regarding a different article. I think that the latter could be suitable also for using it in the Italian American article, cause the rationale is pretty much the same: provide a visual description of the subject, even if this case I would like to show the elements of Italian American stereotyping. In addiction, I would like to exploit your knowledge asking the same question about Mario Puzo's The Godfather book cover that you removed. Best regards. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Neither image is really needed and would thus fail WP:NFCC#8 ΔT 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
re: User talk:J Greb#File:Star Sapphire power ring.jpg 2nd pass
Thank you for the templating about an image that does have a complete FUR.
If you feel the FUR falls short, please discuss it on the article's talk page in line with WP:BRD or nominate the file through MfD.
Please do not resort to deletion through orphaning at this point as that can be seen as disruptive.
Thanks.
- J Greb (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that your image did not have a FUR for "Star Sapphire (comics)", it had one for "Star Sapphire" (a disamb. page). I've fixed that for you, but the rationale has to include the exact article name for use. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Thanks. I though I had copied the full article title over after Beetstra's run. Sorry about that. - J Greb (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your wanton removal of images
Hello, though i understand why you are removing images from pages, you might want to tell users (such as myself) how to create a rational for an individual page since the policy is relatively new. I myself have no idea how to do it, ive never been asked to before. You should also be careful in removing images and double check them before you remove them. One that i reverted already had a pre-1923 public domain tag on it, and several others were obvioisly published before 1923 (several german world war 1 images).XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a few points, I do tell users how to fix the issues, Ive got a link to a guide to writing rationales and a FAQ both linked in the edit summary and a fairly detailed edit notice. Second, This policy is not new, its been around for at least 4 years (probably longer). Third every image I remove is in Category:All non-free media which classifies it as non-free. If it is tagged under a free license please ensure that it does not have a non-free rationale, because most of those templates classify the file as non-free and will lead to it being removed again. ΔT 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The one file you removed File:Corea-map.jpg, has a PD-1923 tag on it and is a free image. It shouldnt be in the category non free media in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)