Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 3 August 2008

Nemp

69.248.106.103 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland Echo FAC

Hi Fasach. Many thanks for your kind comments! I have done as you suggested and removed the Echologo and marked the newspaper picture as {{trademark}} Is there anything else I can do to earn your support? -- Seahamlass 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I only look at criteria 3, and to get FA status you need to pass all criteria. I hope it does get FA status, as it is a great example of getting the image licencing right, and I fully intend to use it as an example of best practice in this reagrd. I wouldn't worry about getting support, the process is not a WP:VOTE, but editors coming to a consensus on criteria and issues. I wish you the best with the FAC, but my expertise are limited to images. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally understand your point of view - and I wouldn't want to be the one to specialise in image problems as you must get quite a bit of stick! Would it be OK for you to mark the changes as done? (Or I could do it, but don't want to step on your toes!-- Seahamlass 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!-- Seahamlass 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey - see you liked my Dr Who pic!-- Seahamlass 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea how rare an image that is, TV/Film fiction are notoriously difficult to get free images for. I nominated it for WP:FIC, maybe you'll get that and your article on the front page on the same day! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(I havent had too many dealings with featured images so don't get your hopes up) Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about that! Just happy to help. Only commented cos of the supper speedy time span between upload and the photo appearing on a totally different page! FIC is tough, very tough. Not sure it will succeed - but best of luck anyway. -- Seahamlass 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they liked poor old Tom very much at Featured Pics! I've lodged permission for the pic with Misplaced Pages via email, but asked for the photo to be withdrawn as so grainy. (I've got another at FP now, which I want to concentrate on. Although, they seem to ask the most highly technical things that just go over my head...)-- Seahamlass 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They seem more interested in art, than encylopedic value. I tend to do a lot of work with fair use images is TV/film, and you have no idea how rare it is to get something like that. True the quality isnt good, but I think they have been desensitised to the licencing issues, by the overly liberal fair use policy used on the English language Misplaced Pages. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Licensing sorted now...At least the Tom Baker article has a nicer Dr Who pic anyway!-- Seahamlass 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use montages

No, I don't unfortunately. The closest I can think of would be the WP:NFCC8 centralised discussion. Sceptre 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I was thinking of ], ty Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Images on Davros page

Hi, Fasach. I've recently been in contact with User:Nv8200p about the images on the page Davros. You can see the discussion on our talk pages, but the gist is that of the four images formerly on that page, one of the two which remains is the least appropriate. I'd like to remove Image:GoodersonDavros.jpg and restore either Image:WisherDavros or Image:MolloyDavros, depending on which is favored by local discussion. But there's no point in my starting that discussion if the restored image is going to be deleted again. Do you object to the Gooderson image being replaced with one of the deleted ones? --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've added some sourced material to the Davros article which I think can be used to support the inclusion of the Wisher and Bleach images. (I may be able to find similar material for Molloy, but I'm traveling tomorrow and probably won't return to Misplaced Pages until late tomorrow evening.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

All image that meet in full the WP:NFCC criterai will not be deleted Fasach Nua (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a terribly helpful reply, because the NFCC has been interpreted differently in different circumstances. My question is whether you would oppose the restoration of one of these deleted images in exchange for the less encyclopedically helpful Gooderson image. I'm slightly confused because I'm not clear on why you nominated the Wisher and Molloy images for deletion as opposed to either of the other two. If the primary issue is excess usage of non-free images (NFCC #3), it should not matter which image is present. But if the other concerns are more significant, and there's some reason why you felt the Gooderson image met the NFCC criteria more than the others, then it will matter, and restoration of one of the deleted images would not be appropriate.

I had not noticed that Image:WisherDavros was insufficiently sourced; unless you object, I'll try to provide a better-sourced copy of that image and upload it later (after my travel today), replacing the Gooderson image.--Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A FU image must have a valid reason to be there, if it is eye candy of course it will be deleted, if it meets the NFCC then it won't be deleted. However I couldn't imagine an article about Davros not having an image of Davros, and unfortunetly I cant imagine a free image popping up anytime soon. When I nominated the Davros images before, the issue was criteria 3 (minimal use), as there were about four virtually identical images and I wanted the DW community to pick the most useful one, and dump the rest. You have put a lot of thought into this and discussed it with Nv8200p who knows his stuff, so on the balance of probabilities I probably wont have grounds to object Fasach Nua (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Although I'd quibble with "virtually identical", but perhaps it takes a fan's eye to see the differences; and, indeed, far too much of that article was in-universe, with not enough discussion of the character's creation and development.) I'll start a discussion at Talk:Davros to see what image the community thinks would be best. Again, thanks for the feedback. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alleyway

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you brought up one of the images on the FAC for the Alleyway article and I responded. Wanted to see if you're satisfied with the response or something still needs to be done instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks loike a derived image from , I will tag it at potentially unfree images Fasach Nua (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a replica (never actually realized you replied to this at all until I was informed about the image tagging). I left a more detailed response at the potentially unfree images report site.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Brigham Young University alumni thank-you

Thank you very much for your question regarding the list's FLC, which I have responded to there. If your questions/concerns have been resolved, I would ask you to please offer a supporting vote on the list's behalf. Thank you for your consideration. --Eustress (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent comment. I have replied and hope you will continue to participate in the FLC until you feel you can support the list. Thanks again! --Eustress (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your tagging of Frank Zappa article

Hi. I just saw that you tagged the Frank Zappa article with {{NFimageoveruse}} stating "serious image problems". I went though all images, and could not find anything questionable. So is it the sheer number that is a problem? The editors have been quite meticulous in only using low-resolution images depicting various phases of a person's long career (spanning many different activities; guitarist, group leader, composer, conductor, political spokesperson, studio owner to name a few). The issue was never raised in the GA process (I know that is not an argument, but just mentioned to show that I was in good faith when I nominated the article). Please drop me a note at your convenience. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa FAC

Hi. I didn't actually write any of the article, thus, it's not important that I made any contributions to the article. I think I made maybe two edits in which I actually changed the text of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

FU means?

Sorry did not get your sentence in the FLC for Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), what did you mean by "FU". Also, since you do seem to be an expert on image licensing, what is the procedure for me to follow to see if those images are indeed copyrighted material or not, they might be free or properly licensed to Misplaced Pages and we are wasting time in the discussion over technical terms. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FU means fair use, if an image has a free licence then you dont have to justify it's usage in terms of WP:NFCC

The common side of all Euro coins are free (to a point), so they can be used reasonably friviliously.

Probably the easiest way to track down the copyright is to look for other Austrian coins in wikipedia, and see how they are licenced, if you are lucky another editor may have provided a link to the licencing. Although dont copy the licence, as lot of people upload copyrighted and tag them as free, which is exceptionally annoying. (WP:WAX)

The German language wikipedia is exceptionally good at finding free content, if you look through there numistics article you may also find something Fasach Nua (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach, this could be very good news, I followed your advice, and went to German Misplaced Pages, search for four Austrian coins, all of the free of use license. What shall I do next? Thanks a lot for this tip! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to the Austrian Mint website and found this line (it is difficult to find, there is no Legal section per say, but it is in several places): "Leagal statement: All pictures can be published without naming the Austrian Mint as the holder of the copyright". Does this mean that I can change all licenses as free to use based on that statement? Advice please, Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Job! I would maybe make a Template:Austrian Currency, link the Austrian mint licence's page, and label it as free. After that add the template to all the relevant images. I would put a note on the FLC page that you are in the process of resolving this issue, and then again when you have completed the licencing tag Fasach Nua (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Bob talk 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To repeat the above, please start using edit summaries. Without them, there is no way of knowing whether your edits are disruptive or not (removing content without discussion/a summary is most definitely disruptive). _TalkIslander 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you comply with Misplaced Pages policy and assume good faith Fasach Nua (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I am assuming good faith, that's why I'm asking you to use edit summaries on the basis that you're just being careless, and not asking you why you're refusing to use edit summaries to try and cover up your actions ;). _TalkIslander 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I find them needlessly cumbersome, and therefore I generally dont use them Fasach Nua (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, well then please bear in mind that you're just asking for trouble. An edit summary takes no time to fill in, and just confirms why exactly you edited what you did. Without it, it is often difficult to decipher why certain actions were taken. For example, your edit here - why did you undo my edit? I gave a good reason why I removed that tag, you acted disruptivley by ignoring that and replacing it. It is of course your choice whether you use edit summaries or not, but you will encounter fewer problems if you do. While I'm at it, please remember to assume the assumption of good faith, or else you are simply ignoring the policy that you wave around like a club ;). _TalkIslander 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)