| Revision as of 10:40, 25 April 2006 editThe JPS (talk | contribs)Administrators44,479 edits PUI advice← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 25 April 2006 edit undoThe JPS (talk | contribs)Administrators44,479 edits →PUI advice: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| Hello. Could you do me a favour and ask to jump the queue a little and look at ], ] & ], which I've . I believe I'm correct: these are dodgy for being a copyvio, unverifiable status (another Russian source), and not usable under fair use (a free version is available to any Wikipedian in that area with a camera. The reason I ask this way is that the uploader responded particularly aggressively and is using this against me in my ], so if this is becoming public I could do with a second opinion, if you don't mind? Cheers. ] 10:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | Hello. Could you do me a favour and ask to jump the queue a little and look at ], ] & ], which I've . I believe I'm correct: these are dodgy for being a copyvio, unverifiable status (another Russian source), and not usable under fair use (a free version is available to any Wikipedian in that area with a camera. The reason I ask this way is that the uploader responded particularly aggressively and is using this against me in my ], so if this is becoming public I could do with a second opinion, if you don't mind? Cheers. ] 10:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks for your response and your comments on my RFA page. It is very important in these circumstances to get second opinions. I hope that the editor in question can be reformed to tag and source images correctly. Just because he 'shouts' particularly loudly, though, isn't a reason to allow him to break the rules, tho' I appreciate it that we can have an easier life by turning a blind eye. But, as experienced editors, I think we have a responsibility to deal with it correctly.<br>I'm sure you're aware that I wasn't advertising my RFA, and a link to it was necessary. With a tally of 63/1/2, I don't think I really need to stoop to that level. ] 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:32, 25 April 2006
WikiProject NASCAR image deletions
I have started a discussion on the Project Talk Page about the problems with the project's images. I would appreciate your input as to what some fair use images are available. Thanks! Royalbroil 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC), WikiProject NASCAR contributor
Thanks for all the time you must have spent on this topic! I definitely did not understand the distinction in what type of image is fair use under what circumstances. I need to read your comments a few more times to understand it better. Would you also leave a comment about if its fair to use an image from Flickr if an uploader there gives access with attribution? Royalbroil 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png
|
Thanks for uploading Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have already asked the original uploader, JabberWok. --Fibonacci 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Thelips.jpg
Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the tag {{PUInonfree}} be more correct for this image's status? -Hoekenheef 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, I shot an e-mail off to the band last night about the photo's status. -Hoekenheef 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Poland.gov
I must've missed your post at my talk page, sorry for that. Anyway, I sent the guy an urging email the day before and called him yesterday and again today. It turned out that he was on a leave and is not going to get back to work until Monday. I surely will call him again on Monday then. Especially that, apart from the ww2.pl site, the same tag would most probably also apply to the parent poland.gov itself, which also hosts a plethora of fine pictures we could use. So the stake is quite high. Anyway, I'll let all the people involved know as soon as I know more. //Halibutt 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Image tags are insufficient?
This seems a bit odd. I tagged all my images with GFDL-self, and there's not much more I can add about the source other than "I took it", which seems a bit redundant. porges 22:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
PUI advice
Hello. Could you do me a favour and ask to jump the queue a little and look at Image:Zvenigorod.jpg, Image:Krom.jpg & Image:Krutitsy.jpg, which I've listed on PUI. I believe I'm correct: these are dodgy for being a copyvio, unverifiable status (another Russian source), and not usable under fair use (a free version is available to any Wikipedian in that area with a camera. The reason I ask this way is that the uploader responded particularly aggressively and is using this against me in my RFA, so if this is becoming public I could do with a second opinion, if you don't mind? Cheers. The JPS 10:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response and your comments on my RFA page. It is very important in these circumstances to get second opinions. I hope that the editor in question can be reformed to tag and source images correctly. Just because he 'shouts' particularly loudly, though, isn't a reason to allow him to break the rules, tho' I appreciate it that we can have an easier life by turning a blind eye. But, as experienced editors, I think we have a responsibility to deal with it correctly.
I'm sure you're aware that I wasn't advertising my RFA, and a link to it was necessary. With a tally of 63/1/2, I don't think I really need to stoop to that level. The JPS 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)