Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tbkflav (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 6 September 2006 (→Why did you edit my personal user page without a note?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

1. Before Aug 21 2006

Amack.jpeg

I have posted the requested source info and verified that Image:Amack ab.jpeg is indeed fair use under the listed conditions. I'm going to wait on reposting the image until I have confirmation that the source info is satisfactory. -->Johnnyfog

In regards to questions:

1. I went looking for examples of free use rationales and found Image:FishelDanielle.jpg. I took what I could and created the "not-for-profit derivitives" myself as a way of emphasis.

2. I won't upload any new images and will confine myself to updating source info on jpegs I've already posted until something serious happens (for example: threatened with being banned)

3. I am going to do whatever it takes to save my images from deletion because I know they are fair use and it's only the lack of an immediate URL and / or explicit permission from copyright holders that pevents them from being posted. If the image originates from a URl which allows free use and distributes it to other sites with a similar policy, I see nothing wrong with trying to clarify the source info with accurate (if flimsy) rationales. Any attempt on my part to avoid deletion should not be interpreted as trying to "cheat" the system. I have been a wiki user for less than a month and am no threat to it.

Lastly, I have been reminded four times in the last 12 hours to read the free use policies. I have done that. --->Johnnyfog

Amtam.jpeg removed

Was it really neccessary to remove ALL of my source information from the image page?? It took me an hour to accumulate it and the image wasn't even posted on any articles!

A hard day's work

Hi image cleaner and self-pronounced fair use inquisitor,

Thanks for your multiple messages. I know it's a foregone conclusion (that's what the Inquisition was like, wasn't it?), but lemme say a few words nevertheless.

Image:The Perez Family - Durita and Juan.jpg

You might want to talk to User:Thivierr about that picture, but why me? Are you (erroneously in any case) accusing me of violating copyright?

Image:D Koller.jpg

The title of Koller's 2006 book is "Tanz mit mir ... " Geschichten und Anekdoten aus meiner Welt der Musik. In English: "Dance with Me ... " Stories and Anecdotes from My World of Music. Well, it's a memoir. It's about her life. The Misplaced Pages article is also about her life. As a compromise, we could add a few lines about that particular book of hers to the article. Would the image be able to stay then?

Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG

The image description read (before you changed it):

Image of Alistair Beaton, taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use.

{{fairusein|Alistair Beaton}}

One of the few images of A Beaton available. Not a snapshot, it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes. Originally, it was an illustration of the interview printed in the Camden New Journal. The author of the image was not given.

So why do you cross out taken from http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk and considered fair use and it has clearly been taken for promotional purposes and add a tag saying This image has no source information? This is absurd.

You may not have been able to "found the image on the source" , but do you expect an online periodical like the Camden New Journal to keep all its back issues online forever just so that "the copyright status can be verified by others"?

Don't you trust me as the uploader of the image? Do you think I'm lying about its source? Why on earth should I?

Image:T Judt.jpg

The image of Tony Judt was used "for identification and critical commentary on the program and its contents", because the content of the program—an interview—was Tony Judt and his work. What more can I say?

Final words

As I can see, you have removed the Hester Prynne image again, so you do believe you are the highest authority. On the other hand, the image of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, which I pointed out to you, is still there, and my corresponding question remains unanswered.

I could, up to a point, understand your fervour if you came up with a replacement photo for each image you consider illegitimate, an imageWikipedia could actually use (according to your own strict interpretation of the guidelines). That, I believe, would make your job much more interesting and productive. <KF> 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why this obsession?

Thanks for your answer. I just don't believe it. You have now removed that bloody Hester Prynne image three times, from two different articles and after it was posted/put back by two different people. Now I realise you have even put it up for deletion—as if your life depended on it. I can see (a) no harm and (b) no breach of law whatsoever in keeping that stupid picture, but there's no discussion with you. I guess you'll only be satisfied once all images not taken by users themselves have been eliminated from Misplaced Pages and casual browers have turned their attention to web sites such as http://www.answers.com , where many of the images you are persecuting can survive. 23skidoo thinks "the days are numbered for images of any type on Misplaced Pages. Sad but probably true", and I do wonder cui bono. Bye, <KF> 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I have to disagree with your 23skidoo friend. As I told you, I have myself uploaded a bunch of images to Misplaced Pages. I like images, but I prefer them free. As I told you before, it's not just about the "'harm" or "breach of law". It's about gathering free reusable information. I understand that some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable. But we shoud not abuse this.

"I prefer them free." And what about the thousands of others who may have slightly different preferences?

"Some unfree information, when correctly used, is acceptable." Ergo: If something is acceptable, it cannot be "abused"; abuse is ruled out per definitionem.

And from your previous message: "The source for Image:A Beaton Camden.JPG, as for any other image, must be verifiable. Otherwise, how do we know that it was "clearly been taken for promotional purposes"?" The source is verifiable. All you have to do is either travel to Camden and get hold of a copy / printout of that old issue, or electronically contact the paper. You're not seriously suggesting that all images on Misplaced Pages whose source reference is a dead link must be deleted? There's a phenomenon called link rot, remember? Anyway, I verified the source.

More and more, I consider this discussion a waste of my time. "Art is long, life is short". I usually find discussions with other Wikipedians enjoyable, but not this time. I apologize in advance if in future my direct replies to you will become both shorter and less frequent. <KF> 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for your attentiveness.

Thanks for doing me that BIG favor and deleting my template images. Again.

It's bureaucratic nonsense. Your perseverence is nice but it doesn't help much in the battle over copyright law if you keep dismantling my templates.

I know intellectual articles about Nietzsche and religious philosophy don't suffer much without colorful and non-ugly photos, but the trivials subjects I'm sure YOU wouldn't dare sully yourself with DO.

Do you mean to tell me that NO allegedly "copyrighted" image can be used for a template? A user-created one will get deleted just as fast for being orphaned!

At first you made me realize the errors of my ways in regards source info, but now you are becoming a nagging nuisance. Even modifications to my user page don't escape your attention.

I'm curous how you seem to monitor every move I make, NO MATTER HOW BENIGN. Police someone else! If only for a day! --->Johnnyfog

May I never cross your path again.

You irritate me.

Thanks for saying I'm an ok editor though.--->Johnnyfog

Image deletion

You have left more than ten messages on my Talk Page in the last five hours. As I clearly state in large bold letters, on my Talk and User pages, I am technically away on a Wikibreak. I have requested that people do not leave me messages requiring my response. Please do not leave messages on my Talk Page until my scheduled return in November. I have a lot going on, and I really cannot keep logging in here. Thanks. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete it

If I could arrange the immediate deletion of Image:Tidus sword.jpg, I would be very grateful. I had hoped to use it but upon realizing wiki regulations I realized my idea was not feasible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Excellent. I will remember that in the future.

I noticed some film images that are copyrighted (due to the film being unreleased or still in theaters) violate fair use. I also noticed that to bypass this, an uploader can attempt to post a smaller/lower quality version. Is this fair use? --->Johnnyfog

Perplexed

I have looked over the fair use policy, but I do not want to start uploading again because I am still not sure if I understand the rules correctly.

• 1 - Photos of an actor (for an article about that actor). In what cases do I need proof of permission (evidence) from the copyright holder to upload an image?

• 2 - How much evidence is needed?

• 3 - If I reduce the image to a version of lower quality, does that make any difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfog (talk • contribs)

Fashion photography

‎I see you put a {pov} tag on the fashion photography page. The criteria for inclusion on this list is having a Wiki article that discusses the photographer's work in the field. Since the criteria for notability is well-established (see WP:BIO for example), and has a self-policing mechanism (the AfD process), the list is easy to maintain. You will notice that each photographer listed does meet these criteria. Since you did not start this discussion on the talk page, I am answering you here. I'm also removing the tag, unless you want a broader discussion with other editors on the talk page. I'll look for your response here. SteveHopson 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "photograph deletion" mission

Hi, I think your time would be better spent trying to properly license images rather than simply tagging them for deletion. Dionyseus 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Little help here

You said: "Hi, Yamla. Would you have the time and willingness to help with (what I think is) a very simple issue with the potential to become a bad thing? I'm trying to have the image Image:KeiraKnightley_PridePrejudice.jpg to have a fair use rationale attached to it (as it is tagged with {{Promophoto}}, which requires one) but the best I could get from an interested user (after some reverts) was "This image will only be used for the Keira Knightley article". Do you think is this enough for a fair use rationale of a publicity photo of a living person? I believe we would benefict from a third opinion here, as the user has already cleary stated that he trully believes this rationale is enough. Thanks in advance. Best regards,"

This is not a sufficient fair-use rationale and I have tagged the image as such. I suspect the uploader simply didn't read the image description help page. A friendly warning, you've made three reverts to that image page within the past 24 hours or so, please see WP:3RR. I'm not accusing you or threatening a block or anything, just pointing out the 3RR policy. --Yamla 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although the license clearly requires a detailed fair-use rationale, I have found it causes less confusion if you leave the license in place, add a brief comment stating that the license requires a detailed fair-use rationale, then use {{fairusedisputed}} instead of {{subst:nld}}. In other news, at some point in the future, I'd like to set up a Misplaced Pages "group" for policing image copyright and fair-use violations. The main benefit would be to provide more standard warnings and easy-to-understand simple explanations for what people are doing incorrectly. The goal would be to ensure more editors who upload images have a better understanding of what is required. The major problem is that I don't have enough free time so this may not happen for a while yet.  :) --Yamla 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Maps?

OK, since you seem to be the resident expert on images, I have a question for you: What is the wikipedia policy about screen-captures from Google Maps? As an example, let's say I find a building I want to write an article about. The building is visible in Google Maps. Obviously, I can point to Google Maps as a link (if I can figure out how, which I haven't so far). Or, I could capture it and make a picture of it to display in the article. Presumably, their images are taken from public-domain sources, i.e. U.S. satellites. But there could be more to it. What's the rule? Wahkeenah 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Guy Beckley Stearns

I'm only working on de Evia at the moment, not Stearns; stick to the subject, please. Mowens35 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you will note, the USA discussion of homeopathy only goes to 1880 and then jumps to the 1950s, with nothing in between. Mowens35 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Moskowitz, MD (you really think he's important enough for a Wiki article???)

here's his online resume, which really means he's got good academic background and profession, but not really worth a Wiki article ... Mowens35 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

<copyrighted material removed>

Copyrighted material

I was merely explaining who the man is whom you thought was important for an article. He isn't. Mowens35 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the resume.

What I'd suggest is just removing it. While we could remove it from the history, we'd normally only do this when it is specifically requested. The resume would indeed be copyrighted. A fair-use rationale could, I suppose, be made that the resume is being used fairly (that is, under fair-use) to discuss someone's qualifications. But the same could be done just with a link to the page and fair-use isn't permitted in user space anyway. --Yamla 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The resume was only meant to support my contention that the subject of the resume posted online doesn't need his own article in Wiki. Ignore it otherwise. Mowens35 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kate Winslet article

I reverted your deletion of the lead image from this article on the grounds that the uploading/fair use criteria says screenshots may be used for identification of a film and/or its contents. Kate Winslet was part of the film, therefore under the strictest definition, she is a content. Also, if you are going to delete the lead image from an article, I think it's just common courtesy to provide a replacement image. 23skidoo 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, please give me your definition of "contents". Canadian Oxford Dictionary describes it as "what is contained in something". A participant in a movie is one of the contents of a movie. 23skidoo 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the question on the Fair use talk. I've quotted you, so, feel free to correct-me if I misrepresented you. --Abu Badali 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Supermodels

Hey!! There are alot of supermodel stubs here at wikipedia. The only non stubs seem to be the VS Angels. I was wondering if you could please help add more/edit articles of supermodels such as Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Gemma Ward, and Bianca Balti. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism

Hi! Could you disambg your link to Nihilism on your user page :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quick and yes, Thanks :)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and permissions

You stated in my talk page that obtaining permission from the copyright holder is not enough to use the image on Misplaced Pages. I feel an explanation on this matter is required. Is Misplaced Pages moving towards a "free images only" policy? Also, Misplaced Pages states that material obtained from a press kit qualifies as fair use in the absence of a free alternative. Thus, tagging an image that is already tagged as press material / fair use for deletion doesn't seem very coherent. - antiuser 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and promptness to clear up the issue. antiuser 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

You're welcome, yes I put a lot of work in a really messy (or empty) article.

P. S. Why can Drew Barrymore's article have a main picture of fair use when she has other that is free?

Carlosr chill 22:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you took that photo? Where you in a helicopter? Whenever a free alternative is available, it should be used. Where's this free image of Drew Barrymore you're talking about? Best regards, --Abu Badali 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A helicopter?! NO WAY! I was in my private jet of course...

Ok, I give up, I found that image in Google, as I suppose you havee guessed by now. So what do I do? Do I just take it off the article? Or can someone erase it from Misplaced Pages now? Can you?

The Drew Barrymore thing was just something I read in Shakira's talk page, 'cause that's not a very flattering picture of her.

P. S. Sorry for putting this message in your user page first, I hadn't notice that it wasn't your talk page. Carlosr chill 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty and good humor. We need more people like you here in Misplaced Pages. The best thing to do at this point is to mark the image for deletion. You can do that by adding {{Db-author}} to the image description page. Some admin will eventually notice the warning and remove the image. If you know of any free image of Drew Barrymore or Shakira (or any other celebrity), upload it to commons and add it to the relevant Misplaced Pages article ASAP. Thanks, --Abu Badali 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And done. I also erased it from the article. I'm sorry, it won't happen again, I just wanted a worthy picture for Xcaret (and Shakira, by the way). Guess I'll have to wait for someone to upload one of his own. But i totally understand, it's all for the well being of Misplaced Pages. Take care and keep going after those bad guys with copyrighted pictures!

Carlosr chill 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beyonce

That's the site I got the promo picture from. It is a promo pic, but Sony must have released it. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Many sites have the same promo picture. I got it from that one. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster says on the site, "I've added a new B'Day promo picture. Click on the image to check it out." ] [[http: //www.elwico.pl/~quasar/bee/galeria/bday_promo/in.html]]

Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to contact the webmaster and ask the orginial source of the photo. I will get back to you in a two days. Charmed36 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SEGA's images

Hello. Please leave me alone. I just got a barrage of messages questioning the validity of the images I have uploaded. They are ALL fair use, and I spent time discussing several of these images with Misplaced Pages administrators before uploading. There must be something more productive you can focus your attention on. There's plenty to do here on Misplaced Pages.

Thanks - SEGA

Why did you edit my personal user page without a note?

Please do not edit my personal user page, particularly without a note. Frankly, its rude. If you have an issue with something that is 100% fine and even encouraged, however I ask that you please use the discussion page. Thats what it is there for afterall. If you are at all academically consistent you will please follow the rules set forth in the WP: FUC guidelines under non-compliance. Simply putting a tag on the history page is insufficient to be considered notification. I would appreciate a note so please notate my discussion page accordingly. If this is not done I will revert, as you simply should not edit without reason, and certainly NOT A PERSONAL USER PAGE. Thank you in advance. --Tbkflav 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)