| Revision as of 14:04, 23 September 2011 editHammersoft (talk | contribs)Administrators91,287 edits →Question← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:01, 23 September 2011 edit undoHammersoft (talk | contribs)Administrators91,287 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | |||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
| <!-- No, not above this line, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ---> | <!-- No, not above this line, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ---> | ||
| == Quick question on an image you removed. == | |||
| In , you removed a cartoon image of Wendy Thomas that had been used in the infobox on her article. I'm not very familiar with the NFCC policy you cite, so I was wondering if you thought that giving a rationale on the image for use in that particular article would bring it up to specs? ]]] 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Given that she is alive, and the Foundation's ], using the graphic in the infobox is highly problematic. There might be reason to use it in her article, but more properly a reference to the page where the image is used is more appropriate. --] (]) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:I guess my thinking was that, because she's only notable for her use as that icon, that it might be ''more'' acceptable to use the logo than to use an actual picture of her. I'm not sure there's any real precedent, though, for a person being notable ''only'' for being the model for a logo. ] is the current NBA logo model, but he's also notable in his own right. I'm not going to restore the logo or anything, I'm just kind of trying to think this through a bit. Best, ]]] 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::* If that is the only thing she's notable for, perhaps her article needs to be redirected to ]? --] (]) 20:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:I don't know, Hs. It's a pretty big thing to be notable for. However, I can see your reasoning, and I may actually propose a merge and redirect at the talkpage, leaving the history of the article intact, should she do something to be notable in her own right. What do you think of that idea? ]]] 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Works for me. She's kinda a ] candidate. She's not notable for anything other than being the basis for that logo, right? Are there are any other franchise owners in the Wendy's chain that are notable for being franchise owners? Alternative; redirect to ]. --] (]) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*:What's the next course of action then, do you think? Is this a case where ]ly merging and redirecting it per ] would be the best course, and then only if someone takes issue, opening a discussion about it? ]]] 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Sure. Given her lack of notability, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody takes issue. --] (]) 21:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:It's , per ], and ], redirected to the Wendy's section of her father's article. As I read through the W. Thomas article, there was no material that needed merging, given that everything she's notable for is found in her father's article already. Best, ]]] 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: Conflict of Interest == | |||
| Regarding your post at my talkpage, 18:54, 12 July 2011. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I did not intend for any Conflict of Interest to arise. I have put a helpme and adminhelpme request on my ] in hopes that someone might provide me with directions or advice as to how to best proceed in this case. Your vigilance and advice are much appreciated. | |||
| ] (]) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *The best way to proceed is that if you wish to contribute to Misplaced Pages in ways not connected with Palladia, then create an account using whatever pseudonym you wish to use and proceed with editing things that interest you (other than Palladia). If you wish to contribute in ways that support your employer, then there's no opportunity for you to continue that work. I'm sorry. --] (]) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == And... someone reverted it. == | |||
| I've opened a discussion ] about why the article should be a redirect. The only reason given in the reversion was "in my opinion she is notable", so I wondered whether I should just restore the redirect, given that one's ''opinion'' isn't enough to prove notability. I ultimately decided not to, and instead have posted that discussion. I'm thinking that if there's just one editor who obstructs redirecting it with the history intact, I may have to take it to AFD. Do you have any other suggestions? ]]] 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd continue the discussion, and see where it goes. If it doesn't resolve cleanly, then AfD with recommended merge. --] (]) 12:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey, whaddya think? == | |||
| How's this for a template? Let me know if you have any thoughts, suggestions, etc. Something like this could probably be done by bot or tool, and if accompanied by friendly edit summaries and notices - which could be linked to the template - may eliminate 90% of all the opposition to NFCC image removals, both among newbies and the "image pirate" faction. I'm not adamant about any particular element in the template. I did design it so it preserves the entire image text: caption, size, specifications, location, etc., without removing anything. Someone can go back later and review it to either delete the use entirely if it doesn't fit, or fix it if they wish. By replacing the image with a question mark it encourages people to notice and help out. Others who want to do lots of image work can patrol the category and run through it. Meanwhile, the image isn't used in the article so the article becomes NFCC compliant. - ] (]) 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Point of clarification. The template is meant to handle removals that are mechanical in nature, or if done by inexperienced editors who want another set of eyes. If an editor makes a specific judgment that a particular image use is just noncompliant as here, they would just go ahead and not ask for a review. - ] (]) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| A few things; | |||
| *The template strongly reminds me of the debate surrounding the use of ], which 2/3rds of editors agreed was improper. | |||
| *I doubt it will cause any beneficial effect. We've had a number of editors and bots who have attempted to engage others to do the necessary work, without success. Full blown removal tends to cause anger among some editors, but . | |||
| *The template implies there's a review going on. There isn't. | |||
| *Such place holders shouldn't be left indefinitely. If it's going to be used, it has to be grouped by date. | |||
| *Just who do you notify? This is one of the hardest things to do. The uploader? Often enough this isn't the person who added it to the article. So, you have to identify who added it. But, maybe the person who added it isn't the right person afterall; maybe the use of the image changed. Or maybe that's not enough either. Maybe someone edited the image description page, and changed the pointer for a rationale to an article where they wanted to use it (yes, I've seen this), eliminating a rationale for where the image was used. Maybe the image had a rationale for this use, but somebody re-license tagged the image, which was later re-tagged as non-free but the rationale not restored. So who do you contact? It's a mess. Notifications on talk pages of articles doesn't work; we tried that, again with people and bots, without success. | |||
| --] (]) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. | |||
| ::*I see the discussion ] and ]. Some of the arguments apply (ugly, causes clutter, ]), others don't (sexist, trying to force something on editors by adding to articles that don't yet have images). The size and shape of the replacement could be changed, or it could even be made invisible or replaced by a simple "image removed" link. My rationale in leaving it more or less in place was that it gives the best notice to editors that something happened that they can fix. The counterargument is that it doesn't serve our real audience, the readers. | |||
| ::*I'm thinking and hoping it would have 2 beneficial effects. First, it will result in more rationales being added where appropriate and fewer outright removals. Second, I really think it will reduce the pressure on people deleting images. I wouldn't have objected at all to the wisdom of Delta's edits if he had just left some kind of trace that I or others could go through short of going down his edit history. Anyway, one way to test it is to try it. | |||
| ::*Agreed on the date thing. I could definitely add a date tag. Let me see how to do that. There isn't any time sensitivity from an NFCC point of view because the images default to being removed, but we shouldn't leave article clutter. | |||
| ::*The notification question is a problem no matter what system you use. The constituency of an image being in an article is ultimately the reader, but as most readers don't edit, it falls on the body of editors working on an article or in a subject area. Using my ] example, I've tried to keep that article in reasonable shape. It doesn't really matter whether I was the one who uploaded the logo, added the (incorrect) copyright and fair use templates, or added it to the article. It's all the same, I just want to make sure the article is in good shape. I noticed the removal because I saw beta's edit show up in the article edit history. But if it weren't on my watch list, I would have no practical way of knowing that there used to be a logo but now there isn't. The new template would add it to a category, so if I cared about NFCC patrol I could now tell. | |||
| ::So, I think I can address some but not all concerns. Maybe I should just try it. I can be the guinea pig and take any heat for a sample of, say 100 or 200 images. We can see what happens after a week or two, and barring a big drama fest somewhere the worst that can happen is that I have to go back and clean them all up at the end of the test. If it gets a good reception I can make a formal proposal - nothing required, just an option for people to use if they want. If not I'll just drop it. Do you know where I can find a list of 100 or 200 image uses still missing rationales? - ] (]) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*After being raked over the coals yet again for NFCC 10c enforcement, my creativity in solution finding is rather low at the moment. I hope you'll forgive me an in depth review of this. As to the list, ] lists the first 2000 (alphabetically). There's probably about 4000 total missing rationales entirely (which is what this report attempts to show). There's another report with ~6000 that are missing a rationale for the use where they are used (there's probably several thousand overlap between the two reports). The first report should help you. --] (]) 18:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Understood, thanks. This has been a big help already. Best, - ] (]) 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Decorum == | |||
| Hi, Hammersoft. Delta no longer likes to keep my comments in his talk page. He has removed . But I don't think anything good can come out of this discussion, since none of us can convince each other. So, I guess it is goodbye for now. Piece. ] (]) 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| By the way, Hammersoft, I am willing to have a fair view of Delta. So, tell me: What good things has he ever done? ] (]) 12:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *You approach having a "fair view" by taking a stance that presumes he's never done anything good? Wow. He's performed in excess of 100k edits here over a span of nearly six years. If he was even 1/100th as disruptive and bad for the project as his detractors think he is, that figure alone would be impossible to attain. --] (]) 13:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Its actually closer to 130,000 edits. ] 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*<p>Wow! Really? I think such a person should have been an administrator! But he throws out all his hard-earned respect with a couple of non-collegial edits? Very odd!</p><p>And as for my starting from a negative point of view: That is true; but the point is that I have started! Don't you prefer me to at least start to try to understand him? Or do you think he deserves that I retain my negative opinion of him for the rest of my life? ] (]) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :::*If you actually have an open mind about your opinion of someone, you don't start off presuming everything they are/do is negative. Hardly the hallmarks of an open mind. --] (]) 18:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Both "open mind" and "assumptions" are Hollywood terms. My judgment is from what I see from Delta. The question is, now that I am at least ''trying'' to "open my mind" a bit, are you going to help and show me some of the unseen aspects of Delta that fascinates? Impress me with the most beautiful Delta. ] (]) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*You've been given your first clue; ~130,000 edits. Just this last year alone, from late fall to late spring, 20,000 edits without there being nary a peep of problems. That should be food for thought. --] (]) 02:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*<p>You obviously don't know how to impress. Let me help you:</p><p>To impress, you should talk about impressive qualities that makes people feel good. Think about unique qualities. For example, pretend someone who has a negative idea about you asks me about you and I want to impress him. I will tell him: "Hammersoft believes in politely messaging the newcomers. Instead of sending them the harsh ''copyright-violator!'' message, he has made this NFCC 10 notice that politely explains item #10 to newcomers." Or if someone wanted me to impress him about the now-vanished Rlevse, I'd tell him: "He has written 35 ]. Oh, and that's not all: He went around Misplaced Pages, found people that contribute good things as much as they can and thanked them. Whereas most Wikipedians ''only'' meet each other in content disputes, Rlevse ... ".</p><p>Now, mind the person's state of mind too: If person A is unhappy because his first article is deleted and he blames B, person C shouldn't tell him: "Oh, B is great; he has deleted 10,000 bad article! That should be food for thought!" Yes, that is food for thought: Person A will immediately conjure up an image of a bloody battlefield with 10,000 mutilated bodies and evil-looking soldiers in black armor, reaper masks and a blazing "B" emblem going around finishing off those who are drawing their last breath.</p><p>Now, this is your last chance, Hammersoft: Impress me with Delta. Has he done something unique? ] (]) 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :::::::*A lot of what I do, I do behind the scenes. For example administrators have a fairly common habit of placing images from commons on the main page without ensuring that they are protected on commons first. (This opens up a fairly large hole in our security system enabling anyone on commons with an auto-confirmed account to place goatses or any other graphically disturbing image they want on our main page) This had been an issue for years, before cascade protection and everything was put in place it wasnt uncommon to see a penis on the main page due to this loophole. It was take care of, but over time people became lax again) I left many many {{tl|trouts}} to administrators and others when this happened. However regardless of what I said or did it kept happening, So I wrote a bot and convinced a commons admin to run it under their account from the toolserver. This as been extremely effective in closing that loophole, the time exposed is now less than 5 minutes normally when it does occur. I also have the only functioning webcite/archive.org bot for archiving on demand/fixing dead links. Ive been doing that for quite a while along with maintaining several reports, NFCC, unref BLP, and CSD related. I have also worked on several other issues very low key, (removing email addresses from articles, and several other privacy related issues) along with some major anti-spam work. Before we had the abuse filter I maintained several tools key in helping stop Whilly on Wheels grawp and other similar vandals. Ive done a lot with wikiprojects and assisted in tagging and classification of articles. I also have done a lot of work with regards to cleaning up pages with duplicate references and missing files. Ive got a script in development for converting articles to ] style refs. And a lot more, thats just what I could list in about 5 minutes without digging too much. (Oh I also had the first successful automated system to move files to commons, and rename files (before that feature was available in mediawiki)) ] 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*One quick example of the cleanup that I do and ] 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*Nice work, Delta, nice work. Now I see that you are capable of doing good work. But it is striking: A person with so much good work like you must have been a celebrity with a fleet of fans, second only to Jimbo Wales himself. But instead, you are blocked 9 times during the last year and have a whole fleet of haters! Why? I have a bad feeling you are a victim of your tongue, which needs to be dressed more strictly than any other part of your body. ] (]) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*Not really, the main issue is back in 07-08 I started the main NFCC enforcement push, I pissed a lot of people off. Until my main push NFC was not enforced, I ended up making over 500,000 enforcement edits (via bot) and somewhere between 80 and 100 thousand files where deleted due to non-compliance. That made a lot of people very upset. ] is a good parallel, If you have netflix take a look at that show. You will see people yelling, screaming, and cussing out the Parking Authority Officers, yet almost all of the time the fault is on the driver not the PAO. However when the PAO gets in hot water due to people getting out of control they just call the cops and get things handled, but I dont have that luxury. What finally happened is that I was forced out of enforcement by a vocal minority who does not like the fact that I am part of a small group of users who actually takes the time to enforce NFCC. There is a small group of editors who think that ] shouldn't exist, they know that they cannot get the policy overturned my conventional methods, so their goal has been to harass, stalk, insult and otherwise greef those of use who enforce NFCC to the either stop enforcing NFCC or to leave the project. {{user|Durin}} is a perfect example of that, (former admin and crat) who left the project due to legal threats made by a user, who was blocked for said threats (]) but instead of following standard practice and forcing the user to withdraw the threats to continue editing, an arbcom member just unblocked the user ignoring NLT. Durin left to being ArbFucked™. I know of many other users who just couldnt handle the harassment, stalking and personal attacks and quit out of frustration. However due to the fact that I have a fairly thick skin I dont let that crap get to me, too often. And because there that small group exists they make it their duty to stalk my edits and scream bloody murder at the slightest whiff of anything. Yes I have a lot of supporters who like what I do, however most of them are content editors and almost never edit the dramaboards or they post a few times to my defense on the boards and get tired of the crap, and then stop posting. Take a look at anyone who posts on the drama boards against me I doubt that you can find many (if any users) with their % of edits to mainspace over 50%. I am somewhere over 80% of my time is spent on mainspace who else can say the same? very few of those who hang out at the drama boards. ] 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::*(Sigh) Man, you are hopeless. May the God help you because no one else can. Fleet Command out. 07:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::* This is ]?!?!? --] (]) 13:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Dear Hammersoft, I saw that you deleted the image "TheaterJ logo.gif" from the article "Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center" -- and think it was because the non-free use rationale in the image description only applied to one article, "Theater J." | |||
| I could not figure out how to add another article to the article section, so just added a note in the "other information" section indicating that the same non-free use rationale that applied to the first article should apply to the second. Please look at my change in the description section and let me know if that is sufficient in terms of undoing the deletion in the JCC article. If it is not, please help me learn what more to do! Thanks!! ] (]) 19:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *It isn't. ] #10c requires a separate, specific non-free rationale for each use. There are instructions on how to make an additional rationale at ]. You can edit the image description page and add the additional rationale after the existing one. --] (]) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment about your WP:NFCC #10c edits == | |||
| Hi there, I have a comment about the method in which you conduct WP:NFCC #10c edits. Your current ''modi operandi'' is to remove an image from an article and move on to the next. I took a look at your last day's worth of edits and noticed that at least half of the images you removed were cover art from singles or albums that appeared in infoboxes. It would appear to be more beneficial to correct the WP:NFCC #10c error on the file page than to remove the image form the article altogether. These cases are very easy to confirm and require no more than a single edit, the same number you would otherwise do. While some editors may eventually correct the error and restore the image to the article, some errors are never fixed and images are deleted. This needlessly damages an article's quality. I just wanted to bring this to light in order to save yourself and other editors any unnecessary frustration that could be avoided with no additional work. – ] 07:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :However that does nothing to inform and get other editors involved. By removing files that are non-compliant he addresses the issues with NFCC and then forces those who use NFCC to ensure that they are complying with policy on that particular file (and they will hopefully review their other uploads too) ] 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Concur with {{BCD}}. Also, this is already answered at ], which is linked from the edit summary. --] (]) 13:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see why getting other editors involved and informed should be the goal, and besides my point is that in some cases other editors don't get involved and images get deleted. Non-free images aren't "owned" by other editors and often no editors monitor the non-free images or the articles on which they appear. I was also specifically referring to cover art that appears in infoboxes. It's pretty easy to tell when an image is cover art, which is almost only used in infoboxes, and the solution always seems to be to add a fair use rationale template. I'm bringing this up because I believe this is a much more efficient way to address NFCC #10c issues. – ] 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Very few people are involved in NFCC enforcement. There are tens of thousands of NFCC violations of various types across the project. Increasing the number of people who use NFCC correctly reduces the amount of work that NFCC enforcers have to do to keep the project in compliance with our policies and guidelines. So no, it isn't more efficient. I'm not very concerned if images get deleted or not. Album covers are readily available all over the Internet. Besides which, any file deleted here can be undeleted by an administrator. --] (]) 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Wales national basketball team == | |||
| Hi Hammersoft. Your edit at ] removed the article subject's logo. Please advise what was the problem (I'm guessing it was with the fair use rationale). I'm quite happy to do any work necessary to fix it, but could do with either some clues, or a link to a perfect fair use rationale for a logo, so I can see the difference between one that was done correctly and this one. Thanks, ] (]) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] ] 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of arbitration request regarding User:Δ == | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
| ] (]) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Mash photo's == | |||
| I just worked four straight days on that page, If you want a cast photo you do it. ] <small>]</small> 19:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *It is indeed difficult and upsetting when a person bumps up against a policy/guideline they were previously unaware of. Had I seen this work commencing before it got so far, I certainly would have said something earlier. But, I didn't see this work until it appeared on a ] showing that it had more than 20 non-free images on it, placing it in a very select group of articles with large quantities of non-free images on them. I'm sorry you put so much work into the article only to have it undone. Nevertheless, your textual contributions to the article remain and are certainly very welcome. As to the cast photo, I was offering a helpful suggestion on where to get cast photos, nothing more. --] (]) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to extend an apology for snapping back, I had just finished putting a lot of work on that page. Your absolutely correct in your action, I had not seen that section of policy before, now I realize, it prolly should of dawned on me. Anyway I'll try to figure a good way to post a cast thumb and tie it in to the page. Cheers, ] <small>]</small> 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thanks for the apology :) --] (]) 16:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Non-free rationale for File:Wood River 02.png== | |||
| ] | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ], but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to ], and edit it to include a ]. | |||
| If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on ]. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Regarding ], that photo is from a document prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, a United States Government agency. The photo is therefore Public Domain. The BLM document was posted on-line by the State of Oregon so that is the on-line source, but the photo is still Public Domain. Someone previously changed the original Federal Government tag to an incorrect Fair Use tag. Please call up the —it was prepared by the BLM and the photo is on the cover with the BLM source shown just below the photo. I have corrected the photo page by removing the incorrect tags and adding additional text directing people to check the original source document.--] (]) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thank you for correcting it. --] (]) 14:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC | |||
| :::*Why was ] file deleted? It's Public Domain photo as explained above.--] (]) 23:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*According to the deletion log, it was deleted because it is now available on Commons. --] (]) 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your userpage== | |||
| After reading your userpage, I feel that we both have something in common: being persecuted for merely trying to ]. ] (]) 07:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, I don't think of myself as a martyr for any cause or anything. But, I do like to have a laugh or two at people who think insults are a means to an end. That plus doing wacko things on the page thumbing my nose at stupid clique-like behaviors and bureaucratic blitherings. I look forward to the day when someone takes me to task for having ] on the upper right of my userpage. See, according to ], that's the rollbacker fez, and I don't have rollbacker privileges (and don't want them). There's no law anywhere that says I can't use fezs any damn way I like, plus the fact that I uploaded that fez image myself on Commons. But, someday somebody will take me to task for it. Count on it :) --] (]) 13:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == List of residences in Emmerdale == | |||
| You evil person, daring to put images of fezzes on your userpage when you're not entitled to them! On a serious subject, thanks for letting me know about ], but I won't be participating — my only edits to the article were to remove some of the many images that were deleted as replaceable nonfree, and I couldn't care less what happens to it. Much better to notify people like me that didn't need it than to leave out people that should have been notified. ] (]) 04:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Ha! :) I'm considering putting the Admin fez, or maybe even the ArbCom fez on my userpage. They are free license after all :) To the article, in a giant leap of ], I know what will happen if I don't notify every interested party five years in advance, in triplicate, with forms on file in a disused lavatory until the pages rot. :) --] (]) 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Why has all the information been deleted off this page? there are many pages on wikipedia that need work, but for it to be totally deleted is not good, now no work can ever be done to it seen as all the info has been deleted! :( ] (]) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Please see ]. --] (]) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Images== | |||
| It was brought to my attention that my images are being removed because they don't have proper FURs. I checked, they do. Especially and others removed within the last hour. Why are they being marked as not having FURs when they do? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 05:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :They need a separate FUR for every article that they are used in, which appears to be the case (some have been updated to add these additional FURs after their removal). --] (]) 05:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just noticed the problem and have taken care of most of them, some shouldn't have been on the pages they were on, so I left them as is. I wish folks would help out and add the FURs instead of removing the images and hoping someone else gets around to fixing the FURs. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 06:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::The only persons that know what the rationale is to use the image are those putting the images in articles. Hammersoft for example has no way of knowing if the image use is justified or not for those logos. --] (]) 16:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The desire that I should fix them instead of you is addressed at ], which I linked by way of ] in my edit summaries, specifically the section "Just fix it yourself instead of causing so much disruption". --] (]) 15:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see alot of talking about how you can't fix it yourself when you could be fixing it yourself. I believe "Judge Judy" said it best, "don't piss on my leg and call it rain". Don't give me 20+ reasons why ''you'' can't fix the FURs, which are pretty easy (most just a simple copy/paste) when you can just fix them. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 07:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::There's a difference between an image that has only one rationale but where an "obvious" type exists in the article name (an easy fix once identified), and having to create a completely new rationale beyond the existing one. The former is a simple courtesy, but the latter is a requirement of those wanting to keep the image need to fulfill. Hammersoft or any other 10c patroller cannot be expected to create a rationale out of nothing for the use of an image - they may even possibly disagree with the need of the image when it lacks the rationale, so it cannot be their responsibility to fix it. --] (]) 12:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::*@Neutralhomer; so don't piss on my leg (by enabling editors in their improper use of images) and call it rain (forcing me to fix it for them). --] (]) 13:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about your userpage == | |||
| "On Misplaced Pages, fair use image reversal finds every article!" Is this some sort of ] joke, or does it have a serious meaning that I've missed? Talkback please if you reply here. ] (]) 18:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Yep, it's the soviet russia thing. Still, it's chilling to note that on this supposedly free content resource, 10% of all articles have non-free content on them. --] (]) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Your warnings == | |||
| I am not vandalizing, I am merely editing the articles to be compliant with policy. See Thank you. --] (]) 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Unexplained deletions by a brand new account are generally regarded as vandalism. I strongly suggest you use edit summaries to direct editors to what you are doing and why. --] (]) 19:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **M'kay, I shall do so. --] (]) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==] logo== | |||
| I tried reading NFCC, 10c or whatever it is but it reads like gibberish. All I know is I got the image from another article on Misplaced Pages & the station is defunct so I can't imagine what copyright would be on it. What am I missing? Thanks.] (]) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Just carefully follow the instructions at ]. It does a better job of explaining it than I could. If it's still gibberish, I recommend not adding non-free images to any article. --] (]) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Readded with FUR. Hammersoft, stop being a jerk and answer the person's question without the attitude. There is no need for that. Stereorock is correct, most rules around here, read like something a lawyer wrote (and probably did). - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 03:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::*Neutralhomer, I advise you to follow ]. I was not attempting to be a jerk in any respect, shape or form. I was instructional, directing the editor to THE best resource for how to write a rationale. If you can't post here on my talk page without insulting me, then stay off my talk page. --] (]) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am well aware of AGF, but it seemed like you were being a jerk. Let me meet you in the middle on these images, if it has to do with radio or television stations, post the images in question to ] and a note on my talkpage (so I know you put them in the sandbox) and I will take care of them. That way, no one gets accused of being anything, you don't have to deal with the "why are you doing this" questions and everyone is happy. I won't be able to get to them until later tonight (about 11pm EST due to prior commitments), but I ''will'' get to them. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::* There is no need to refer to me as a jerk. As a means to an end to get me to do what you want to do, it will always fail. I refuse to accept insults. You can either choose to interact with me in a civil manner, or you will be ignored by me. As to posting them to your sandbox, there's a variety of reasons for answering no, not least of which is the alphabetical list I am working backwards on has already passed "W". --] (]) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, there is always "K", the first letter in the callsign of stations west of the Mississippi (minus a couple in PA). - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Oh and don't forget "C", used all over Canada. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::* I am not going to make a special 10c exemption for radio/tv station articles. I will clear the violations as I find them. If you want to fix them, you are certainly more than welcome to do so. is the report I'm working off of. --] (]) 20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That works too. I didn't know there was a page on the Toolserver, I thought you were working off something offline (paper, etc). I will working on those later on this afternoon. Got some errands to run before then. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">] • ] • 17:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Would you like to give a Third Opinion? == | |||
| A ] has been requested regarding the dispute at ]. As I see it, at the end of the day the question is whether it violates fair use to use both logos of an organization which has two current logos, in this case both a coat of arms and a logo per se. If you'd like to give a 3O, or just weigh in, your help would be appreciated. Best regards, ] (]) 13:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I've posted there. --] (]) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks, as always. Regards, ] (]) 18:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Bristol coat of arms == | |||
| Hi there. You appeared to have deleted the image used in the Bristol template, claiming that the image isn't allowed to be used in that template; it's a template and that image is of the coat of arms of Bristol, could you possibly explain why that image isn't allowed to be used on the template? Thanks. JAU123. ] (]) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see ] its not allowed in templates at all. ] 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *As {{BCD}} noted, the use of non-free images in templates is not permitted per ] #9. Please read that policy. Note that the Bristol coat of arms has a big red "C" on it in a licensing box on the image description page. It's not free, and therefore must adhere to all components of ] policy, including restrictions on location of use expressed in point #9. Please do not restore the image to the template again. Thanks, --] (]) 02:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there. Thank you for explaining that to me; I wasn't aware about the policy on the ] thing. I shall look more into it and work out what to do, maybe even find another image that doesn't contravene the policy. Thanks. JAU123. ] (]) 09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Missile designation == | |||
| . (loved it!) I stand corrected sir. How ya doin Hammersoft? — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Doing well. Glad you enjoyed that :) Sometimes when the acrimony hits its highest peak, a little bit of levity can serve as a glacier to cool things down. --] (]) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Vivabox == | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| Hi Hammersoft. I'm new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, and tried to be neutral on the VivaboxUSA page. I didn't even try to publish it for various reasons. I thought one of the reference buttons would get someone else to look at it to remove bias... Could you take a look at it and remove whatever is beyond fact/information? | |||
| ] (]) 20:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Caitlin | |||
| *The critical point is your username appears to represent a company, and you in fact are editing on behalf of that company. That's not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I also rather doubt the company is notable enough for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Alexa has it ranked higher than 4.5 million. --] (]) 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == UofT Logo == | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| You removed the University of Toronto's logo from the Canadian education program's site today and mentioned that "fair use" images are not allowed to be used in the main space. Why then is the image allowed in the university's article? All I did was use the image from the article. | |||
| If possible, could you please respond on the ] talk page, so that the professors just getting connected can begin to experience how this all works? I'm going to copy this note there. Thanks. ] (]) 05:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I saw this message left and that you weren't active, so I jumped in on this one. I've answered at ] to explain that Misplaced Pages: space is not the main space, and that NFCC #9 only allows non-free images in the main space. —''']''' (]) 05:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] closed == | |||
| An arbitration case regarding {{User|MickMacNee}} has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| #MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project. | |||
| #{{user|Δ}} is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive1 == | |||
| I was hoping for some more feedback at ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 01:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I have decided to just go along with NFCC craziness as far as I am concerned. Is it possible that you could reconsider the three or four opposes that you have expressed in the discussion.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can't you at least reduce it to one or two opposes:?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I'm just one person. I can't "vote" more than once. My opinion remains unchanged, despite the reduction (thank you) in NFCC content. If others feel it complies, then great. For now, I don't think it does. --] (]) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Are you aware that it only has 2 FU music files and one FU image now?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 17:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I believe I've voiced what I could, and achieved what I could. I can't do any better than I have. FA isn't a vote. --] (]) 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Amtrak Mark V RoadRailer - tailgate end.jpg == | |||
| I see that you've tagged ] and added a note beneath your tag, and since I've volunteered to handly many of ]'s uploaded images, I'm here to reply to your message, since there's no discussion page for the deletion. I don't dispute that Roadrailers are still in use, but regarding the statement that the image he uploaded is readily replaceable with a free image, my question is this; Do '''you''' know of a free image that can replace this right now? ----] (]) 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *No, I don't. Sorry. Regardless, under ] #1 the question isn't whether one exists now, but whether one could be created. The answer to that is ''yes''. --] (]) 18:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Well, as long as there are no security concerns, and we can all create another Amtrak roadrailer image, I can handle the deletion of this one. The nearest two big stations to me might have some (], ]), but I wouldn't guarantee it. ----] (]) 18:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Didn't know about that WP:NFCC #9. Misplaced Pages is a never ending WP:* surprise. ] (]) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == inre ] == | |||
| You are cordially invited back to ] as I feel it going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. ''']''' '']'' 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Quick question about a university seal == | |||
| In the process of trying to help with a dispute at ], I've run into a university seal, ], being used in an infobox (in accordance with ]). However, the fair use statement for that seal only identifies the source as "Internet". Does fair use require a more specific statement of source than that? (And feel free to jump into the discussion at the DRN noticeboard, too, if you like.) Best regards, ] (]) 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *The reason we ask for sources of media is so that a person unfamiliar with the subject has a means of verifying the license status of a given media file. So, "Internet" is not specific enough. I'd change it to Northwestern University School of Law. --] (]) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Auburn–Florida football rivalry == | |||
| Hammersoft, I have just added the free-use script Gators logo to this article as a replacement for the non-free Gator head logo that you removed. I just discovered this article two days ago after a newbie listed it as a "non-notable" article for deletion. I had been focused on saving the page during the AfD, and it slipped my mind that the Gator logo (added by article's creator, without my knowledge) would also be a source of controversy. If anyone attempts to substitute the non-free Gator head logo for the free-use script Gators logo, I will revert the change and explain the non-free image issue to them. The WikiProject University of Florida will continue to limit the use of the non-free logo to the Florida Gators team articles, and will not use the non-free image on season, game, or rivalry articles per the previous understanding. ] (]) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you :) --] (]) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == File: Kingdom of Muqtasid.jpg == | |||
| Hi, in fact it is my first time uploading a logo and this logo in fact is something that I. I uploaded it to display on my userpage ] (]) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC) . Is that use permitted or will the file just get deleted? Please help, thanks in advance. ] (]) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *No, I'm sorry, but the use of non-free images is not permitted in userpages. --] (]) 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Photos for my Userboxes == | |||
| Thank you for removing the images from some of my userboxes. I never knew about those rules. I am wondering is there a way to have images like that in my userboxes still? I saw a post on your talk page saying that on Commons anyone can use the photos for userboxes. I was wondering if you could explain that to me. Thank you very much. Also is that post on your userpage I mentioned. It would be very nice if you could help me.<div style="font-size: 130%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em;"><span class="nounderlines" style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] (])</span></div> 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Any image that is not a non-free image may be used on your userpages. Any images hosted on Commons would qualify. So, go there and search around for eligible images you would like to use. There's also a userbox project here at ]. They might be able to help you. --] (]) 23:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. That was very helpful. Now though I have one last question. I wanted to use Gmail logo from Commons to put on a userbox. The only problem is that there is a on Misplaced Pages that has the same file name. The file on Misplaced Pages is automatically the default picture. So how can I use the one from Commons? This would help me a lot. Thanks. <div style="font-size: 130%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em;"><span class="nounderlines" style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] (])</span></div> 15:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I have checked everywhere possible and I could not find out how to use on Wikimeida Commons without using on Misplaced Pages because it automatically uses the file on Misplaced Pages. If you could help me that would be great. You can respond on your user talk page or leave a message on my user talk page. Thank you. <div style="font-size: 130%; border: none; margin: 0; padding:.1em;"><span class="nounderlines" style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] (])</span></div> 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *If two files have the same name here and on Commons, you can't refer to the one on Commons by way of inline references to the image. Obviously, there's disagreement as to whether this image is free or not. I wouldn't use it at all. There's grey area here. --] (]) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition of non-free content, etc, == | |||
| Hammersoft, would you please take a look at the images added to "Florida–LSU football rivalry" and "Auburn–Florida football rivalry and advise as to their permissibility under the NFCC rules? Thanks. ] (]) 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Wholly unnecessary fair use. I've removed the helmet images. --] (]) 11:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == A Quick Question == | |||
| Regarding the helmet images in the football articles, I understand your deletion of the images as fair-use. My question is this, if the images of the logos are free due to not being original enough for copyright, would an image containing a drawing of a generic football helmet including that free logo not also be considered free? | |||
| I added the images as fair-use in an attempt to comply with the standard way these images were being uploaded. However, if the logo is free, would I not be correct in uploading them to Commons. This seems to be a way to use the images correctly. | |||
| Could you please comment, as I have noted you are more knowledgeable on the subject than the average editor?] (]) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I think there comes a question of whether the helmet actually is the helmets in use. Yes, if you take a generic helmet image that is free license or PD and put a text logo on it, then yes it's free. But, that doesn't mean it's really their helmet. And, if you make it appear as their helmet then you are creating a derivative work, and it attracts copyright again. --] (]) 21:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Not to appear slow, but if I would be creating a derivative work, how could the text/image used in the design fail to attract copyright status on its own? It would seem that taking two "free" images and combining them, the result would still be free, as I have not created anything utilizing sufficient originality.] (]) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *** You're not slow :) I could conceivably create a large number of works using only free works to do so whereby the resulting works are effectively identical to existing, copyrighted works. Doing so doesn't make my work free; instead, it makes my work a derivative work of the original. If the original is sufficiently creative to attract copyright, then creating a virtual copy of it using free components can attract copyright too as a derivative work. --] (]) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages photo policies... == | |||
| Hello: I was wondering if you would be willing to try and help ] as to up-loading and using photos on Misplaced Pages. He is new and has been uploading photos on several articles I edit on; however, he does not know the procedures as to photo use. He told me that he wants to learn about said procedures. Cheers, ] (]) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll have a look. --] (]) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello & ] == | |||
| Hi Hammersoft, Thanks. I would like to upload a picture of my cousin Eva but don't have any photos that are my own (not already in the public domain). I did upload some of the photos that until now were not in the public domain. I also need help on another picture that I will put below ''(ed; linked above now)''. Yes I guess my family is important. I remember going to the Berghof when I was a boy and Uncle Hitler, as we called him even though he was married to our second cousin, would come over to us and say hi and what not. I do remember him this one time when he pushed down his mouth with his hand and his bronze teeth showed. As the years go by the simple memories start to fade, that why my doing this and starting a website about Eva and Hitler. Thanks --] (]) 22:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you so much for your contributions! I find the memory of Hitler's bronze teeth to be fascinating. Historically insignificant, and any history book wouldn't mention it. Yet, I still find it interesting; such things give a peek into the real lives of historical figures. | |||
| *As to the (now above linked) image; this is difficult. Your family photo album is obviously yours. But, who owns copyright to the various images is not so clear. If a person takes a photograph, and gives you the photograph, you own the photograph. But, that does not mean you also own copyright. Rights have to be released to you by some mechanism. I guess my first question is whether or not this photo album was bequeathed to you on someone's death? --] (]) 12:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| When my brother died my mother gave him the photos but he sent me all of them. I did find this photo when I look on the internet so I guess it's in the public domain. --] (]) 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Hmmmm. Ok, first if you find an image on the Internet it doesn't mean it's public domain. I'm confused about the chain of events. The family album was the property of your mother? She passed it on to your brother on her death, and he passed it on to you on his death? --] (]) 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| My brother is not dead he just gave them to me to remind me of our home. I now have them. I don't know how the photo got in to the public domain but its on a site. --] (]) 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Ok, I'm less confused now :) When your mother passed away, I assume she bequeathed the photo album (and its photos) to your brother then? Thank you for keeping up with the conversation. I am sure these questions seem laborious, but it is important. --] (]) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I also have a photo of Eva Braun's Grand Father, Philip, what I belive to be the only one out there. I don't know if I should uploaded it because he does not have a page. What do you think I should do? --] (]) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Ok, this is great. This establishes the provenance of the family album, and whatever copyrights are still extant on the works within it. The only piece left now is for you to ascertain from your brother that he releases all rights to you that he gained when the album was bequeathed to him by your mother. At that point, you are then free to license the images as you see fit, if they are still eligible for copyright. Now, you may still run into resistance from those who patrol images. The best way around this is to submit a letter to the permissions queue of the ] team. Their e-mail address is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. More on that in a moment. If you decide to release the images under a free license, the best place to put them is on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org), which will allow any language Misplaced Pages project to use them. Uploading is similar there to here, and once an image is uploaded there you can refer to it here just the same as you do with images here, i.e. inline references work just the same. When you contact the permissions team, you should clearly layout the provenance of the family album, and assert that you are the sole holder of any existing copyrights to the works within. It would be a good idea to provide one or more example images for them to reference. At that point, an OTRS ticket for the album should be created, and that ticket can then be applied to any images you upload from that family album. For an example of this, see ] and the "OTRS" on orange background area, which is the tag associated with the OTRS ticket on file for that image. I know this is a lot to digest, and I'll be happy to step you through it if you like, but once you've done it once it becomes easier. --] (]) 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Okay I'll try to do that. --] (]) 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:pics == | |||
| ok, probably would have got round to it tomorrow as it's still a work in progress, but I've done enough on the article today. Thanks anyway as you've saved me the task of doing it. Cheers ] (]) 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Question on image == | |||
| ] is now an orphan. On what pages <u>''could''</u> it validly appear? Thanks in advance, ] (]) 07:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *An article specifically about the rank, such as ], or in a section, such as ]. --] (]) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair use images not permitted in template space == | |||
| You recently removed file:Horizon League logo.png from ]. I understand the reason for this but I don't understand what type of image can be used under the "image" category for the template. What is the difference between File:Horizon League logo.png and File:Big Ten Conference logo.png, which is used on ]? ] (]) 21:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *The Big Ten conference logo isn't copyrighted. That's the difference. Any non-free image may not be used in a template. --] (]) 13:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *How can I tell if an image is copyrighted or not? The Horizon League logos are registered and are trademarked, but are not copyrighted. I understand the legal distinctions between each of these but I guess I don't know how wikipedia treats each. Honestly, I'm getting frustrated trying to find an image when I don't really understand what I'm looking for. Please help me understand. ] (]) 00:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: The Big 10's logo is trademarked with the exact same type of trademark as the Horizon's logo. The only difference is that, on wikipedia, the Big 10 image does not contain the TM (which is part of the image located on their website) while the Horizon's does include the TM. This isn't me crusading to get the Big 10's logo removed but is me trying my best to figure things out by comparing what is working and what isn't. {{unsigned|City boy77}} | |||
| ** Trademark is not the same as copyright. In the case of the Big 10 logo, while it may be trademarked (even if the TM marking isn't there), it is considered to be too "simple" to be a creative work, and ineligible for copyright (see ]; thus it is considered a free image. The logo for the Horizon League is more creative, and thus is eligible for copyright, and unless we know they've released it into the public domain, we assume it is copyrighted, and thus we have to treat it as non-free. It is also trademarked, but for us, that's not a major issue as long as we are using the logo in association with the organization. --] (]) 01:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :That explains a lot. Would an image, such as the one located be able to be considered free for wikipedia? ] (]) 03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arguably, yes, as it is just text and a simple shape. --] (]) 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you take a look? == | |||
| I would appreciate your comment at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == PEB Photos == | |||
| Hi: I have placed the sourcing for the pictures you put warnings on. Do they meet your requirements? ] (]) 14:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *From what I see, there is no proof the images are licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0, as claimed on the image description pages. Instead, I see "Copyright© 2006 PEB Steel Buildings Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved." These images are not free, and are improperly license tagged. --] (]) 14:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ** Ok I am confused again. Like I said, I am the CEO of PEB Steel. These photos are our copyright. What do I need to do to the image page to meet your requirements? Should I change something in the image description box or change the type of copyright? Can you please help me? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *** I'll be happy to help! First, it's important to understand that we need to be able to independently verify the copyright status of any potentially copyrighted work. This is for our protection as well as yours. We have no direct way of verifying you are in fact the CEO of this company, and can release rights to the images. You could be somebody wholly unassociated with the company making false claims. It's happened many times before here. So, we have to be able to verify. To do this for these images, the best way to proceed is to follow the instructions located at ]. It's not all that difficult or time consuming. --] (]) 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ****OK. Here's the email I'm going to send to permission Misplaced Pages. Is this OK? | |||
| I hereby affirm that I, Adib Kouteili, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of: | |||
| * File:PEB - Nike Shoe Factory.png -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_-_Nike_Shoe_Factory.png#Summary | |||
| * File:PEB - BSRM Steel Mill.png -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_-_BSRM_Steel_Mill.png | |||
| * File:PEB - Spectator Arena.png -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_-_Spectator_Arena.png | |||
| * File:PEB Factory 1.jpg -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_Factory_1.jpg | |||
| * File:PEB Factory 2.jpg -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_Factory_2.jpg | |||
| * File:PEB Factory 3.jpg -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_Factory_3.jpg | |||
| * File:PEB Factory 4.jpg -> http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PEB_Factory_4.jpg | |||
| I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] | |||
| I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. | |||
| I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. | |||
| I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. | |||
| Adib Kouteili | |||
| Director PEB Steel | |||
| September 6 | |||
| ****If I now put a OTRS pending statement on each image description, will you remove the delete tags that you have placed? Thanks ] (]) 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *****Your answer, in the form of OTRS tickets being added to (at least some of) the images is in place :) Thanks for working with us on this. --] (]) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == MTV Logo Question == | |||
| I'm wanting to add the MTV logo to ]. Their logo is on Wiki Commons http://en.wikipedia.org/File:MTV.png - do you see any problem with me adding this one to the article? Thanks. ] (]) 20:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * No. --] (]) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. I'll give it a shot. ] (]) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Non free content used == | |||
| I'm stopping if you add images to userboxes, i don't use that. ] (]) 15:58, September 15, 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :? I don't understand what you're saying. --] (]) 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I am not going to argue the need of images at ]. But would you say a single image is appropriate? Maybe the image from the first album? --] (]) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *That is frequently the outcome of such removals, yes. --] (]) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: I restored the cover of the first volume. I'm not sure if it is better to put it on the top, as representative of the entire series, or at the infobox for the relevant volume. I chose the former, but if you think the latter is preferred please change it. Best regards. --] (]) 05:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Works fine for me. --] (]) 12:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:01, 23 September 2011
Old content