Also, the tagged two images in question -- of the East Campus (EastCampus.jpg) and CNSE (Cleanroom3.jpg) -- are both owned completely by the University and administered with totally legality by my office, Communications and Marketing. So, I am uncertain as how you need me to verify that.
Also, the main photo we keep putting in keeps disappearing, and I think a few others might have as well. These also are owned by the University and administrated by my office.
Please let me know what I need to do to resolve this.
Dear Polly, I saw that you tagged Image:Marina Khan in Dhoop Kinare.jpg and Image:Rahat Kazmi in Dhoop Kinare.jpg. Thanks for bringing my attention to them. They were tagged inappropriately in the beginning with a PD tag (copy pastes makes life hell sometimes as well). Anyway, as it is a screenshot of a television programme that has no free equivalent, I think the non-free fair use rationale I provided is sufficient enough. Please tell me if you deem it inappropriate. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now, I just changed the licensing template that's all. Polly (Parrot) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Your help is dearly appreciated. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to place the {{hangon}} tag on the image page, with your reasons why you believe the image should be kept on the image's talk page. Polly (Parrot) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly, the image i posted Image:55.jpg and the other one Image:DeadlyShadows.jpg have now been tagged and cited properly. Since you have not responded to my page concerning those images, I was wanting to make sure uyou knew this and did not delete the images. Thank you.
You say the images came from a search on ask.com yet you are claiming to be the copyright holder. You clearly are not the copyright holder. So not only is the licensing wrong, but you'd need to provide a fair use rationale. Even then the images could not be used in User Space as they would be non-free. Polly (Parrot) 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing. could you assist me with this image upload? and tie it to a new article.
Would appreciate any assistance or guidance you can lend?!
Thanks. --TMDREHRB 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Tmdrehrb
{{help}}
This is the background of the Image as I tried to describ it.
A recent Pre-model-shoot photo of model Kiko Mizuhara.
Source= Known and related. This Photo from (model) subjects own digital camera and image given freely for use by submitter.
The image was deleted because it was only permitted for use on Wikipedia, this kind of restrictive license isn't acceptable to Wikipedia. It needs to be a free license that doesn't restrict commercial or derivative works. Polly (Parrot) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the copy-paste of that article and nulled the helpme tag because frankly, I have no clue what's going on. Also, the text of a whole article didn't really belong on your talk anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE; The image was deleted because it was only permitted for use on Wikipedia, this kind of restrictive license isn't acceptable to Wikipedia. It needs to be a free license that doesn't restrict commercial or derivative works. Polly (Parrot) 14:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the copy-paste of that article and nulled the helpme tag because frankly, I have no clue what's going on. Also, the text of a whole article didn't really belong on your talk anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you suggest the appropriate free licence? The only concern is that nothing is done with the image that could be derogitory or morally degrading to the 17 year old models reputation. How can this be achieved?
--TMDREHRB 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)TMDREHRB
Here's the list of acceptable free licenses [1]. Unfortunately there is no way to guarantee that the image won't be used by others for commercial gain or indeed used to make potentially offensive derivative works. Though such an eventuality is unlikely to occur. Polly (Parrot) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...on uncovering all those rugby image copyvios. I'm gonna wade through and delete them now. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks it was getting rather tiresome wading through Google images looking for the links. Though I think it's now safe to assume that virtually all their uploads claiming copyright are copyvios. Polly (Parrot) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, absolutely. They all fail the duck test, and the user has shown that they have no respect for (or understanding of) copyright. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JeffBridges2008.jpg
I found this image at Imdb.com,so would it be allowed to be used on Jeff Bridge's page.It used to have only Beau Bridges(his brother) image on Jeff's article instead of his own.I'm new to uploading images,so I don't really know how to go about adding a copyright tag...let alone a tag that I found it on a public website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugreev2001 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not, as a living person only an image under a free license would be acceptable to Wikipedia. You have to presume that virtually everything is copyrighted and protected unless explicitly released under a free license by the copyright holder. Polly (Parrot) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hia my name is being bruno ans i needs help with my computer i is thinks i got a virus on here becaues i is keeps on making edits but i is donrt no what i is doing. how is i get out of wikipedia. i is looking for a game and i found wikipedia but i is keep losing because my edits are being changed back. please help
Just stop vandalising pages, and please sdon't expect me to believe the virus nonsense. Polly (Parrot) 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the source page states that the image may be reproduced and posted if linked back to the cource .. then why is the copyright under dispute? Does this not make the wolicensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License if placing an attribution back to the source?
Please help me understand why you have placed that message on the pages listed on my talk page, and I will attempt to correct the issue! Thanks.User:Ash773 (User talk:Ash773) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked on the source page (Falcon Motorcycles website) but could find no evidence of the Creative Commons license. Can you link to the license on the source page? Clearly these images on Picasso originally came from the Falcon Motorcycles website so they would be the source and copyright holder. Polly (Parrot) 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that doesn't equate to a free license. There is a big difference in permission to reproduce an image with a link back to the source and a cc-by-3.0 license. The CC license permits commercial and derivative works, there is no evidence that Falcon Motorcycles have agreed to this. Polly (Parrot) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what license shall I choose that complies with what they are allowing? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you. [User:Ash773]] (User talk:Ash773) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands currently none of the free licenses are applicable as the copyright holder hasn't explicitly released the images under a free license that permits commercial or derivative works, they may well be unwilling to do so. All you can really do is try to contact them and see if they'll agree to release the images under such a free license. You would then need to forward the permission to OTRS. Polly (Parrot) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted Falcon Motorcycles, thank you for the advice. They have agreed to release the images at that size, under a free license that permits commercial or derivative works and will email OTRS tomorrow. Once this has taken place, what license do you suggest I place on those pages? Thanks very much.[User:Ash773]] (User talk:Ash773) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if they specify a license but if they don't then a cc-by-3.0 would be fine. What's important is that they have agreed to a free license permitting commercial and derivative use. Polly (Parrot) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was BBC'd on an email that Falcon sent to OTRS earlier today explicitly releasing the images under a free license that permits commercial or derivative works. What happens now ...? Thank you Polly[User:Ash773]] (User talk:Ash773) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorance but what is BBC'd? Hopefully the email sent to OTRS had the Wikipedia URL's of all the images concerned. This will make it easy for a OTRS volunteer to find the images and add the OTRS template and ticket number. In the meantime you could add {{OTRS pending}} to the images. Polly (Parrot) 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry BCC'd = Blind copied ;) All Images in question have been been tagged by the OTRS 'Permission obtained via OTRS on each of the image pages and in the wiki possibly unfree image pages, but the possibly unfree message is still on each of the pages despite this.. I tried to remove it but to no avail! Please can you help take care of this is you put the message up there and it is now deemed unnecessary by OTRS? Thank you. User:Ash773 (User talk:Ash773) 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's all been taken care of, so all is resolved. Great work from you on getting permission from Falcon Motorcycles. Polly (Parrot) 20:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the image has never had a proper fair use rationale for each of the articles it links to, I'll add them. Polly (Parrot) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may have already got there first... Mangwanani (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have, the old image is now redundant I guess. Polly (Parrot) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it for deletion as per guidelines but don't have the powers to get rid of it. Time shall delete it if nothing else...Mangwanani (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes indeed, time will see the end of all things including itself. Polly (Parrot) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be clued up on copyright rules, more so than me. Would it be possible to use the image on this website [2] (and possibly others within) on this page considering that this is the official Government image released. I liken these to the images of the state images of US Presidents... Mangwanani (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that image is very unlikely to be in the public domain, the main Zimbabwe Gov. website is clearly labelled all rights reserved. As the fellow is very much alive then a non-free image with a fair use rationale would fail the WP:NFC. Vexing to be sure, though I doubt Bob Mugabe and chums would object to its use, they have other worries at this time. Polly (Parrot) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other actor's pages where screenshots of movies have been utilized to visually aid the readers in their understanding of the actor, so before you narrowly interpret the WP:NFC, you should first look at all the other instances when the same thing has been done time and time again. I have explicitly stated in the summaries of the images where they are from and why they are there. Thank you. --Ruckie84 (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but are the only images on those pages non-free? I suspect not. The screenshots are being used to decorate the page rather than aid critical commentary. Polly (Parrot) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly, I have gone through the pages of actors far more famous and acclaimed than Rajinikanth such as Hollywood giants Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and they utilize certain stills from their respective movies purely for identification purposes, even though expansive "critical commentary" do not exist. I do not know what you would define "critical commentary" to be, but I assure you that there are a litany of differing ways to construe or even misconstrue proper and efficacious "critical commentary". And even when you look at the article page of an indigenous Indian actor such as Amitabh Bachchan, stills are used from his various films purely for identification purposes and they serve no other intrinsically "educational" purpose. So I'm sensing some sort of inherent prejudice here againist Rajinikanth for some unknown reason whereby you are nitpicking issues which otherwise would not really matter. And in response to your terming my decision to add those pictures there purely for aesthetic or in your own term "decorative" purposes, let me say this: Rajinikanth is not exactly the most known film personality in the world; there are many people who exist out there who want to know more about him, who want to see what makes him what he is and those pictures simply serve to corroborate the same. Finally, it is palpably clear that the images I have uploaded will not inhibit and/or diminish the ability of the original copyright holders to profit from their original work. By the way, I have done what you requested me to do in terms of adding that caveat on each of the respective image description pages. I hope this rectifies the issue at hand and I look forward to continue adding to the page to make it more concise, relevant and informative for the many folks out there who want to know more about the suject. --Ruckie84 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at Al Pacino and Robert De Niro article. All the images bar one on each article are free. Compared to the many more you have on Rajinikanth's article and none of which are free. Polly (Parrot) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruckie,you seriously have a big problem.I mean you are absolutely obsessed with Rajnikant.What Polly has said above is right,you've put the images for decorative purposes.Before you get defensive (I know you will) and post a long message on my discussion page...I want you to seriously see the relevance of all the images you've added in the article and plan yourself which images actually aid the article and which do not. Sugreev2001 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Fort Minor.jpg was been flagged as free license property as of it was been edited by me, & so that the newly uploaded Jake.jpg. I am not so sure about Jake.jpg, but I think there is no content violation for such a low resolution (270x270) image.
Has it been deleted ?
I am uploading it again, its necessary for the Actor Jakes Newly Created page.
Neither of those images are acceptable as both are non-free and replacable by free images. They fail Wikipedia's Non-free content policy and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the notice that you posted on my talk page goes to: [[Talk:Image:WilliamKentKrueger1.jpg]]
but the written instruction in the notice you posted is that one should contest the deletion on the "talk page" for the image in question - which I think would be: Image talk:WilliamKentKrueger1.jpg
I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm simply not understanding this properly, after all, I would be the first to admit that I had great difficulty in finding a copyright tag which precisely applied to the situation regarding the photograph in question. I'm rather new here and many things seem quite incomprehensible and confusing. But I am very keen to learn from people who have more experience than I do.
The trouble is that - inexperienced as I am - even I can tell that [[Talk:Image:WilliamKentKrueger1.jpg]] and Image talk:WilliamKentKrueger1.jpg are definitely two entirely different locations. So I'm having difficulty knowing what the correct procedure is.
I've posted my comments regarding the image on the talk page Image talk:WilliamKentKrueger1.jpg. Should I post them on the other page too?
I would hate it if the excuses I offer were posted in the wrong place thus causing the image to be speedily deleted before a proper discussion of the situation had taken place.
I would love to find out how to rectify the situation, and what copyright tag applies to the type of image which I uploaded. But I hope you won't mind if I take this opportunity to confess that it's all very confusing to people who are genuinely trying to do their best, get things right, and learn, if instructions are presented in an inconsistent or unclear way.
You posted in the right place, the template is at fault. With regard to the images, the trouble is on the page you link to there is no explicit notice that the images are released into the public domain or are under another free license. You can't presume that the images are free, the copyright holder has to have explicitly released them under the license you claim. You could contact the copyright holder and follow these procedures to ask them to release the images with a free license that permits commercial and derivative works. Polly (Parrot) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually I would contest that in the circumstances of this particular case, one could presume the images are free, but no matter, I had already taken steps to contact William Kent Krueger. I await his response. By the way, when you say, "the template is at fault", I would say that the human being behind the template is at fault. But perhaps you would argue that I can't presume that there was a human being involved. However, sometimes what's explicit and what's implicit is obvious. Just a thought. Thank you for your time. Burntfingers (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is always presumed unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary. I think the template has trouble with image pages, probably because the CSD templates were mainly designed for articles, though who designed it I don't know. Good luck with the copyright releases, I'm sure they will be forthcoming. Polly (Parrot) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have already deleted the three images I had uploaded.But I have found who owns the copyright for them.The copyright holder is wireimage.com.If I were to upload more images from them,then how would I go about giving them credit for the images...if that were possible in any way.Also,do I need permission from the site itself to use their images. Sugreev2001 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tagged them for deletion, I didn't delete them. As the images were of living people then they wouldn't be acceptable unless the images were free. You could try contacting the copyright holder and asking if they'll release the images under a free license, but that would be very unlikely to happen. Polly (Parrot) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo Kanawha Madonna jpg was the photo taken for public download from the West Virginia Culture Center. News Papers and others folk used this photo to advertise and promote the artifact throughout our communities. The following is from the download photo webpage:
(< a href="kmadonna.jpg" > download color photograph here, approximately 450K < /a >; photograph by Michael Keller, West Virginia Division of Culture and History)
"The West Virginia Humanities Council and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History will present a lecture by University of Kentucky professor Dr. James Fenton on Thursday, March 15, at 7 p.m. at the Cultural Center in the State Capitol Complex. Fenton will discuss his recent archaeological research into the origins of the West Virginia State Museum’s “Kanawha Madonna” artifact. The program is free and open to the public. A reception will follow the presentation."
I'll added the above information you requested to the image's page and remove the notice you placed. Hopefully this will comply with your request.
Thankyou for your attention Conaughy (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the source page, unfortunately there is no sign of the Creative Commons license or any other free license on that page. Just because an image is part of a media pack does not make it free, it needs to be explicitly released under a free license and this looks not to be the case here. Polly (Parrot) 13:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, Polly. I removed the graphic from the article and please delete the graphic from WIKI. Folks wishing to see the graphic can click to the promotional page link and download their own personal copy. It is offered form public download and OK for individuals to do that with this graphic in our state. Thanks for helping me in keeping WIKI-correct. Conaughy (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably be deleted at some point, PUI moves very slowly, so it will remain as is until an admin gets round to it. You could tag it {{db-author}} and that would speed thing up. Polly (Parrot) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Polly,
I am having a lot of trouble getting the information in the correct format of photos that I have taken.
The format is hard to understand and I have tried many times, I really just do not know what to do.
Thanks
Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All seem fine apart from this one Image:USMA-1872.JPG which needs the same licensing as your others. Polly (Parrot) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This user page has been vandalized 10 times."[edit]
On your user page you have a userbox which says "This user page has been vandalized 10 times." I was wondering, if someone vandalized your page agani, but this time ONLY changed the number 10 to 11, then would it really be vandalism???
...Because if it is vandalism, then it can't be, because they are adding thier vandalism into your vandalism count, so therefore it isn't vandalism. BUT if it isn't vandalism, then surely it is vandalism, because they are unnecessarily changing your page and whilst doing so, damaging it.
Hi Polly! I've noticed a few image taggings from you before and hence I felt it would be quite appropriate to ask if you my question. I've noticed one image - Image:DaggubatiVenkatesh.jpeg and I strongly believe that the claim of copyright is nonsense. The image is a screenshot of the actor's movie and obviously the film's owner is the copyright holder. Under such cases, how can I put it up for deletion? Ideas? Thanks in anticipation! Mspraveen (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've sent it to PUI, so that should take care of it. Polly (Parrot) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Polly, I am now about to upload a photograph of Nasser Taghvai which I have copied from flickr; I have just received the written permission of its owner who as yet has to modify the corresponding copy-right statement. May I therefore hereby request you kindly to keep an eye on the to be uploaded photograph? Kind regards, --BF 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of response, haven't been around for a while. The image looks fine and so does the licensing, so I guess you got it all resolved. Polly (Parrot) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Polly for the reply. Yes, indeed the owner of the photograph adjusted the copyright statement very shortly after my writing to you. Kind regards, --BF 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Polly, is it possible to upload this poster: [4] (the main poster), which corresponds to: The Night Bus (film)? I have seen that some people upload similar posters under the heading of "fair use". Should be grateful if you would kindly shed some light on this question. Kind regards, --BF 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Polly, I am now about to upload a photograph of Tahmineh Milani; this morning I received an e-mail from the owner of the photograph (which is located on flickr), stating that it can be copied to Wikipedia (when I checked for the last, the owner had as yet not adjusted the pertinent copy-right statement). Please kindly have this photograph under your protection until the owner has made the copy-right statement CC, or something similar. With kind regards, --BF 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:James Booth.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:James Booth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polly. I don't know if you remember, but we entered a dialogue about some motorcycle photographs that I uploaded. I obtained permissions from the copyright holder.. and have now received an email from that copyright holder saying that they do not in fact give permissions for some of those images.. how do I delete those particular images in this situation? Advice would be appreciated. Thank you. Best User:Ash773 (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polly,
I try and try to get this copyright down and it never works.
Is there a format where I fill in the blanks. The photo is mine, I took the photo.
Andy2159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By way of background, I took the photograph myself, downsized for other reasons, and later uplaoded it for my home town wikipedia page. I picked an arbitrary licence with little or no basis for my choice. Perhaps there would be a better way to proceed if I ever find the higher-resolution file for upload.
I have added copyright tags to the image.I added tags when I first uploaded it but they seemed to disappear so I added them again. So is there still a problem? I also had two previous edits removed by the bot for the same reason. Can you please confirm that I have now added the tags as required and that I will not be banned for multiple edits deemed vandalism, all for the same problem?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is regarding the logo of a Philippine-based (government-owned) science high school whose official logo can be found here. According to the uploader the logo is created by the principal of the school with the help of the students and is therefore not copyrighted. I don't understand that logic at all. As it is a government-owned highschool, how can its official logo not be copyrighted? And if it is an UNofficial logo why put it in the highchool's article in the first place? The uploader of the logo in question is notorious for copyrighted uploads and houses a growing page filled with all sorts of image complaints. Kindly check into this. Many thanks. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I the uploader, will explain that: First, a copy of the logo can be distributed to the student body through the IT Department of the said school. Second, multiple copies of the logo are sometimes required by students in the Journalism club, isn't it a big convenience that the logo can easily copied by here. Also, I am a certified student of the said school, (I was only attracted in editing Wikipedia thanks to my IT teacher) my teacher wanted me (with the principal's permission) to upload the logo of this school. Just following his orders. Hope you understand. Dar book(Complains?) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is all unverifiable information. You have uploaded the school logo of a public highschool owned by the Philippine Government. Then you said in its page that it is UNcopyrighted, yet you claim to have been given license to release it in the public domain. Who gave you this so-called license? And why does anyone need to give you license if the image is UNcopyrighted? Also, in the licensing section you wrote that you are the copyright holder of the said image and is releasing it in the public domain. These are all contrasting statements that makes absolutely no sense at all. Another thing that you should be aware of is that if this is the official logo of the school then it is the property of the Philippine Government and even your IT teacher or the school principal don't have authority to permit you or anyone else to release it in the public domain. Now, if this is not the official logo and something that you just made-up, what is it doing in the article's page? You need to reconcile all these and provide acceptable evidence to back your claims. The truth is you have a long history of anomalous image uploads. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you already that it is for the convenience of the the students and for the other people who want to have a copy of a logo. Copyright in our country is not strict, since there are many public school logos of the Philippines out there, not uploaded by me. You must stop trying to magnify the negative facts to make me look bad, most of my images were not anomalous, they were orphaned after somebody removed them from the article were it was used. I din't have time to bring back the link to my images, so they were placed on Speedy Deletion. The truth is, you are harassing me, since we already had a truce with a third opinion user. Still hoping for peace. Dar book(Complains?) 12:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dar book, I can have you arrested for saying that "Copyright in your country is not strict" because that is directly inciting ignorant people to disobey the law and just keep on uploading copyrighted materials to WP. WP is strict in complying with the law, if you are into breaking the law, following the example set by your church, then WP is obviously not for you. Please go to 11. No evidence of permission and provide the required evidence that you have received permission from the copyright holder, in this case the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, to upload the said image. Evidence could be a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Your contradictory claims regarding the source and nature of the image is highly suspicious (i.e. you claimed that you own the copyright for the image, then you claimed that the copyright owners gave you license to upload the image UNcopyrighted, now you are claiming that the image is copyrighted but it's ok because "Copyright laws in your country is not strict"). Perhaps the police should be involved in investigating the things that you're doing. – Shannon Rose (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you prove that the government, not the school owns the logo? I don't remember any Philippine Policy like that. Maybe it's your country that has a policy like that. Also, almost all the students use the logo in their book labels, projects and other stuff. Should they be arrested? Dar book(Complains?) 10:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I get so confused about Wikipedia management that I don't even know if you've answered me already somewhere that I can't find. This is what I wrote a few days ago on a discussion page (somewhere):
Dear Polly,
I have added citations in the two places -- in the rankings -- where I think they were asked for. Can I get some feedback on that?
Also, the two images in question -- of the East Campus and CNSE -- are both owned completely by the University and administered with totally legality by my office, Communications and Marketing. So, I am uncertain as how you need me to verify that.
Also, the main photo we keep putting in keeps disappearing, and I think a few others might have as well. These also are owned by the University and administrated by my office.
Let me know what I need to do to resolve this, please.
Image copyright problem with File:Vaquero.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Vaquero.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Awarded to you for welcoming people across time, something that is very nice of you. Oh, and for all your recent notifications. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_. -- 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:James Booth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
- The Modest Barnstar
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nasser_Taghvai.jpg){kind=link}
