User talk:Polly/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What counts as an exceptional circumstance?[edit]

Hey - was wondering why the picture of Celia Imrie couldn't be used? It is used fairly already in another article, and as her article also partially describes Acorn Antiques The Musical (the original article in which the picture is used) why can't the picture be used in both circumstances?

My reasoning is that it is a good picture, and does little harm to put it there - and in my opinion, hardly violated wikipedia regulations. Am I wrong? Adaircairell (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-free images on BLP's are very contentious, part 12 of this list gives some examples of when a non-free image is acceptable. I don't think the image of Celia Imrie in her Acorn role is one of these exceptions. An image of Celia actually receiving her Olivier Award could well be an exception, as a free image would be unlikely to be availiable, or become availiable. Polly (Parrot) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but this image wasn't taken by the DVD company, or anyone; it is a screen shot, so surely that counts as some sort of exception? I mean, I took it myself, and degraded the quality - it wasn't just something I took of the web! Also, because it is being used in a descriptive way (the one in the article, not her headshot, which was rightly removed), as it was next to a few lines on Acorn Antiques, doesn't that constitute fair use ("The image is being used in an informative way and does not detract from the film and is only being used for information regarding the film for an encyclopedic purpose./ The image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to sell or show the film./ The image is used at a lower scale to prevent illegal use")? I will add a picture of her getting her Olivier award as well - good idea, now you mention it. Thanks anyway! Adaircairell (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Screenshots are subject to copyright regardless as they are derivative works, the image is fine in the Acorn Antiques The Musical article as a free image would be very unlikely to be, or become availiable. The same image in Celia's article isn't acceptable because it adds nothing that text cannot adequately convey. The image isn't significant historically in any way so its use on a BLP would not really be correct. It is frustrating trying to follow Wikipedia's strict non-free content (images) policy as under fair use the image probably is acceptable, just not under the non-free content policy/guidelines. I just wish I could find a free image of Celia to add to her article. Polly (Parrot) 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • EDIT - Have added Olivier Award picture. Hope its ok - not entirely sure though, so may need to be moved in the article (?). Adaircairell (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the odds we wrote at the same time?? Well, I hope this image is ok - if not, I may try and take one at some point and put it up.

  • Alas I fear the image fails as it isn't one of Celia actually receiving the award ,but instead one of her posing with the award after the event, a subtle distinction, but crucial. Also even if it were one of Celia receiving the award it shouldn't be used as an image in the main infobox as this gives it undue prominence, it should only really be used next to the relevant part of the article dealing with this award. Sorry to be so negative but the policy is darned strict. Polly (Parrot) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dammit, just spent five minutes outlining possible reasons to keep it, but my wireless got inexplicably shut down!

Anyway, I was just saying (gosh, this is all complicated) that the public isn't allowed in for press photography of Olivier winners, so the image should constitute as being replaceble, and you can't find a free equivalent online... Perhaps if I specify this on the talk page? I apologise for all this trouble... and don't worry about being negative - not at all! You are, rightly so, following the complicated Wikipedia protocol - very commendable! I just hope that my proposed solution is ok (you wouldn't believe how long it took me to edit the image and put it up here!) - if it does pass, can it be used in her "Awards and Nominations" sub category, where it's relvant? Thanks! Adaircairell (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can certainly appreciate the time and effort you're taking. Essentially the image is Celia posing with her Olivier, albeit on the night she received it. Now whether this is acceptable is open to debate, if you add it to the awards section of her article at default thumb size (180px), then I won't challenge its use, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't come along and challenge its fair use rationale. Polly (Parrot) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fantastic - couldn't ask for better! Adaircairell (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it got deleted, can't say I'm the least bit surprised as it was always a dodgy rationale for a BLP. Don't let it get you down, I'm sure a free image will surface at some point in the not too distant future. Polly (Parrot) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know; it got deleted by this unbelieveably rude user called Yamla. I have a query; there are loads of articles of BLP which have screenshots of the person in a film. When is that allowed? What specific circumstance, I mean? Just so I know - so then I may be able to upload one. Also, how do I know when you've replied to this? Because you reply on your own talk page, I don't get notified - do I just have to keep checking? Thanks! Adaircairell (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, congrats on the "Did You Know" for Acorn Antiques The Musical, I'd forgotten that I nominated it, and was surprised when I saw it on the main page in the early hours of this morning. Now with regards screenshots on BLP's, the answer is they should never be used if they are the only image on a BLP. In general screenshots of say an actor 'in character' shouldn't be used at all, even when they are deceased an image of the actor out of character should be used. As an example of what seems to be an acceptable screenshot on a BLP see the Tom Cruise article, the only non-free image is a screenshot of Tom doing the couch jumping. This inclusion is probably justified due to the large amount of media coverage the incident got and the shift in public perception of Tom Cruise that this incident provoked. Polly (Parrot) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok - thanks for the congrats, although I'm not sure why I'm being congratulated - what have I done? Is it some sort of honour? Thanks for the heads up on screen shots... there are loads of articles with screen shots in BLP articles though. Thanks for all of your help! Adaircairell (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just congrats on creating a new article deemed worthy of the main page. I've been removing a few non-free images from BLP's myself, though this is often a surefire way to become unpopular really quickly and more often than not the images are just readded, it's a Sisyphean task to be sure. Polly (Parrot) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see! Thanks! I'm glad the article is deemed worthy... hope I'm getting better at the whole Wikipedia thing! Lets hope we can continue the good work. :) Adaircairell (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaiZhuqAcademy1.jpg[edit]

I added a fair use rationale template. JungleFuryPizza (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No you were saying some very unpleasant things about Stephen Curry (basketball). Polly (Parrot) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry misunderstood you, if you're saying you've now stopped vandalising and won't continue then good, it was rather pointless after all. Polly (Parrot) 01:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear couldn't exercise self control could you. Polly (Parrot) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Why are you deleting all my images. I left a comment on the images talk page. If they are from somewhere else, then name the source.
Wiki king2 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy Shazam[edit]

May I ask why the Foxy Shazam page recieved the

tag?? K-LIDD (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly, I tagged it because as it is it reads like a promotional flyer rather than an encyclopedia entry, far too much POV and puffery. Statements like Foxy Shazam is making a death defying musical stunt with their sound, I'm not even sure what that means and it's hardly written from a neutral point of view. Hope that clarifies things. Polly (Parrot) 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a way of describing their very unique style they have. It's stating that they're taking a chance/risk with this odd style of music they have created. They are a very different kind of music and band. I think it's a very descriptive way of putting across to people that Foxy Shazam is a new generation style of music and that they're not afraid to take chances. I'm not trying to promote the band, that's what myspace and purevolume are for. I just used the line from one of their bios on Absolute PunkK-LIDD (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While such descriptions may well be appropriate say in the music press, they aren't really suitable for an encyclopedia article. You need to stick to the facts and only include verifiable information and no POV content or flowery prose. Whilst this approach may lack the current punchy style of the article it will make it encyclopedic and acceptable to Wikipedia. As it stands the article just comes across as promotional and rather lightweight, it almost exudes an air of desperation in its desire to convince the reader of the subjects significance. Polly (Parrot) 20:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So that one line is making it seem that "way"? K-LIDD (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just that line, it's the general tone, this line also is baffling The group creates keyboard propelled songs layered with some spastic hardcore noise, try to keep the language readily understandable to the average reader. Polly (Parrot) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

You recently made this edit with the summary "Notification: Deletion of Image:P2220024.jpg. using TW" but the result seems to have just been the removal of ~80Kb of text (and no additional notification). Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing that out, must have been some kind of Twinkle glitch, I've rollbacked that edit to restore the text. Polly (Parrot) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himesh images[edit]

replied on my talk page -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short location articles[edit]

Hi Polly,

I have been unable to locate the policy regarding short location-type articles, such as for towns or cities. For example, I ran across Ballinamult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), how should such an article be handled? Thanks. Jb0007 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's the proposed policy on places Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). All that really matters with articles about villages or towns etc, is are they verifiable. Give at least one external link or reference that means the location can be easily verified. Even very small villages or townships are almost always considered notable by default. The example you gave is a bit short on detail and lacks any reference or external link, though even without these it's unlikely to be deleted if it can be verified as a real place. Polly (Parrot) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bvrit.JPG[edit]

You applied a speedy deletion template to Image:Bvrit.JPG as a copyvio. I don't think it is, however, as the image you've linked to is only 220 x 195 pixels in size, while the image on Wikipedia is 700 × 465 pixels. I've removed the copyvio template. If you still believe it to be a copyright violation, feel free to re-add the template. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes you're right, I've had a look on the website I linked to and now believe I've found the larger image on there, so have readded the CSD with this new link. Polly (Parrot) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Yes, you're right - that is, indeed the same picture, from what I can see. I tried to dig around before to see if I could find a larger picture. I suppose it is possible that the picture was taken by Krishnachinna and then used by the website! ;-) Given the large number of other pictures the user has submitted, however, that also appear to be copyvios, I'm inclinded to believe that you are right! LOL! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to delete obviously rescuable fair use images[edit]

Polly, why are you exerting effort at having images deleted which are clearly justifiable (though not justified) under our fair use criteria? Is it so much more difficult to add a rationale? I am speaking of logos, book covers and the like. Regards, Skomorokh 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the uploader wants to add a rationale then they have 7 days to do so, the onus is on them, not me. And to answer your question, yes, it is a lot harder to add a genuine rationale if you have no idea of the source or copyright holder. Polly (Parrot) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced such an attitude improves the encyclopedia, but I understand your position. I find this tool dramatically reduces the effort needed to save worthy images. Thank you for your time, Skomorokh 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tool is added to my monobook and tested, very nice and thank you for telling me I'm sure it will come in very handy. Polly (Parrot) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out at which point I failed to satisfy fair use criteria. I don't have the time these days to be reading through pages of rules to satisfy a pedant, especially in the case of an article that is barely an expanded stub. In the time that it takes to read all of that, I could be expanding the article instead. --Butters (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forget about it, I went back and added the rationale. Polly (Parrot) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raakhee Gulzar.jpg[edit]

Hi there! I noticed that you tagged this image with CSD. But, I'm not sure if you noticed that it is being used under fair-use in a film article alone. Mspraveen (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, my mistake I should only have removed the image from the BLP and not tagged it. Tag now removed. Polly (Parrot) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Moodybank.jpg[edit]

Hi Polly. Thanks for the kind notice about the fair use rationale for Image:Moodybank.jpg. I have made some adjustments to the description and hopefully it now passes the "sniff test"???? Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a perfectly good rationale to me. Polly (Parrot) 13:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Riya Sen's page[edit]

Hi again. I noticed your edits to the above article and I don't quite understand the reason for you removing the image from the article page. The concerned image is used under fair-use in the article page and yes, it surely can be used under fair-use. The purpose of the image being used in the article is to indicate the actress' most well-received and well-acclaimed film in her professional career. Thoughts? Mspraveen (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-free content should be kept to a minimum, especially in BLP's. The screenshot concerned is fine in the article about the film, but its use in the Riya Sen article is somewhat dubious as the image really adds nothing to the understanding of the article's subject matter and can be adequately conveyed by text. Unlike the calendar image for which a fair use case could be argued as it caused some controversy and was very significant to boosting her profile. In order to understand how it might have been seen as controversial an image of it is a definite aid to understanding, therefore its use could be justified. Polly (Parrot) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could also claim that the calendar image has an enduring iconic significance that will be forever associated with Riya Sen. The same could not be said for the film screenshot. Polly (Parrot) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If the article warrants itself going further up on quality, more FU images will cause hindrance to its nomination. Unless this was the reason, I would have both on the page as both were instrumental in bringing her attention. Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you say too many FU images aren't likely to help the article, and if it wasn't for the one free image of Riya Sen then no FU images would be permitted. Just look at the Demi Moore article, no images, the only images are on More Demi Moore under FU, but not one of these is allowed on her main article because it would be the only image and a FU one, so not permitted. At least the Riya Sen article hasn't got that problem. Polly (Parrot) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drivebyargumentalbum.jpg/Image:ALBUM+PACKSHOT+high.jpg[edit]

I would like your assistance with the problems you flagged up for me. I mistakingly uploaded ALBUM+PACKSHOT+high.jpg in an incorrect fashion, i wish to have that deleted, but i would like to have Drivebyargumentalbum.jpg remain, can you assist me and remove the first image stated, as i am new to Wikipedia and i am unaware of how to do it efficiently. Thank you in advance for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltrain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK switched speedy delete tags and added a fair use rationale. Polly (Parrot) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images on Colonel Les Claypool's Fearless Flying Frog Brigade[edit]

Your recent removal of images on the article Colonel Les Claypool's Fearless Flying Frog Brigade#Albums included removal of important text rendering the chapter meaningless. Please be more careful in your efforts to make wikipedia a more free enclyclopedia. Can you please fix this particular error? - Steve3849 talk 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Steve3849 talk 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a chance![edit]

I know you feel you're doing the right thing but for those of us who don't have a lot of spare time, it would be appreciated if you could wait until you hear from us BEFORE deleting our content.

You may not have intended this, but to us, it feels like abject vandalism on your part.

You've removed a host of work that I and my friends have put into wiki. It was our work and our copyright or done with the copyright holder's permission. How do we restore the deleted images etc, so that you/others don't ruin our efforts.

We're pretty upset by this our entry for Partap Sharma that had images removed.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kastellan (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe you're talking about all the book cover images that didn't have fair use rationales. Tell you what I'll do, seeing as how my tagging of these images upset you so much I'll add a fair use rationale to each one and re-add them to the article. The only exception is the image of Partap Sharma, as non-free images of living people aren't really acceptable. If you want to use a copyrighted image under a free license then you'll need to get the copyright holders permission. This section explains what to do Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.Hope that helps. Polly (Parrot) 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - this is much appreciated. The website pic was my copyright and I have the author's permission to use his likeness. How can we restore the pic?--Kastellan (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'd need to upload the image again. If the image is used elsewhere on a website under a non-free license then you'd really need to follow the instruction from here onward. Or alternatively add a free license to the image on the website it's being used on. Polly (Parrot) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Wes Bentley that was deleted[edit]

This picture is owned by the person who uploaded it and therefore there is no copyright infringement. It should not have been deleted. It was also uploaded under creative commons license, Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedesk (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael's Hafod Church[edit]

Hi :-) Thanks for writing about Saint Michaels Hafod Church.jpg. I thought all images Flickr were public domain. I guess I misunderstood the site, and how the picture is designated. Just because it is in a public area it will not necessarily be available? I am glad the image was deleted. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite a few people make that mistake, if you want to be sure of finding images with a Wikipedia compatipable license then go to the Flickr advanced search page [1] and tick all the boxes in the Creative Commons section. This should ensure that any images your search locates are acceptable. Hope that helps you. Polly (Parrot) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This helps a great deal. Thanks for the explanation, and for all your hard work on Wikipedia. ∞☼Geaugagrrl(T)/(C) 20:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so understanding about the images deletion. Polly (Parrot) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Bentley image that was deleted[edit]

The picture of Wes Bentley was uploaded at the request of the copyright holder. It was uploaded within the creative commons license. Why was it deleted? -Kedesk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedesk (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because there was no proof that the Creative Commons license was valid. In order to avoid deletion of these types of promotional images then please follow the procedure detailed here. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the copyright holder T. Zierra[edit]

I asked Kedesk to upload this deleted picture for me through her account. I attest that this picture was taken by me of Wes when I was on location with him in 2000 and that I am the copyright holder. I also attest that I am releasing it to Wikipedia under creative commons license. I can be reached through the website for my movie My Big Break at www.mybigbreakmovie.com or at mantic8@yahoo.com .

-Tony Zierra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedesk (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now all you need do is upload the image to Commons and send an email of the permission to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" . Creating an account at Commons will take but a minute. Polly (Parrot) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in the email make sure to include the URL of the image on Commons, so it can be quickly identified. Polly (Parrot) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

No, of course I don't mind explaining my reasoning. Thanks for asking. I admit it was a borderline judgment call on my part. It came down to the fact that if the Emmy stuff is true (and trust me, I'm going to watch to make sure that gets sourced) then we've saved someone the trouble of recreating. If the Emmy stuff turns out to be false (and that's on my list of research to do) then we've done no harm by leaving it up a few days, and I'll quietly delete it then. I know it's not the outcome you wanted, but I want to reassure you that I'm not just leaving it up and failing to follow-up - that's one I'm going to actively watch and work on the sourcing. - Philippe 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your speedy reply and explanation, I think the Emmy mentioned is a local Emmy, I'm not sure how significant this award is in the entertainment industry. I do appreciate your reasoning and to an extent can agree with it. I have no strong desire to see the article deleted, I'd much rather see it adequately sourced so as to meet the notability guidelines. Whether that will be possible or not only time will tell. Polly (Parrot) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely understand your concerns. Can we agree to give me a couple of days to try to source it, and if that doesn't work (or if you see that I haven't done anything on it) you can give me a poke and I'll take steps then to reconsider my closure and delete it? I'm actually traveling tomorrow and Tuesday, but I'll have some time to work on it while I'm on the trip. - Philippe 02:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds perfectly reasonable. I wish you luck in finding those sources, I don't think it'll be easy. Polly (Parrot) 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to think you're probably right. Please don't hesitate to give me a poke around Wednesday if I haven't managed to get anything in there, because that doesn't mean I haven't done anything - it just means I haven't translated it to wiki. I don't want it to fall into the cracks, so I will take a reminder in the spirit you intend it. Thanks for all you do, I see your work all over the place.  :-) - Philippe 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment on the AfD. I emailed the branch of the academy that was supposed to have awarded the Emmy. Only response so far was that the show existed and aired on WUSA. Nothing to confirm or deny an Emmy. It's been a week now. The Emmy in question is in fact a regional emmy, where the competition and viewing area is restricted to the CD/Chesapeake Bay area. All we have is the author's say so and a challenge to confirm it ourselves. It is not our responsibility to do the author's work for him. If there was a claim of an Emmy, if there's no source to confirm it, then it didn't happen as far as Wikipedia is concerned. DarkAudit (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kripaluji Maharaj 5.png[edit]

Hello, you marked the above image for deletion as a copyright violation under WP:CSD#I9. I can't find any evidence that this image is a copyvio, and the uploader asserted that it's their photo. If you can provide a link to the source of the image, and that source is not a mirror of Wikipedia, please provide that link on the image's talk page and re-tag it. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Regarding the page Image:Kripaluji maharaj 12.png, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of it is copied from a source which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert (other than through tags) that the image is public domain, fair-use, free license, or used with permission, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because you have not specified the source or other location from where the image has been taken so it is not possible to verify that it is indeed a copyright violation. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No thanks I'll not trouble myself, if Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about exercising due diligence then why should I. Polly (Parrot) 20:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same applies to Image:Kripaluji Maharaj 3.png. If you think the image is a copyright violation, you need to show what other website or location it might have been copied from. If you can't find it, you can still list it as a possibly unfree image. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That image was speedy deleted as a copyvio before, I linked to the relevant website. So no I'll not trouble myself again thanks. Polly (Parrot) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, here's another one that was speedy deleted before, but still must assume good faith mustn't we?

Image:Kripaluji Maharaj 2.png and here is the copyvio. Polly (Parrot) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help with contacting permissions[edit]

I did as you asked but got this back. I've already run into repeated problems re- uploading the picture that was deleted. Don't want to chase this around and around. Can you give me some idea why this email might have been bounced back? See below:


This is the Postfix program at host ticket.wikimedia.org.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.

The Postfix program

<otrs@ticket.wikimedia.org>: can't create user output file. Command output: 

   procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/otrs"

Reporting-MTA: dns; ticket.wikimedia.org X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 884DE21C3F0 X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; mantic8@yahoo.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:32:06 +0000 (UTC)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; otrs@ticket.wikimedia.org Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; can't create user output file. Command output: 

   procmail: Couldn't create "/var/mail/otrs"

From: (my email address was here) Date: April 7, 2008 7:31:55 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Subject: permission for image of Wes Bentley

As per Polly (Parrot) instructions I have re-uploaded my image of Wes Bentley on Wikipedia with the proper attribution etc. Here is the link:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wes_Bentley_in_Chicago.jpg

I attest that this picture was taken by me of Wes when I was on location with him in 2000 and that I am the copyright holder. I also attest that I am releasing it to Wikipedia under creative commons license. I can be reached through the website for my movie My Big Break at www.mybigbreakmovie.com or at mantic8@yahoo.com .

  • I've got no idea why the email failed, still you made the effort. You could add the above that i've highlighted to the image on Commons, add it to the source section where it currently says self made. Then just go ahead and add the image to the Wes Bentley article. Polly (Parrot) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spiral model (Boehm, 1988).png[edit]

Hi, what did I miss. Why did you just nominate the Image:Spiral model (Boehm, 1988).png for deletion. It is just a translation of an existing image from the German wikipedia. What could possibly be wrong with that. -- Mdd (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. The license information is missing. I will added that information and remove the delete template. -- Mdd (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't add the Creative Commons and GNU licensing to the image. Polly (Parrot) 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I don't do this every day. I changed the template towards "self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0" -- Mdd (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All looks fine now. Polly (Parrot) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Mdd (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to remove residual pixel note= Wes Bentley pic[edit]

After a lot of trial and error finally re-uploaded the new pic of Wes Bentley from Commons link. However, there is still a residual pixel tag in the image frame left over from when you deleted the original pic. Have no idea how to get rid of this. ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Bentley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedesk (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polly/Archive_6&oldid=1047731346"