User talk:Meegs/Archive 6

This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

User talk:Meegs	2005 Nov →	2006 Feb →	2006 Apr →	2006 May →	2006 Jun →	2006 Aug →	2006 Oct →	2007 Jan →	2007 Apr →	2009 Jun →

Images

Meegs Hi. Thanks for your message. Now I've calmed down a bit I suppose what really p'd me most is that my image has been uploaded with a different name thus having someone else contributed with my image, then my original put up for deletion without me even being consulted. The fact it is used by other articles is some condolence. Would I be right in thinking that if I create a wiki commons account I could re-upload it, with the correct name and then have the duplicate removed? Would I also need to individually re-upload each of my images already placed on the English Wiki, (Possibly with a new username)? Richard Harvey 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's important to you, then yes. If you were to upload another copy to the Commons, change the links on the Catalan and Spanish WPs, and then tag the old version as a duplicate, it will be deleted in favor of your upload. I'm not terribly familiar with Commons, but I can track down the procedure for the last step, if you like. Perhaps it would be best to leave that one photo for the moment and first move your other images over. You don't have to move them, but if you don't, someone else will (one at a time). By the way, if you upload an image to Commons under the same filename as an image on Wikipedia, the Commons version is obscured behind the local Wikipedia version. The advantage of doing this, though, is that you won't need to change the links in the Wikipedia articles; when the local copy is deleted, the commons version will seamlessly take its place. There's some info about the process at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons.

One more thing: would you mind posting another message to the IFD discussion withdrawing your objection to its deletion? We can handle the possible reupload to Commons independently once the local version is deleted. ×Meegs 06:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets get this going! I have created an account on common, with the same username. I have created a list of my images in a gallery type page My photo contributions. So can these now be moved to commons en mass with some of your admin skills or do I need to do them individually, or what, so that I get conributed with them. I will sort the IfD out once all my images are moved over. NB: today is a busy day for me as I'm due off at a Regimental Function, just after Lunch, (or in other words a Regimental Reunion and p up with mates not seen for many years). Richard Harvey 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are some great photos. I hadn't seen all of them before. Beautiful green country. Before I forget — and sorry to nitpick — with regard to copyright, you didn't create Image:Divemaster Card.jpg and Image:DWR Regimental Mag 01 (Custom).jpg and can not release them to the PD. Commons will not host unfree images (as I'm sure the first one is, and probably the second), and WP can not host them unless they are used in an article. Our fair use policy also says that they can not be used outside of the article space (which does not include your new gallery, sorry to say).

Back to the issue at hand. No, I have no special tools for this. I'd be willing to help you with some of them by hand, but then, of course, they'd show up in my contributions, which I don't think you want. As I said above, you don't have to move them, and there's certainly no rush. If you do, just give me a list of ones that you've moved (and their Commons names, if they're different), and I'll delete the local versions; there's no mess further with IFD. ×Meegs 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're like me and aren't going to spend a lot of time on Commons, it's not a bad idea to put-up a message like this on your talk page to make sure that any messages find you quickly. ×Meegs 09:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a message re not objecting to deletion, it will save further time wasted on discussion from other users. Perhaps you could expedite matters? Richard Harvey 10:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've deleted it. I changed the links in the article and your gallery, but of course we can change them again if the commons filename changes. ×Meegs 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meegs, thanks for the help you're providing for Richard. By the way, I've tried to do some search to find if there are other images by him already moved to Commons [1]. I see that some of them are uploaded under a nc-nd licence (saying "subject to no commercial use for gain & the Image must not be modified"). I think they should be deleted unless the author is willing to grant additional rights (Richard, I hope you are reading this!) Conscious 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. First, Richard, in the link above you can see that at least four other of your other photos have also been copied to Commons. They're used in the German and Esperanto versions of Huddersfield, among other places! However, both Wikipedia and Commons do require photographs to be licensed in a manner that does not restrict them to educational or non-commercial use. Images also need to allow derivative works (modifications) to be used in all of the same ways. Images without this freedom can actually be speedily deleted (under WP:CSD#I3) at any time.

Either or both of the licenses that you've used for your recent uploads, like Image:8thDoW(RLH).JPG, are compatible. Also bear in mind that by definition, you can not place any restrictions on the use for material that you relese to the public domain. If its acceptable to you, I suggest using CC-BY for all of your own artistic photographs. ×Meegs 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you can see in your upload log, I've deleted all of the images that you moved over. A few things:

Did you mean not to move Image:Lockwood Railway Viaduct, Huddersfield.jpg and Image:Huddersfield Broad Canal RLH.JPG?
For a variety of reasons the following duplicate pairs now exist on Commons
I am not a commons administrator, so I can not delete them for you. All you need to request one copy's deletion is to tag it with the template {{duplicate|preferred_filename.jpg}}. Before tagging the bad version, though, use the check usage link at the top and make sure that all occurrences of the image have been changed to the other filename. For example, you changed the Spanish article's link from Commons:Image:Torre del Campello.jpg to Commons:Image:El Campello Tower.jpg, but did not change the two occurrences in the Catalan Wikipedia, nor the one in your en: photo gallery. [2] If you need any help with this, let me know.
I'm not certain of the copyright status of the underlying design of some your heraldry, like Image:DWR 76th Badge (RLH).jpg and Image:DWR Badge Thumbnail.jpg, Image:49th Inf Brigade (Logo Polar Bears).jpg and Image:DWR 33rd Badge (RLH).jpg Image:Yorkshire_Regiment_Badge_300px.jpg. I suspect that some of them are PD, but if you have information to this effect, you should add that to their description pages. If the designs are under copyright, then the images are unsuitable for Commons — despite your own renditions being freely licensed — and will need to be brought back to Wikipedia for fair use in articles. Also, I'm really not sure what the copyright status of Image:Yorkshire_Regiment_Cap_Badge_289px.JPG and Image:RCN_Badge.jpg. I'm not going to pursue the deletion of any of theses now, but you should be aware that there may be issues.

That's it. ×Meegs 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link I had been unable to find anything linked to the image as the bottom of the image said there were no links to the image. When I entered the catalan wiki it showed no images on the page. I have now followed the route down to discover the El Camppello Tower and the El Campello Moors images had been linked to the Catalan page from something else. I have now corrected those links but would be grateful if you could confirm it has been done correctly. Richard Harvey 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that it. Now just use the check usage tool for the other four to-be-deleted versions, if you haven't already, and you're done. ×Meegs 11:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as commons goes they all say image not used. All image checks state that the Wilki En link is broken and to check manually but I can't see any usage from there to any of the images. 82.30.72.134 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all five images' use on en. One link had to be changed, [3], but now they're all done. By the way, everything said by Überraschungsbilder on Commons:Image:Manta birostris-Male Atoll.jpg is correct. I admit that I was aware of this issue, but for simplicity, I was trying to let it go. You released the image to the public domain, irrevocably, when applied the {{PD-self}} tag on en. That license was repeated, correctly, on the commons version. Now you've uploaded your own commons version with a license that requires attribution. There is no doubt that the image is truly in the public domain, and will be forever, and may be used by anyone without attribution. It is possible that some people may have already taken the image and republished it somewhere (a book, a web site, etc.) without attribution, legally, and it could create a lot of confusion if you now announce a different license. The re-publishers could even be accused of copyright violation, and if the PD versions have all been deleted from the wiki projects, they will have a very hard time defending themselves. Its not a big deal, but it may be a good idea to just flip a few of your images, especially the manta one, over to {{pd-self}}. ×Meegs 08:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Jason Kidd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JasonK.jpg I origninally saved this particular .jpg to my computer from an old image FROM wikipedia ITSELF. Someone deleted it and put an unnecessary arrest mugshot in its place. I simply remembered that i had a copy of it, and uploaded it back onto this site! It is indeed a sporting poster (considering that i have an exact purchased copy ON MY WALL). Thankyou for taking the time to read my message. By the way, all my other photos uploaded onto wikipedia were corrected as licensed sporting event posters as well. --Meltzercool 01:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meltzercool. {{Sportsposter}} is for promotional material for a sporting event, used as a part of commentary about the event itself. This does not fit that description on either front. The tag aside, though, an unfree copyrighted picture of Jason Kidd — an active NBA player, available for photographs — that the copyright holder is actively selling violates at least criteria 1 and 2 of our fair use policy. The fact that the image was once hosted on Wikipedia is immaterial; it was deleted for one reason or another. Whenever possible, please contribute free images, compatible with Wikipedia's goal of creating an encyclopedia useable anywhere, by anyone. When it is not possible to create or procure a freely-licensed image, please make sure that the alternative is compatible with all of our fair use guidelines. ×Meegs 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award Meegs this barnstar for his efforts in deleting thousands of pieces of unworthy content from Wikipedia.Blnguyen \| rant-line 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes

Hey Meegs, you're keeping a good job around here. Congratulations on the Barnstar. I just wanted to say that pages Andreas_Hedlund and Solefald are swarmed with un-sourced photos. You know how to explain properly the whole image licensing thing so just give User:Karpsmom (who is mostly editing those pages) a couple of tips. He already received a bunch of image tag warnings but I'm affraid he doesn't realize the problem (it is a bit vaugely explained at the image copyright page)... I have other obligations now so I'm not that frequent anymore here. Best regards Death2 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks, I've just left them a long message about our image policy. I hope it helps. ×Meegs 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't want to be the local traitor but those pages were really swarming with a lot of unnecessary pictures. You did a nice job explaining to Karpsmom all the details so... problem solved. See you Death2 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Commodore

Yes true, but The VE Holden Commodore is yet to be released, and the images were realesed by Holden for people to use so I don't see the huge issue. I also believe that images should be of the highest quality availible and these ones obviously are. I just think it looks so un-professional if you use quick images that a user has taken as they are rarely anything special. OSX 11:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article (not the necessarily the greatest source), the VE was released in July (in Australia, at least). If you can't find one on the road, you can surely find one at a dealership. One problem is that if we use the unfree images in the article, even temporarily, there will be little incentive for people to contribute free replacements. If the model were yet to be released, though, fair use would be an option, provided, as Kimchi said, that we could find the original source of the images (almost certainly from Holden itself). ×Meegs 11:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the thumbnails of the images found on the Holden website:

http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=4 http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=5&navid=1 http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/vehicleentry?vehicleid=6&navid=1

I hope that these are good enough proof that the images were realesed by Holden. I am sorry to say that I cannot find these in high-res, but I will continue my search.OSX 12:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the first part of my previous message. The car has been release and is available for photographing; fair use is not an option. ×Meegs 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taps

We probably should bring out the mournful bugle for the last "Singles by artist" category to bite the dust this morning. The cool thing is, I don't think anyone's really upset about it, because we made sure everybody's feelings were considered. I love it when a plan comes together.--Mike Selinker 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Yeah, it's rare for such a large maneuver to go so smoothly. All credit to you. ×Meegs 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Notes

When writing Notes as in Diario 16 How do I make the Notes be numbered like in here Overfishing, I need the to be numbered like :1,2,3,4,5....
Thanks
Trade2tradewell 12:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Ignore the above question. Done it. ThanksTrade2tradewell 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops!

Error! Please disregard this message. Richard Harvey 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHe's RfA

Hi Meegs!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. I will definitely look into your constructive criticisms and try to improve for the future. Thank you again.

G.H e 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sense of humor and

Hi Abu Badali. I like this addition to your user page, and am glad that you're not taking your RfA personally. Please don't let it get you down; you do great work around here and are very much appreciated. ×Meegs 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I'll not get down. I'll keep my work here as before. See you, --Abu Badali 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use claims

Originally, I would claim that they would be acceptable because they can be around until we find a replacement. But I have to agree with the argument that keeping a fair use version around will make people lazy. However, people will see the lack of image and just upload a fair use version in place, not knowing that we already killed the original fair use image. Plus if it were so easy to get pictures of celebrities... your call, though. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case, though, is that the subject dies or becomes otherwise inacessible during the period that we're using the unfree image; in that case we've lost the opportunity forever. I have seen many articles cycle through unfree image after unfree image before someone finally contributes a free one, but it does happen.

The free culture movement is growing quickly, as evidident in the explosion of CC-licensed images on fickr.com, so hopefully the situation will be getting better. On top of Wikipedians taking photographs, some people, including Jimbo, have had success asking people to freely license images of themselves. It's also possible to ask professional photographers (even paparazzi-types) to license their unpublished images of some less accessible people and locations. I think this process will start to take-off one of these days. After all, it's a great deal for them: they get an image that would otherwise be collecting dust published, and get attribution on one of the 20 biggest sites in the world. ×Meegs 04:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in starting up a small project in which to get notable persons to have pictures of themselves taken so they could be put into the public domain (better than inundating them with copyright licensing claptraps). I'm not sure how to get around doing this (or even if I should do this), so how should I get started? —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a noble goal. It is slow work, whether you are contacting the subjects themselves, asking independent photographers, or stalking them with a camera. There's been a lot discussion at Wikipedia:Publicity photos during the last few weeks (quick summary: "publicity photos" are just as undesireable as other unfree photos). If you're looking for advice on this project, I'm sure the people there will have some. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission's watchers might also be interested in this kind of proactive campaign. If the project doesn't take off, at least make sure that you praise the hell out of anyone you come across that's uploading hard-to-get freely-licensed photos. Best regards ×Meegs 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GFDL presumed

No prob. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 14:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Krishnan

Hello, Meegs, if I understand correctly, the image of Trisha Krishnan identifies as "fair use", if there's a critical comment of the movie within the article (so that the image is to merely within the article to identify the actress)? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is a still from the film, which I have doubts about because of its size and shape, it can only be used for as a part of critical commentary about the film. The article contains no substantial commentary about the film, contains no ties between the image and the text, and does not even identify the image as material from the film. As I said on the image's description page, since the image is merely being used to identify Ms. Kirshnan, we can not use it under Fair use criterion #1. What we really need is a free content image of her — one that is useable anywhere, by anyone, forever, just as the article's text is — and this image's presence at the top of her article greatly hurts our chances of getting one. ×Meegs 06:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meegs,

I know it would be great to have free content material on Krishnan, but unfortunately none is available.

I took a screenshot of Trisha Krishnan myself, cropped it and inserted it into the article. Also, there is a critical comment on the movie in her article. Could you have a look? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new image from the other film is not really any better, as there is still little content in her article about the film. Really, writing the article just to accommodate an image is not the way the way to go. The image is still being used merely as a portrait of the Trisha, and this will hurt our chances of acquiring a free image of her, something that we really do need. I suggest, rather than trying to circumvent policy, that that you try asking the photographer of one of the thousands of images of her on internet to release their photograph under a free license (see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission). ×Meegs 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meegs,

as for the image: I visited several articles that have reached featured status in order to use them as role models for the articles I'm working on (assuming that featured articles generally have a higher standard concerning everything -- images, too). I took Eric Bana and Lindsay Lohan as examples (both of them got featured) and the critical comments for their movies (and their pictures): Eric Bana has a screenshot from "The Nugget" on his article; the movie gets mentioned once and the "critical commentary" is three lines long. Information on the still isn't as precise as it is on Trisha Krishnan's still. As for Lohan: The article has a still of Lohan in Another World -- critical commentary, once again, is almost not existant. Also, information on copyright holders of the image is missing. If you don't agree, I'll go over to the guys who take care of copyright violations and images (here: [4]) and ask them for their oppinion on the matter.

As for "writing the article to accomodate the image is no way to go": Adding information on an particularly sucessful movie (at least for South Indian standards) helps the article to grow and gain information - and if it's possible to keep the picture in the process ... what's wrong with that? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 12:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the Nugget screenshot and the "publicity photograph" of Lindsey Lohan should not be in their articles either. You may dispute their use, if you like. There are thousands of examples of abuse throughout the project, so it is important to follow policy rather than what you see. If you want to tightly integrate a screenshot into commentary on an article about the film, you can, but what you've done here is cropped a screenshot and put it at the top of the actress's article, detached from the sentence about her role. You are clearly looking for a portrait that readers can identify her by. I would really like to have one too. The only way we are going to get one that can be permanently coupled to the article's text is to acquire a freely licensed one. Note that I am not the only one who has disputed the image's use, so if you really want to discuss this further, the image page would be a better place than here. ×Meegs 13:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"flops"

As Metallica once said, kill 'em all. Hopelessly POV, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New try for getting pictures

Hello, Meegs, currently, I'm on a new crusade to get pictures to Wikipedia without any copyright infrigements. My prototyp just got online and I'm really dying to know what you think of it. Please, if you have the time, check Salman Khan's article and the new picture within the box. It has a fair use rationale I'm quite happy about (because this time, I actually asked for permission :))). Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, good for you! Many people are not willing to do any work beyond a Google search to aquire free images, and the few who are are a tremendous asset to the project. A few things:

A free image does not need a fair use rationale or a fair use tag such as {{promophoto}}. Instead its image description page needs the appropriate public domain tag or free license tag, the source/creator/copyright holder, and the evidence that the image has been released under that license. Free images are not subject to WP:FUC, and can be used anywhere that they help the encyclopedia.
This image, Image:Salman khan.jpg, is probably not free by Wikipedia standards, and is still subject to WP:FUC (and in violation, as it is used now). It is hard to interpret the webmaster's email without seeing your original questions, but there may be several problems:
- If you merely asked for permission to use the image on Wikipedia, then the image is not free and can not be used. Images use by permission are supposed to be tagged with {{permission}} and deleted on sight. Think about it this way: the goal of the project is to create a free encyclopedia useable anywhere, by anyone, and thus can not include content that is exclusively tied to the Wikipedia web site. For all we know, the Wikimedia Foundation will go belly-up or become evil and the content will be need to be cloned by a new project.
- You need to be careful about most people's use of the word free, and your use when talking to them. Most people, in this context, will think only of the "costing no money" definition, while we are primarily talking about "lack of legal restraint" (see Gratis versus Libre).
- Free licenses acceptable to Wikipedia must allow for derivative works (i.e. permit the image to be altered, cropped, or incorporated into other compositions). This doesn't allow us to promise that this site's logo will remain in the image.
To avoid these kinds of issues, it is essential to ask the copyright holders to release their images either to the public domain or under a specific free license. Both actions are irrevocable, and grant no rights particular to Wikipedia. The license that I suggest you use in your requests is Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. Include that link in your requests: it is a simple statement of what they are agreeing to. At the bottom, you see, there's also a link to the license's full legalese. Under the license, they are not allowed to forbid derivative works or commercial use, but are allowed to require attribution (name, company, website, etc.). On Wikipedia, we will give them whatever attribution they require on the image description page; as I mentioned above, preservation of watermarks can not be promised.
I may be forgetting something critical, so please take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

I know this is a lot to take in, but again, I am very happy that you are willing to take this on. Regards ×Meegs 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Meegs,

thanks a ton for the long reply. I think I get it now and will contact the webmaster at Salman Khan's page again to see of it is possible to license the content under [5]. If that would work, it would be awesome, especially since lots of actors have personal pages these days and their representatives can be asked for pics. After all, I think, providing pictures to Wikipedia, is advertising in a way without paying money for it. I know this is a pretty capalistic way to see things, but I'm afraid, when it comes to actors who are always under the glimpse of the pulic, things work this way. We'll see if the webmaster is willing to give the image free. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. When writing the celebrities themselves or their publicists, the simpler request for PD release might be more successful. CC-by would probably have much more appeal to independent photographers, as they'd surely love to have their name credited on one of the twenty biggest sites in the world. ×Meegs 23:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I forgot to mention this: in addition to posting evidence on the description page, make sure you cc the foundation. ×Meegs 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Meegs,

Think this [6] would be acceptable? And, since English isn't my first tongue: What does this mean? "make sure you cc the foundation"? Make sure you creative common the foundation? Sorry, if I'm a bit slow. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can not use that license. The Creative Commons licenses have four options:

-nc is "no commercial use" and is not compatible with Wikipedia and Commons
-nd is "no derivative works" and is not compatible
-by is "by attribution" and is compatible
-sa is "share alike", meaning that derivative works must be released under a similar free license. This is compatible.

The license that you asked about is by-nc-nd and not compatible. By cc, I meant email carbon copy, but I should have said forward. If you convince a copyright holder to relicense their image, you should send a copy of their email to the Wikimedia foundation as described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. ×Meegs 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meegs

Hi Meegs, how are you.

I understand the copyright policity really have exist, but, i don't understant how these pictures if i upload are problems of copyright. Most of the law and the topics of this policity are in english, and, my english is very poor (whateaver, shit! hahahaha). Please, if those pictures can be used, or have a possibility to fix my tagging error in this pictures, help me. I bust my ass to made this portuguese articles are clean, to pass e teach about the bands in question. Teach me how tag right. Hugs. Brazylianskies

Hi Brazylianskies. I'll try my best to help you. If there is anything that I say that you do not understand, let me know and I will try to say it a different way.

Creative Commons Attribution (Português) is a very specific legal agreement. In order to use the tag {{CC-by-2.5}}, we need to be certain that the copyright holder has agreed to it. You made a mistake when you applied this tag to several other images, like commons:Image:Fumanchu.JPG, where the source said "all rights reserved". On the three images above, you used the same tag, but did not give any indication that that the photographer (Nico Wobben) has agreed to the Creative Commons Attribution license. If an image on a web site does not say anything about copyright, it is usually best to assume that it is fully protected, not free, and not suitable for Commons or Wikipedia.

Take a look at Commons:Project scope (it has a partial translation into Portuguese too). In order to upload images such as these, you will need to ask their author to release them under a free license. There is a lot of information about how to do this here on English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. There is also a quick mention at Commons:Modelo de mensagem. It is not a simple process, but it might be worth doing for particularly good photographs.

Other than that, the best thing that you can do is contribute photographs that you have taken yourself. Take a camera with you next time you go to a concert. Let me know if there's anything else that I can help you with. All the best. ×Meegs 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when you told me that we couldn't use player images for football articles...

Does that apply to baseball, too? (In this case, Victor Santos) 1ne 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1ne. Yes, absolutely; the counterexample we now have in WP:FU is actually about a Barry Bonds card. We really should not be using the image currently in Victor Santos either under WP:FUC #1. ×Meegs 03:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use again

That's okay, Meegs — I guess I have been lazy in verifying the origins of images. I don't mind when you catch these things, because I learn from them. I've gotten a lot better at rationales than when I've started. Anyways, since then I've decided to not deal with fair use claims on living people pictures. —this is messedrocker (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Sorry if I caused any problems with my "spamming". I did not know this was against the rules. Anyway I was just trying to get the word out because this article needs another POV rather than just from obvious students who use this article as a stage for academic boosterism. We need a wide range of others who can provide a more balanced point of view about the institution, especially because of recent accusations of institutional racism, problems with student riots, and problems with alcohol. These problems are overshadowed by an elitist college riding on a reputation. Speedystickd 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. ×Meegs 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship, and for reconsidering your opposition (even if it didn't result in any actual change). As you know, the request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address others' concerns before running again.

If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks!

-- RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Please merge Trend trading with Trend following, I dont know how to do it! Thanks
Trade2tradewell 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better if you handle this, but I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

If you think this is a controversial action, then you might consider posting at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. It seems fairly straightforward to me, though.
If you don't want to perform the merger yourself, then put the matching {{mergefrom}} tag on the latter article and wait a few weeks; there's a good chance someone will come along and take care of it.
If you want to go ahead and do the merger yourself, you'll find that it is not hard. If the latter article is lacking any important content that is found in the former article, copy it in with an edit summary identifying the article that the text came from (e.g. merging definitions from Trend trading). Once the latter article contains everything it needs, turn the former article into a redirect. As always, when creating a redirect, make sure to resolve any double redirects.

There are some instructions at Wikipedia:Merge, but I think I've covered everything above. Let me know if you need any help. ×Meegs 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to spam or not to spam

I would like to point out that a recent vote for prohibiting sollicitation of votes in WP:AID failed (7-9 vote count) (see here. I also would like to remind you of being civil, especially to newcomers. Calling someone's clumsy but innocent attempts to gain support for his article "spamming", is not my idea of civility, and almost resulted in losing this editor. Errabee 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will apologize to the editor, as the tone of my message was rather imperative. You guys at AID are in tremendous trouble if you can not agree that mass solicitation, 90-100 user talk pages in this case, is a bad thing. ×Meegs 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this sportsmanlike attitude! And I agree that mass sollicitation is clumsy at best, and asking for support on portal or project talk pages is a far better way to achieve one's goal. Errabee 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a participant at AID (that's not what it's called anymore, is it?), but it seems that as it actually is a vote, it is even more vulnerable to this kind of thing than *fD and other processes around the site. Beyond the suggest that I already made, I will stay out of it, though. All the best. ×Meegs 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I a participant at ARCAID (but I like to help out). I've made a proposal that I hope addresses both sides of the previous vote, and hopefully will lead to a broadly supported decision. Errabee 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced images and text

Hello there.... User:StarbuckDude continues to upload copyright-violation images, and has been restoring them every time I try to remove them. Additionally, User:Lil Flip246 has also been restoring them (she's violated the 3RR rule on several articles such as Eva Pigford) as fast as editors can remove them, plus restoring unsourced gossip and text from each of the articles bundled in this nomination: [7] .....can you take a look? Other editors as well as myself have tried to explain WP:RS and WP:V to her but she refuses to change her edit-warring, stating that it's "retarted" that she should have to cite sources. wikipediatrix 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipediatrix. StarbuckDude has not uploaded any additional images since my message to them. I will look into their edits and the other user's when I return in an hour or two. Thanks. ×Meegs 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for StarbuckDude about re-adding unsourced images. Dina and The JPS have given Lil Flip some excellent advice within the last hour; I hope she listens. ×Meegs 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't. She's reverting many articles and inserting deliberately false sources, using only index pages to sites that say nothing about the subject of the article. She claims that the information is somewhere on the site if one just spends enough time surfing the whole site (which is unacceptable), but more often than not, the information is still not there in the way the article presented it. wikipediatrix 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Lil Flip246 and User:PageantUpdater have been tag-teaming to re-insert the copyright-violating text, copyright-violating images, unsourced gossip, etc.... on my talk page, User:PageantUpdater admits that she has not even bothered to check User:Lil Flip246's sources but is restoring them anyway because "I've watched a few seasons of this show". User:Lil Flip246 just now, for the third time, claimed on my talk page that I am doing this only to ruin the articles so they'll fail the AfD - which is preposterous, because they're more likely to PASS the AfD because of my cleanup than if I'd left them alone. Can you put a stop to this? The personal attacks from User:Lil Flip246 are the last straw but I'd hate to drag everyone into an RfC. wikipediatrix 21:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: another editor has stepped in, and is seemingly showing them how to properly do references. I'll keep my fingers crossed. wikipediatrix 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, for the time being?

I noticed that you just removed the no source tag from Image:Bobby_Fischer.gif. The tag itself says to only remove it if you have provided source info, which you didn't. But what does "for the time being" mean? Are you going to find some source info for this image? Hbdragon88 23:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hbdragon. The image was actually already deleted because of that no source tag. [8] I undeleted it yesterday in response to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Images of documents. The "source" of the document is in that post (and should be added to the image description page), although its copyright situation is still very much unclear. Please withdraw your IFD nomination. If User:VodkaJazz does not find evidence that the document is public domain in the next few days, I will redelete the image. Thanks. ×Meegs 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to (now that I know the history), but...I don't see anything on the IFD page that instructs on how to withdraw it. Hbdragon88 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have added a note to the image when I undeleted it. Withdrawing? People do it all sorts of ways. A ~~strike through~~ through the nomination and a short comment below does the trick. As no one has weighed-in on this one, though, there's also no problem just removing it altogether. Best regards. ×Meegs 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Flip246 again

User:Lil Flip246 is still ignoring advice given by multiple editors and admins. Take a look at the Lisa D'Amato article, for example. Not only is it filled with unsourced gossip, her citation links still don't contain the information they're supposed to be sourcing, and she still uses "I saw on it TV myself" and "Someone said it on MySpace" as sources. I would hate to think that an editor could get by with such recklessness on a grand scale simply by being persistent. wikipediatrix 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, I'm pretty busy in real life this week. Longhair has left them a rather strong block-mentioning message since their last edit, so let's see how that goes. ×Meegs 04:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Brian Pinzon

Dear Meegs: This is Brian Pinzon there is no way that I placed my pindome info 11 times on wiki. But that besides the point as to why I am writing you. Do you have a reason? And do you have a donation page so I can be place on the Wiki? Very Truly Yours, Brian William Pinzon, MBA. CEO. Pindome Corporation —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.209.167 (talk • contribs) 2006 September 2 00:01 UTC.

Hello Brian. I don't think we have ever interacted before, so I had to do a bit of research to find out what you are talking about. The article Brian Pinzon has been created and deleted nine times (take a look at the deletion log). Some of these versions contained only a link to your company's web page. The final deleted version reads

Brian Pinzon is the creator of the xylotron in his book Albetration 2394 AD. he is also a patant holder of a wireless key that will unlock doors from your cell phone at any distance. In patant number 6161005.

Please take a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people and companies, as well as our policy on verifiability. Also note that Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages all editors from creating articles about themselves; "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later."

And to answer your question, no, Wikipedia does not accept donations in exchange for editorial consideration. ×Meegs 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged images

Hi, Meegs. These images have been tagged now for almost two weeks: I still don't understand the next step. Are you able to delete them? I will have limited internet access for the next two weeks. Sandy 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed each of the images from articles. If they are not replaced in seven days, they will be deleted. Please add each of them to your watchlist so that you can monitor any discussion and respond to objections. If there are objections and you still want them deleted, consider taking them to WP:IFD. As I think I said before, it's sometimes best, especially for long-standing images about important topics, to use IFD from the beginning. Best regards. ×Meegs 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Trisha 2

I have provided a more accurate information and licensing tags for the image Image:Trisha 2.jpg. Could you check it out and tell me whether it may be used in the article now? Thanking you in advance. Shammy89 14:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shammy. Regardless of whether this is a publicity photo from a press kit or a screenshot being used solely to identify Trisha, we can not use it under fair use criterion #1. The article's text is free content, and we need a free content image that can follow it wherever it goes. Please review my conversation with Plumcouch on this very topic. It is higher-up on this talk page at User talk:Meegs#Trisha Krishnan. ×Meegs 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if I acquire permission to use the image in the article? Then can I use the image? Thanking you in advance. (Shammy89|talk) 05:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC

We can not use images if the copyright holder has given permission solely for Wikipedia to use them (I talked about some of the reasons in the conversation above). What you can do is ask copyright holders to release their photographs under a free license such as Creative Commons Attribution. There is much information about what to ask for at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Let me know if you have any questions. ×Meegs 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image Issues

Hi there Meegs! The IRFU ball is definitely not a Free Software Foundation image and I'm not sure exactly why I tagged it as such (ignorance of proper image rationale, I suppose). I'll tag that with a CSD (in case you are away at the moment). I have been in contact with both the Boston RFC and Boston Irish Wolfhounds RFC clubs in the past, and I'm not sure if they will want to relinquish their copyright entirely to those particular images; I will call/e-mail them to alert them of the situation (both are well-aware of the articles). I know Declan Prenty fairly well, so I could forward along an e-mail or have him contact the WMF directly. I had been under the assumption that tagging the photos as promotional was all right. I'll update the fair use rationale on the staged team pictures, but if you could keep an eye on them and let me know if there are future problems, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot for letting me know! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive response. In case you haven't seen them, take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Really, the simplest thing to do is ask for relicensing under CC-by, which is easy to understand, and then just forward the owner's agreement to the foundation. I'm mostly concerned about the clubs' images that are currently being used under fair use where we don't usually allow unfree images. For Declan Prenty's photos, a simple statement on the image pages about who he is, and an account of how he expreed expressed {{attribution}} to hoopydink would be a big improvement. It's best to provide as much info as you can now, because the next time their status is questioned, you may not be available to answer questions. I did not look through all of your uploads, by the way, so when you have a chance, you should. Let me know if I can help in any way. ×Meegs 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I've just e-mailed both Mr. Prenty and Boston RFC officials asking for relicensing under the Creative Commons. I imagine that the attribution will then be officially documented once I receive a reply and forward the e-mail to the WMF (if I read the pages correctly). Thanks again for all your help! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Thanks again! (Also in regards to the images, I went ahead and listed Image:Paul Emerick200.jpg for deletion. I'm confident I can find a free image to replace it without having to use fair use rationale, which as you pointed out, was very weak on my part) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the archive fix, I must have been more tired than I thought when I archived it to the main namespace :-O --Sherool (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New baseball article improvement drive

Baseball

Greetings fellow WikiProject Baseball member! Just a quick note: there is now an article improvement drive just for baseball-related articles at WP:BBAID. Please take a look and vote on an article or add one of your own. Once an article has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Petty Live Image

Regarding your copyright question - Image:Tom_petty_live.jpg The image was upload to my website by a user. I then uploaded it to Wikipedia and put it on the Tom Petty page. I have changed the copyright to release all rights on it... I am assuming that is what you want me to do? - Mudcrutch

Not really. You changed the license from cc-by to {{No rights reserved}}, but gave no indication of why you believe this to be the case. The copyright holder, the photographer in this case, can license the image any way that they want, but we have to be absolutely sure of their wishes. The fact that they uploaded it to your website does not, by itself, establish their intention. Please ask them explicitly if they will irrevocably release the photo under a free license such as cc-by (or outright to the public domain). There is information about how to do this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Let me know if you need any help. ×Meegs 08:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. The uploader can now weigh in if they chose to. I will consider this issue closed. -Mudcrutch

That template is designed for uploads of Wikipedians who have left the project and can not be reached for clarification. You have so far not provided any information about this image's photographer, including their name. It is likely that they have never edited Wikipedia or even heard of the GFDL. People upload images to the internet all the time, and by default they continue to retain full copyright protection. Unless we are able to contact this person, we can not use their image. ×Meegs 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the elitist attitude. I am shocked you are an admin. The image is in my control, because it was given to me for my website to use. If you want to take it down just GO AHEAD and stop harassing me about it. I have THOUSANDS of other images I could contribute instead. It is people like you that keep people like me from ever really getting "into" contributing to Wikipedia. Pretty sad. Please do not comment on my talk page anymore. -Mudcrutch

I'm sorry you feel that way, but we must respect the photographer's copyright. ×Meegs 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fictional unfortunates

I don't buy category:fictional divorcees much, because you then need to do category:fictional married people and category:fictional single people, and those categories theoretically could hold every adult fictional character. However, I think category:fictional murder victims is fine, as it's a direct subcategory of both category:fictional characters and category:murder victims.--Mike Selinker 06:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not bothered terribly by the temporal issue being discussed in the deceased CfD? I am, but I guess that some sets might be interesting enough, like possibly murder victims, to pull me back from the delete side of the fence. ×Meegs 08:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like living or dead categories, because everything's in one or the other. But murder victims isn't a binary state: Laura Palmer is notable because she's a murder victim. One issue that could knock me to the other side of the fence, though, is the spoiler issue: Do we want a category to tell you that Vito Spatafore was whacked by Phil Leotardo? Unclear.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it Selinker, you just spoiled that for me ;) ×Meegs 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, my point exactly. (I mean, um, sorry.)--Mike Selinker 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Wizard complete

The AFC Wizard Proof of concept is complete at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard. Its just a PoC, so there's a few redlinks in there and the whole thing needs a coat of spit and polish, but its current purpose is to demonstrate the idea. I would love your feedback! -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot. We should centralize the discussion somewhere, perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction. ×Meegs 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there, Meegs!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

P.S. Thanks a lot for the help with images, and I'd surely appreciate any more help or letting me know of my mistakes!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re-Add this photo

Since you kindly removed the Tom Petty photo I had placed on the Tom Petty page -- could you please add the following photo in its place? I have uploaded it and it can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tompetty_nissan_pavilion_06.jpg For some reason when I add it to the infobox it does not appear. Hmmm. -Mudcrutch

Update -- nm, it seemed Wiki was down for a minute. I got it up there. -Mudcrutch

Trisha Krishnan image

Hello Meegs. You see, I have this image of Trisha Krishnan I would like to upload. It is from the film Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana in which a small section of the article is dedicated to. I was wondering whether I could upload the picture and place the image next to the small section of information regarding the film. I have been observing the image problems on the page and was wondering whether I could do this. I would really appreciate your help. Thanking you in advance! Polo246 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's another image which I've acquired permission for from the website called Idlebrainand they've licensed it under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. So can I upload this image? Polo246 08:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've made a mistake in my previous message. The webmaster of that website allowed me to use this image to illustrate the actress as long as the image has the site's logo and a link is provided back to the site. What do you think the image should be licensed under then if I upload it? Thanking you in advance. Polo246 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polo. I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll reply to all of your questions sometime on Tuesday (UTC). ×Meegs 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the extraordinarily slow response. For the film, it all depends on how the screenshot is going to be incorporated into the text. It should be tightly-integrated and valuable to the commentary about the film. Right now there're just two sentences about it, and adding more just to just to facilitate a screenshot might not be the way to go. I can not give you a definitive answer, but Nuvvostanante Nenoddantana would seem to be a more appropriate place for in-depth commentary, including images.

For the Idlebrain image, it is fantastic that you have contacted them to ask for permission; I wish there were more people willing to do this. You need to be very careful what you ask for, though.

You need to confirm that they own the rights to the original photograph and are not simply a republisher
You need to ask them to release the image under a specific free license. Vague statements of what they'll allow are not enough. I suggest that you ask them to agree to the Creative Commons Attribution license. It is much simpler and easier to understand the GFDL, and allows them to require all republishers to credit the photographer, company or website.
In this case, we can promise them a link to their site, but not that their logo will remain part of the image. All free licenses compatible with Wikipedia (including CC-Attribution and the GFDL) must allow "derivative works". This means that the images may be edited, used in-part, or incorporated into other works. This potentially allows someone to crop-out a logo or watermark.
If you're successful, you need to post evidence of their decision on the image description page. If they send you the information via email, you should forward a copy to "permissions AT wikimedia DOT org".

There's a lot of information about contacting image copyright holders at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Please let me know if you need any help. ×Meegs 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding images

Thanks for addressing the issue. I remember that before I first started uploading these images, I asked some admin about it and he said it was okay (if memory serves me correctly). I saw that other users had uploaded from mlb.com and tagged it as {{promotional}} and I thought I could also do the same.

Although I am still a bit confused on this image copyright business, I know that I was once in a situation in which I replaced a user-created picture of Albert Pujols with my fair use from mlb.com. I did not know it at the time, but he told me about my mistake, and I learned to avoid adding fair use images to certain pages. I believe that most of the images I have added were to baseball players who really aren't that notable in baseball, with a few exceptions here and there.

I might have missed this while reading the fair use criteria, but when someone gets a free image, can't they just remove my fair use image and replace it with the free alternative?

I really appreciate any response that can help me understand this whole fair use business.

And...thanks =) I hope my RfA will succeed.

--Nishkid64 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are lot of extra-policy examples throughout the project, so you can not always go by what you see in other articles. FUC #1 exists largely because we need to encourage people to contribute free images, like Image:Pujols3.jpg, and an imageless article is much better advertising for participation than one with a professionally taken photograph. Would you be willing to save others the trouble and orphan these hundred yourself? ×Meegs 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it to a certain few, but not all. I am saying this because some of the guys I got pictures for are not nearly as notable as others in baseball, and I doubt many of them will have their free images taken. However, in a few days (I got a bunch of essays due on Friday), I'll see which ones I would like to orphan, and I'll share the list with you. You can contribute your two cents and tell me what you think. --Nishkid64 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the player's popularity, they are all accessible, so none of the photos fall within policy. Someone, eventually, is going to have to remove them all. It's easier done all at once, and it's better if it's you. It doesn't have to happen right away, but as they too are now setting bad examples, the sooner the better. I'll help, if you like; send me half the list. Best regards ×Meegs 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I can probably find time to tag them all on Friday, but thanks for offering to help. --Nishkid64 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oganemac

Does the External link on user Parkerh page make sense to you? It refers to English equivalent of Japanese but looks more like latin, of some sort? the talk pages refer to spam. Richard Harvey 09:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, it's been a while. Yes, this is a hoax. A different user created an article for Okanemac two days ago with a different definition: "Okanemac is a word created by a group of students in order to be used on the internet to obtain the highest google search placement possible". That appears to summarize what's really going on. In any case, what we have now is just a link to a personal web site on a user page, so maybe it's ok. ×Meegs 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Do you believe those images are fair use? If so, can you help defend them because I can't do it on my own. Ivan Kricancic 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Carnildo pointed-out on your WP:ANI post, no, these images of the actors do not seem to meet item #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Beyond that, like Abu Badali, it's also not clear to me that this kryptonite.com is the copyright holder of the photographs (I have not investigated, though). A third issue — it's not central here, but you should be aware of it— is that we can not use images "by permission". All images on Wikipedia must either have be released under a free license or be used under a claim of fair use consistent with all points of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. When you contact copyright holders, be sure to follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Regards ×Meegs 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Indeed it's been awhile . . . and thanks. I actually was suffering from a headache at the time I was looking at those. I guess might have been better-advised to wait for the aspirin to kick in before I addressed them, so that I wouldn't have been in quite such a foul mood when I did. lol. But at least I'm feeling better now. And much thanks to you for responding to the WP:PUI list. Mwelch 07:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, good job. ×Meegs 04:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald M. Kendrick and Christ's Church Cathedral, Hamilton

You have indicated an interest in the former article; would you mind hoeing in now? Some editor appears determined to delete the article on the grounds of non-notability. One can only assume some personal animus. Thanks. Masalai 02:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely are you saying here about "articles for deletion"? One person appears to have some sort of animus regarding the subject of the article. Is it the case that an "articles for deletion" tag may be added to ANY article with which one has personal issues? Masalai 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notablity tag; you removed it and did this.[9] Rather than leave the tag and let it get better with time you removed it. Now the community will review the article. Arbusto 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that Arbusto does not have anything personal against the articles, and they have every right to open the discussion about whether the subjects are notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You should post to the AfD discussions and present the case that they sufficiently notable. Your argument will be better received if you omit all supposition about Arbusto's motivations. ×Meegs 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident

Hello, Meegs. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permission acquired to use image

Hi Meegs. You see, I've acquired permission from several websites to use their images on Wikipedia and they've agreed to release the image under the Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5. So it's okay if I upload these images and provide proof on the image page right? Thanks! Hariharan91 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hariharan. It is tremendous that you are contacting these websites to request relicensing of content, and I will help you in any way that I can. You do need to be very careful how you proceed, though; there are a few issues with the photo that you've already uploaded, Image:Trisha Krishnan.jpg. First, nonstopcinema.com, is not the copyright holder of the image, and I do not believe they are authorized to act as their agent, either, so their agreement to the license is meaningless. Second, since you did not post your original email query (and have edited-down their response), it is hard to see whether they have agreed to this particular free license or not. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for more information. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards ×Meegs 18:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But NonstopCinema.com has stated that they have every permission to use the image in any way they want as they have already claimed the copyrights of this image from the producers of the film. Hariharan91 06:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your initial email to Image:Trisha Krishnan.jpg. In the future, you should explicitly state the license enables anyone to republish the image and derivatives, and that it is not merely a contract to use the image Wikipedia. It's probably ok this time, but it is important to provide more detail in your request (Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Informal (images) is a good model).

The critical issue with this image is nonstopcinemas's agreement with the production company that owns the photograph. The webmaster claims that they have permission to use the image commercially. That use may be restricted to their own web site, and may not allow for derivative works. More importantly, it is unlikely that they are authorized to extend the permission to others. I really would like to keep this image — it is great — but I don't think we can without communicating directly with the copyright holder. ×Meegs 08:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent them a mail regarding this matter and this is their reply.

Hi Nambiar,
 
Our site is the official online media partner for the movie Stalin, from which you picked the photo. The photos have been     
given to us, to be exploited on our site for commercial use. We are also authorized to redistribute the photos. All the 
photos of the movie on all the other telugu movie sites were provided by us. Our site's sub-editor Mr. Srinivas Kumar is the
publicity in-charge for the movie 'Stalin'. I can assure you we have all rights for the photo as long as its distributed for 
free. We only do not have the rights to print it or sell it. I hope I have clarified enough. If there is any other photo on  
our site - feel free to use them. We have a lot stills of actresses. Check out the list : http://www.nonstopcinema.com/gallery

Regards,
Venkat
NonstopCinema.com Team

The image can stay now right? :) Hariharan91 07:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to say this, but there's now no doubt that it can not. CC-by basically allows anyone to do anything to the image, and anything with the image, so long as attribution is given. If NonstopCinema is not permitted to print or sell the image, then they can not authorize others to do so, and can not agree to CC-by, the GFDL, or any other free license compatible with Wikipedia, all of which must allow for all forms of reproduction and commercial use. I truly appreciate the work you have put into your queries, and hope you won't be discouraged from contacting copyright holders in the future. ×Meegs 07:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are also authorized to redistribute the photos. That means they can redistribute the photos as they want. I can assure you we have all rights for the photo as long as its distributed for free. Wikipedia distributes their images for free. And I think what he mean by We only do not have the rights to print it or sell it is that they cannot claim money for redistributing or selling these images elsewhere. Hariharan91 08:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more bold text. All content on Wikipedia (fair use aside) must be in the public domain or available under a free license that allows reproduction on other media and commercial use. I'm sorry, but that's one of the core principals of the project. User:Fastfission has written a great overview of the reasons at User:Fastfission/Noncommercial. ×Meegs 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I email them again and ask them whether or not this image can be used by others as they wish? Hariharan91 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have permission to sell the image or reproduce it on paper, then they surely can not authorize others to do so. We really need to deal directly with copyright holders. ×Meegs 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is really impossibble. Hariharan91 10:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It may be easier for images from other sources, though. ×Meegs 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From other sources like what? And for the bold texts just now, sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or anything if that was what you were thinking.Hariharan91 10:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance photographers, amateur photographers, Trisha, her representation. ×Meegs 11:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

restatement of issues

Ivan, I am sorry that you feel Abu Badali is harassing you, but there are some legitimate issues raised above that need to be addressed. Note that he could have immediately sought the images' deletion, but instead was trying to work with you to save them. If you will cooperate briefly, then we can settle these issues and you can both go your own ways. Let me try to restate the questions:

Image:Sfxshamrockglasswindow.jpg is a document created in the 1960. A faithful digitization has the same copyright as the original. Since you are not the owner, we will need to demonstrate that the document is in the public domain (or possibly make a fair use claim) for it to remain.
You have applied the {{gfdl-self}} tag to Image:Sfxycwncgm.jpg, Image:Sfxchurchded.jpg, and Image:Sfxchurch.jpg, indicating that you are the photographer and copyright holder of the images (and say that these upload summaries were a mistake). Could you please provide more info about the photos on their image description pages? Two useful pieces of info would be the approximate date that they were taken and the reason for their poor condition (e.g. were they scanned from a paper publication?).

Regards ×Meegs 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created these images. Yes they are low quality, but that is because I took the pictures using an old non-digital camera, so I had to scan them in. Secondly, the document was created in the 60's; I do not claim to own the copyright to the document, but I do own the copyright to the image, as I created the image; when someone takes a picture of a book, actor or building, they don't own the copyright to the book, actor or building, but they do own the images copyright. I created these images, and I released them into the public domain. If you wish to harrass me over fair use images, fine, but I created these images myself so there is no problem. Please do not call me a liar again. - Ivan Kricancic 09:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here, where the rest of this conversation has taken place. ×Meegs 09:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I did to gain access to this image, was I actually left the house, went and talked my priest who owns the document, and then explained to him about the use of the image. He said it was ok with him to use a picture of the document, and then he went on to say that most Church publications aren't copyrighted anyway. - Ivan Kricancic 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi Meegs. Woopsies. I though OrphanBot deleted the images, but I guess some get reinstated. Oh, dear, I'd better take a break as it appears either way, the backlog is irritating me.....Let's just say that only a few admins keep their "election promises"...Regards, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Image Trisha Krishnan

Hello, Meegs, User:Hariharan91 has managed to get a free image of Trisha Krishnan and I haven't given up either to get some others. Anyway, just to make sure. Here's the page of the picture, Email conversation between Hari and copyright holder included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trisha_Krishnan.jpg Did Hariharan do everything the right way? Is that picture now really appropriate for Wikipedia and does it qualify as a "free picture"? Can we upload it on Creative Commons? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 16:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plumcouch. Sadly, no, we can not keep that image. Take a look at my conversation with Hariharan above (User talk:Meegs#Permission acquired to use image). It is important to contact copyright holders directly. Best ×Meegs 05:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you may have crossed Creative Commons, the license writers, with Wikimedia Commons, our image repository. ×Meegs 05:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roller coaster images

I think you may (unfortunately) be correct about the roller coaster images that I uploaded. Although I believe point one--the criterion banning any fair use image which currently does not exist under free licence (but has the potential to)--is unduly restrictive; that seems to be consensus and policy. After a more thorough reading of policy and discussion, I find that I really don't have many arguments against this. Feel free to tag them for deletion or fair use review. Thanks for the good wishes on my RfA though. Best, Irongargoyle 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]