User talk:Melesse/Archive 50

Shpend Ahmeti

Hi there, I see you deleted the photo, I thought the issue was resolved, the photo is from the politicians public webpage, and would be fare use for, public information. thanks, mike 08:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no proof of a Wikipedia-compliant license. Just because it's on a politician's public website doesn't mean it's a GDFL license, which Wikipedia requires for photos of living people. Melesse (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Missouri_State_bear_logo.svg

You may go ahead and delete it, it was a flawed logo so I uploaded a new one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterbill42 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Audiogram logo new.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Audiogram logo new.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Herald.png

Question, can you undo the deletion of the PNG version of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Herald.png, I'm going to use it to replace the old Jpg version on the ATSF page.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

Replaceable fair use File:Antoine_Vollon-portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Antoine_Vollon-portrait.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Melesse. Can you please tell me where the replacement is? I mean a link to that. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The above is a copy of my talk page. I think this is a case of a template covering so many topics that I find it's meaningless. I don't have a clue what to do, I am on a deadline, and you've apparently just gone offline for the night. Please consider writing your complaints out in English in the future. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Melesse, you are correct. Subject lived over 100 years ago and painted a self portrait. Please delete this one (a better copy is in the Museé d'Orsay in Paris and the photographer is known). Thanks and sorry for my error. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:159th Fighter Wing.png

For your information, works of the United States Government are public domain upon creation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your note about the photo I uploaded to the Peter Stevens (RAF officer) article. The photo in question appears to be an unused passport photo (which I discovered in the subject's personal papers after his death), so I don't know how it is affected by copyright constaints. Thanks. Carrera57 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can completely understand that, but it still shouldn't prevent you from filling out the rest of the fair use template. You can ask for help on the license here. Melesse (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Craig Image

Howdy, I haven't really done Media since I started editing wikipedia and have a quick question on the bob craig picture. It is a personal photograph that he published on a academic networking site and I have contacted him to get his permission to use it on wikipedia. I don't expect any problems but it is the weekend and don't think he will reply before Monday. My question is A) what do I have to do to retain the image until I get a response, and B) once I get the response, where do I log the e-mail reply granting us use of the image (I understand I will change the copyright status on the image).Coffeepusher (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, so Robert Craig provided a higher resolution photograph with an e-mail providing permission of use. I uploaded the new photo and changed the copyright status to reflect those events. What else do I have to do?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please have him read this page and follow the instructions by sending an email to the OTRS system. Melesse (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Isis

Hi Melesse. I see you deleted User talk:Isis, most likely by a strange mistake.[1] Could you restore it please? Cheers, theFace 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A strange mistake indeed. Looks like someone beat me too it, though. Melesse (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh... not entirely. The page was recreated by User:DASHBot, and then turned into a redirect by an anon.[2] I was talking about the deleted revisions. This request may sound trivial, but as a Wikiarchaeologist, I consider it important. Cheers, theFace 07:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

KazablanPoster.jpg

Dear Melesse: Wow, you're fast!! You sent a note about this file about five minutes after I uploaded it! :) I just uploaded this image for an article I am in the midst of creating (started about an hour ago and hope to go from user file to "real" file in another hour). It's now part of User:NearTheZoo/Kazablan. Hopefully, will be part of Kazablan before I go to sleep. Hope this is ok. Thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The image is now linked to the new article, Kazablan. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manetic_logo.jpg) and File:Manetic_reception.jpg

Dear Melesse, I have created the article for using the above images, please have a look here, thank you.--Frankietou (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ShakespeareTheatreCompanyLogo.jpg)

Please delete the file - it was uploaded by mistake, I had wanted to upload the .gif version.

ed Ecragg (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Rescuersduposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rescuersduposter.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Erik Lönnrot (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to == Orphaned non-free media (File:Equitable_Tourism_Options_(EQUATIONS)_Organization_Logo.jpg) ==

Thanks for uploading File:Equitable_Tourism_Options_(EQUATIONS)_Organization_Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Melesse for raising this concern. But, I am currently using this image in an article that I have initiated in my userspace. It is called User:I Eqs/Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS). Since, I am continuing to improve the article to meet all the required standards of a Wikipedia article, it will not be shifted to mainspace within the next seven days. I do hope this is okay and sufficient enough reason for the deletion warning to be removed from the page File:Equitable_Tourism_Options_(EQUATIONS)_Organization_Logo.jpg. Additionally, within the page of this Image it has been auto-mentioned that it is linked to the page User:I Eqs/Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS).

If an Image cannot be used in an userspace draft article, please advise what are the steps that I should take. But, since this is my first article I would prefer to complete it in the userspace with the required images before I shift it to mainspace.

With regard to licensing of the image, I followed the guidelines provided for uploading a non-free Logo of an Organization. There are also no free replacements for this particular image.

I have currently not uploaded any other images. But, I do plan to upload a few more in future and use it within this same article. Hence, your advise on usage of images in userspace draft articles is important.

Thanks and Regards, I Eqs (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

Additionally, Under the Summary of the image file, I have linked it to the article User:I Eqs/Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS). Please do remove the deletion warning from the page.

Thanks and Regards, I Eqs (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images aren't allowed in user-space, so I recommend in the future you use a placeholder image instead. Melesse (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Melesse. I will do this in future. But, can this particular image stay. Or would I have to reupload the image when I go live with the article. I Eqs (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll probably need to upload it again when the article is ready. Melesse (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Burmese Keyboard fair use issue

File:Burmese_Keyboard_layout.png was released under LGPL together with font and keyboard software by myanmar NLP. http://www.myanmarnlp.net.mm/ http://code.google.com/p/myanmar3source/ I don't have much of experiences in uploading images and using templates in Wiki. Plus I can't find LGPL description in upload form either. Please advise me which license/template I need to use or update as needed. Thanks. Lionslayer (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case it shouldn't be using a fair-use template. I've changed it for you. Melesse (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Carrickfergus_Grammar_Logo.png

Thanks, it can be deleted as it have been replaced with a vector version. Markcoulter50 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Maximum size for covers, etc.?

Thanks for resizing those fair-use covers! I wonder, is there a guideline somewhere about the maximum pixel size covers and front pages are supposed to have? So far I've seen everything from 200px to 1000px. It would make things much easier if there was an accepted standard, because as far as I can tell right now everybody seems to have slightly different ideas about what "low resolution" means exactly. --Morn (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was referred to when I first started doing resizing. As you can see from the banner at the top it's not exactly official because as you said, everyone has a different idea of low resolution, but that's the standard I still go by. Melesse (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that page lacks a guideline for newspaper front pages and magazine covers. IMO that the size of the physical object should matter too, so if 300px is appropriate for a CD cover, 1000px would not actually be out of line for a front page, given that a broadsheet is much larger than a CD. Also, newspaper front pages probably do not enjoy a very high degree of copyright protection in the first place, given that many publishers make page 1 available for free as a PDF on their sites (or at Newseum) to promote their papers. Therefore, IMHO resizing such images to 200px or so is more than what is actually needed to comply with fair use principles. --Morn (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The first example is a magazine cover. I personally err on the side of smaller and find that magazine covers are equally identifiable at 325px height. Part of the fair use policy is that an image shouldn't compete with the product itself, so in the case of a newspaper front page, to make the image large enough that someone can read all the text would be competing with the newspaper, or their website, in the case of newspapers that distribute free copies of the front page on their website. Melesse (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Even at 1000px, body text would still be quite blurry, but that resolution would allow examining the layout and typography (typefaces used), things that an educational resource such as an encyclopedia is naturally interested in. Wikipedia's goal is clearly not about competing with content providers there, but about explaining how a newspaper is designed, what makes it different, and so on. And since there is a new front page more or less every day, making one front page available is a pretty negligible part of the entire creative work (which is comprised of all pages in all issues, ever), so it's not the same as CD cover art where a band might only produce an album every few years or so, or even a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly magazine, which might have cover illustrations of significant artistic merit of their own. Newspaper front pages tend to consist of larger, incomplete articles that are continued somewhere on later pages and a few complete stories that are in all likeliness minimally-rewritten news agency material, not original content by the newspaper in question. So IMO page 1 is not a complete and copyrightable product, and it's not even a product because newspapers are not in the business of selling page 1, but of selling their complete articles and issues, which page 1 is not. I see a definite parallel to the whole to and fro about using motion picture stills on WP here, because a low-res still is also a very small part of the whole work (a two-hour movie), that serves critical discussion but does not and cannot compete with the whole product for any meaningful definition of competition. Erring on the side of caution is one thing, but taking caution to extremes is another. --Morn (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never come across an article on a newspaper addressing what font it uses for its type. In such a case, yes, there would be a case for having it large enough to identify all the fonts. But for the most part, since they don't do that, the name and general layout is enough to identify the newspaper. Melesse (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just adding a section about typography to the Die Welt article. But even if the exact typeface is unknown, I think typographically-inclined readers might want to see if e.g. a newspaper uses a traditional serif, sans-serif, or a slab serif (the latter appears to be all the rage right now in newspaper design), or a mix of the three. Front pages in infoboxes aren't really needed purely as identification anymore because usually the logo is shown separately as an SVG anyway. And usually it's the logo you recognize, not so much the rest of the design. So it would make sense to focus the Wikipedia fair use case for front pages a little less on the identification aspect and more on critical commentary. --Morn (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And in cases like that, a simple statement of what fonts are used, maybe even a user-created typeface hierarchy chart would serve just as well in illustrating the point. Or if you insist upon a high resolution image of the front page, you'll want to write a more detailed fair use rationale than "visual identification" and explain what critical commentary warrants such a high resolution, because as I said before, a thumbnail that gives an idea of the general layout serves equally well. You may want to take up your assertion of newspapers requiring less copyright protection with Wikiproject Journalism, because I very much disagree with you on that point, and besides, that's not my call. Melesse (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)