User talk:Melesse/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Serial Killer Task Force logo
I see where you deleted the logo image for this project under a speedy delete tag. I don't know who the original uploader was, so I can't speak to why a notice wasn't responded to, but I would like to know how to recover this logo so that whatever licensing or copyright information that is needed can be provided. This has left a blank template across scores of articles. Whoever nominated didn't leave notice at the task force talk page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to know how this image can be retrieved so it can be licensed properly. It is a major project logo used in the project template on scores of articles. Could you respond please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The image was the project logo at Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and the actual image page was at Image:Serialkillerstaskforcelogonewtry.png. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'll find out what we need and get it taken care of. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- The image was the project logo at Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and the actual image page was at Image:Serialkillerstaskforcelogonewtry.png. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I could do with a second opinion on something before I go any further. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at this sockpuppetry case, and this one, then see if you spot a similar pattern here. Cheers, Papa November (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
also...
You've inspired me to start playing with photo montages. I thought it might be a nice solution to create a subpage, which can be transcluded into the required article. I had a go at the one for Russians User:Papa November/collage. There are some licensing issues with some of the photos on Commons, hence the repeated images! Any suggestions for improvements etc? Papa November (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You marked this as reduced, but it still seems to be 300 X 390, which is the size I uploaded at. Thanks for your work doing this, by the way. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you speedily deleted this image. Can you please undelete this image? I have license information to add to it ({{ubisoft-screenshot}}) that will make it okay for use on Wikipedia. Thank you! — OranL (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Remember to re-add it to the article it was in and remove the tags after you do that. Melesse (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CampHeartlandLogo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:CampHeartlandLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
image deletions for Transformers articles
What was not correct on all those pictures which you just deleted today? I fixed everything that was noted, and someone else reduced the size, and then you still deleted them. Was there something still wrong with them? Mathewignash (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would really appreciate a response. I can't find a good reason why these pictures were deleted after I fixed them. Please talk to me. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Hasbro Transformers Series" is not really a sufficient source. If you choose to re-upload the pictures, you'll need to provide a more specific source (episode #, comic issue #, etc.). Melesse (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. Many of these are pictures from the www.habsro.com web site, used for promotion of the toy, and I sited the pages. For instance the image Breakaway-movie.jpg was just a picture from the manufacturer's web site as a source. I linked to that page on their site. How much more detail can I give? I understand the comic book scans and the TV show screenshots, I will add specific artists and issues, but I can't give more from a promotional item than the site it came from. Let me know what else I could add. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- For that example, you would want to add the exact url of the page the promotion was on. Since it's just a promotion it might have expired by now, so if that page is gone you'd need to link to an archived version of it. Melesse (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for instance, that Breakaway pictuter I mentioned, was linked back to the page on www.hasbro.com it came from, wasn't it? So why was it deleted? Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see the problem here. You'll have to excuse me because I delete hundreds of images a day and they all tend to blur together, and your question prompted me to think it was a source issue and it wasn't. My bad. I see lots of people have already talked to you about this so I'll try to make it brief. Fair use images are for critical commentary about design or form that the reader could only easily get an idea of with a picture. I know a lot of fair use images don't really fit that and admins (myself included, and rather unfortunately, I think) let them slide. Now, more or less, all transformers are the same, right? Once a reader sees one transformer, written color and feature descriptions could give them a pretty good idea of what another one looks like. When that's the case, all but the first reference image aren't necessary and ought to be deleted. Melesse (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been told by other admins that one fair use picture per character would be allowed. In the case of Breakaway, there have two different characters to share that name over the years (Hasbro recycles names sometimes) - they were very different characters Hasbro produced in different years, one a red jet who was a medic, the other a white car who was a warrior. I had one picture of one, and one picture of the other. You deleted the second. I hope I'm explaining this properly. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I either made a mistake and overlooked that or that wasn't explained in the rationale. Find the link to the deleted image and I'll restore it and if you need to, add that to the fair use rationale. Melesse (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding. I'll go over the other pictures you deleted in that group and see if any others were just things you didn't understand or if they were legit deletions. Some probably were legit, but I'll double check them. If I see any others that I think should be there, do I post them to you, or just re-upload them and try to explain in the rational? Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I either made a mistake and overlooked that or that wasn't explained in the rationale. Find the link to the deleted image and I'll restore it and if you need to, add that to the fair use rationale. Melesse (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been told by other admins that one fair use picture per character would be allowed. In the case of Breakaway, there have two different characters to share that name over the years (Hasbro recycles names sometimes) - they were very different characters Hasbro produced in different years, one a red jet who was a medic, the other a white car who was a warrior. I had one picture of one, and one picture of the other. You deleted the second. I hope I'm explaining this properly. Let me know what you think. Mathewignash (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see the problem here. You'll have to excuse me because I delete hundreds of images a day and they all tend to blur together, and your question prompted me to think it was a source issue and it wasn't. My bad. I see lots of people have already talked to you about this so I'll try to make it brief. Fair use images are for critical commentary about design or form that the reader could only easily get an idea of with a picture. I know a lot of fair use images don't really fit that and admins (myself included, and rather unfortunately, I think) let them slide. Now, more or less, all transformers are the same, right? Once a reader sees one transformer, written color and feature descriptions could give them a pretty good idea of what another one looks like. When that's the case, all but the first reference image aren't necessary and ought to be deleted. Melesse (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, for instance, that Breakaway pictuter I mentioned, was linked back to the page on www.hasbro.com it came from, wasn't it? So why was it deleted? Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- For that example, you would want to add the exact url of the page the promotion was on. Since it's just a promotion it might have expired by now, so if that page is gone you'd need to link to an archived version of it. Melesse (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. Many of these are pictures from the www.habsro.com web site, used for promotion of the toy, and I sited the pages. For instance the image Breakaway-movie.jpg was just a picture from the manufacturer's web site as a source. I linked to that page on their site. How much more detail can I give? I understand the comic book scans and the TV show screenshots, I will add specific artists and issues, but I can't give more from a promotional item than the site it came from. Let me know what else I could add. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)
Another image deletion w/ no notification
(ec) I noticed that you deleted this image (File:Fraserim.gif) (which I had uploaded with a non-free use rationale clearly made); you stated in the log that you had notified the uploader at least 48 hours prior, but I received no such notification or any explanation. Please post an explanation in the talk page of the image page if possible and notify me of your reasons for deleting it in response to this comment here. (You can post it here [on your own talk page] and, when I have more time, I will check back later for it.) Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've posted request for providing the information that was deleted from the image page, which was the rationale. Are you an administrator? On basis of what specific criteria have you deleted this image? --NYScholar (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted it as replaceable fair use, and I think you must have been notified (not by me) because you wrote a rationale on the page as to why it's not replaceable. It's not really valid because that person appears to be still alive, meaning someone could conceivably find her (maybe at a book signing or something) and take a photo of her and release it under a free license. Now if that's not possible (she's actually dead, she never leaves her house and never takes visitors anymore, etc.), that's a valid reason for a fair use image. "I couldn't find any pictures of her" doesn't really cut it. Melesse (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, that is not why I wrote a rationale. No one had notified me specifically. The non-free use template is automatically added to the image when one uploads choosing a non-free use license; the template choices enable one to add a "disputed" claim template, which is the template that I added. I was not responding to any notification. I read the template as I added it, and I added the correct complementary template. No notification occurred. --NYScholar (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- There was no such notification. Please locate the rationales and read them again; your quotation is incomplete; I stated in the rationale that I have looked for a free photograph of her for over two years (probably closer to three years) and not yet found one [an already-free one] and that when one is found, it would replace the photo that I had uploaded, which is a promotional photograph that has been cropped and is low resolution as featured in a public advertisement for a book talk; I also gave the URL and stated that the photo was being used only in Antonia Fraser. I do not think that you have taken into account the rationale provided, and I do not understand why you think that you can delete the photograph. There is no credit to a photographer given on the Seattle lecture series promotional site and there is no copyright notice on the site either. The photograph is being featured as a promotional photograph to advertise a talk publicly without any limitations placed on its use. See the discussion page of the image. Thank you. (I still have not been notified in any way of the deletion of this photograph as its uploader, despite your assumptions/statements otherwise.) --NYScholar (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [added info. in brackets. Still working on this problem. --NYScholar (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)]
- Deletion notifications are just a courtesy, and nonetheless you knew about it so whoever initially tagged it probably thought it unnecessary. Fair use images of living people just to show what they look like are not accepted, not permanently and not as placeholders either. See this article for a long detailed explanation. Melesse (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that I understand why you deleted the image. I still have not found another actually-free one to replace it, however. [I also discovered a copyright violation in an image uploaded by someone else to Wikipedia Commons with a misleading license, and that one has now been deleted from the article about Fraser's husband, Harold Pinter, by an administrator. I would expect that if that image of Pinter has been speedily deleted after I pointed to its actual source (Getty Images), so should have been the one that I had uploaded as well. Both of them would appear to have derived from a commercial source originally, though in the case of the one that I uploaded, I have not found its original source.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, after I found a copyright violation concerning the photo that was in the infobox for Harold Pinter (see its recent editing history, where it was deleted due to my adding a copyvio template to it w/ the URL and site [Getty Images] from which another uploader had uploaded a photograph of Harold Pinter to Wikipedia Commons), I thought that I now understand your deletion of the photo of his wife, Antonia Fraser, which I had uploaded and placed in the infobox for her. The photo that I uploaded would not have been able to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons for same reason that the one of Harold Pinter (taken from Getty Images) was deleted by an administrator. That photo was uploaded with a GNU Free Documentation License in a language other than English and being used in English Wikipedia, given its presence in Wikipedia Commons. The licensing was false and it was a copyright violation. It has been in the infobox for Pinter's article for months. It has now been deleted due to the copyright violation. I think the images are similar in their copyright violations, even though I never uploaded the image of Fraser to Wikipedia Commons and never made any false claims about it. In retrospect, it appears to have come from some copyrighted photo, though it is not clear which one, as it is cropped and used as a publicity photo in the Seattle lecture program publicity. Both are equally copyright violations in Wikipedia, nevertheless. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the Diffs. pertaining to the now-deleted image from Harold Pinter's infobox; the one you deleted from the infobox for Antonia Fraser is similarly a copyright violation, I am saying. So, I was explaining, that is why I understand your deleting it. Your deletion of it led me to investigate the claims in the Wikipedia Commons photo for Pinter, which has now, due to my placing a copyvio template on it, been deleted by an administrator from Wikipedia Commons. (The rationale for Pinter's infobox image in Wikipedia Commons was written in a non-English language and indecipherable by most English-speaking Wikipedia users. It falsely claimed a free GNU license, yet the image is from Getty Images. It is no longer in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, after I found a copyright violation concerning the photo that was in the infobox for Harold Pinter (see its recent editing history, where it was deleted due to my adding a copyvio template to it w/ the URL and site [Getty Images] from which another uploader had uploaded a photograph of Harold Pinter to Wikipedia Commons), I thought that I now understand your deletion of the photo of his wife, Antonia Fraser, which I had uploaded and placed in the infobox for her. The photo that I uploaded would not have been able to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons for same reason that the one of Harold Pinter (taken from Getty Images) was deleted by an administrator. That photo was uploaded with a GNU Free Documentation License in a language other than English and being used in English Wikipedia, given its presence in Wikipedia Commons. The licensing was false and it was a copyright violation. It has been in the infobox for Pinter's article for months. It has now been deleted due to the copyright violation. I think the images are similar in their copyright violations, even though I never uploaded the image of Fraser to Wikipedia Commons and never made any false claims about it. In retrospect, it appears to have come from some copyrighted photo, though it is not clear which one, as it is cropped and used as a publicity photo in the Seattle lecture program publicity. Both are equally copyright violations in Wikipedia, nevertheless. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:ManofIron.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ManofIron.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Please see User_talk:Carnildo#ImageTaggingBot_3. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Ironman poster.jpg
Hi. You need to always add an external link to where you got that image from. If you leave an external links and copy wright holder outside the rationale template it should pick it up ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
images
thank you heaps for fixing up the images. PMK1 (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:TimeCoverSoros090197.jpg
I missed the reason that the George Soros TIME cover was deleted. The "notification" of this was over a year ago, by somebody who just didn't like George Soros, and I convinced him that this simply wasn't a reason for deleting a picture. The use of TIME Magazine covers is quite common fair use. Please explain. Smallbones (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete
Can you delete Image:Indians 2007 Champs.jpg, one of my uploads? It turns out to be a derivative work (see this), and needs to be deleted. I removed all references to it. Thanks, SpencerT♦C 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Hvt18a.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hvt18a.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
