User talk:Abu badali/Archive4

Ethan_Strimling.jpg

This is the official picture of a Congressional candidate, and permission has been given.

Image deletions

I've noticed you putting up a few images for speedy deletion (no source, copyright holder, that kind of thing) with complex reasons. Speedy deletion really isn't meant to handle that kind of request. If no source / copyright holder is given at all, or if no fair use rationale is provided, that's one thing. But if they're provided and you think they should be deleted anyway, the best thing is to go to WP:IFD. Mangojuice^talk 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you provide examples so I'm sure I understand which cases you mean? I'm not saying what you saying is baseless, I just want to better know what kind of deletion nominations you think are unsuitable. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Humm, just noticed ypu reverted a nomination here Image:SamWinchester.jpg, do you think it's a complex issue when the site given as source explicitly claims it doesn't owns the image's copyrights? First step is to remove the misleading source info, second step is to tag image as no source. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of them. I deleted another one anyway (wrestling image, you were point-by-point refuting the fair use criteria... but it also had no source info other than WWE.com. Maybe that promo image should be deleted, but not because of the source, honestly. It's more because we shouldn't use a promo image for that purpose, it makes more sense to use a screenshot and comment on its contents at the same time. If nothing was listed for a source, I would have deleted it even though I would have known the source could be found.. basically, people just aren't very responsive on that issue. The source given was probably the (immediate) source of the image, though, so, basically, the uploader satisfied the requirements and should have the chance to let the community decide. The CSD no-source criterion is there to eliminate large classes of abandoned contributions, not to give the idea that flawless source information must exist for every image. Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's more because we shouldn't use a promo image for that purpose". No, the point is that, without a valid source, we can't be sure that image is really a promo image. Fansites (like the one given as "immediate source" for this image) are not a source for promotional material at all. They rarely have the license to use the images they use (engaging in copyright violation) let alone to redistribute the images for others to use.

The image is likely from CW Television, as one can see by its watermark (bottom right). A quick look at CW's terms of service shows that their images are not promotional at all: "Using any Material on any other web site or networked computer environment is prohibited."[1].

This image is one more case of "I found it on the Internet, so it must be promotional". Do each of those images on Wikipedia go through ifd, no matter how invalid the source info is?

Or to make things simpler... If I see an image whose source information is cleary bogus (like a fansite), can I remove this invalid information?

Or maybe... If I see an image tagged as promotional but with no info on when/where was it released as promotional, may I remove the invalid licensing tag? Does it helps if the image's copyright holder has a historic of forbidding such uses of such images?

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your points. I view the no source/no license/no copyright holder speedy deletion criteria as requests that uploaders give us some basic information so that others don't have to do all the work... and if they don't, we can delete the images without trying to fix the issue. If they do what they're supposed to, their uploads could still be deleted but at least we should let someone volunteer to fix the issue first, which means posting it at IFD: to me, it's an issue of fairness and being welcoming. Don't worry about a deletion request at IFD not going through: it will, they almost always do if there's any kind of reason, and usually without any debate. I myself just feel more comfortable not using speedy deletion where it doesn't strictly apply. As to this image, I'm going to delete it now that the issues are all clear. Mangojuice^talk 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the Lufthansa image I actually disagree with you about: that needs debate, it's sufficiently unique and possibly important that someone may know where it came from if it's posted on IFD. Mangojuice^talk 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jenny Lind signature: it's clearly public domain, she died over 100 years ago. Sorry, but the reason we worry about source is so we can verify if an image is free. If that one should be deleted, someone will have to do better on saying why. Mangojuice^talk 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough. Any de-speedy you think was wrong, feel free to take it to IFD. I don't care to debate them any further, I made these judgements quickly while clearing out a backlogged category almost 3 weeks old that wasn't even showing on CAT:CSD anymore. If you think my general approach is wrong, point me to a policy discussion that says so. As for my objection -- a lot of admins may speedy delete non-obvious images but some won't, so I recommend sending non-obvious ones to IFD: take it or leave it. Mangojuice^talk 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuggets image deleted. Mangojuice^talk 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pageant titleholder bio

I've removed the request for free images image form this page. If you look at step for of the upload instructions you get when you follow the links from that image you will see why that doesn't work with the current system. At the moment there doesn't seem to be a work around but I am still thinking about it. It is ceritanly something I would like to be able to do.Geni 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image:Cavett.jpg

This image is of a bookcover which fall under different Wikipedia standards than promotional photos. The publisher is credited on the image's page. Please explain why you are contesting the use of this book cover.

--Wowaconia 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it was being used to illustrate the article on the person and not the book.Geni 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why call for its deletion instead of moving it down to the segment about the book?

--Wowaconia 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The "segment about the book" was only added after the image use has been contested. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The book was referenced in the article as its source and I changed the prose but mention of the book was already there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Cavett&oldid=112085745#References . The image was not in violation of fair use its placement was, why call for its deletion instead of improving the article and moving the photo?

--Wowaconia 16:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

This image states it's promotional, however it sources a fan-wiki, which then sources a fan site, I believe that it is incorrectly licensed.. is it? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Leah Dizon photo

I have asked around on Flickr, there was one user that had many photos of her, but he could not change the license of them. I'll look later (though there is a photo of her as the BSD Devil I want to use). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems your test failed, since a few days after I saw you made your edit, someone went and replaced the image with a fair use photo. I'll have some d00ds take pics of her when they go to car shows and stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Full House image

I uploaded the same-looking image that you tagged, but from a different website this time. It has a different name of course, check it out → Image:FullHousecast.jpg. I linked the source directly to the image white page. I hope everything is okay now. QuasyBoy 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would getting an image from an official website be okay. But the thing is Full House is a cancelled TV series, and I don't think there is an "official website" out there on the series. And I don't think you would want an image from a fansite. QuasyBoy 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A promotional image released from the Warner Bros. Televison company from an "official website" (If one would exist). Would be okay right ? QuasyBoy 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfree image

Delete this image it's unfree and unauthorized for being here. thumb|right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.41.237 (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I can't delete it, as I'm not an admin. I'll take a look on how the image is used and, if it seems to be somehow against or policy, I'll take the necessary steps. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --201.79.41.237 13:44

User talk:Jkelly

No need to apologise. Believe me, much less relevant stuff often winds up on that page, and I don't mind in the least; it being, well, a wiki and all. I had responded, to say much the same thing. As it turns out, we seem to have an example to illustrate the point. Jkelly 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Riya Book.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Riya Book.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --NAHID 08:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, NAHID. I have only uploaded a lower resolution version of this image. You may want to contact User:Aditya Kabir (the original uploade) about this image. Indeed, I have once tagged this image as replaceable fair use, but some user (wrongly) removed the tag right after. You may want to read the discussions. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Saw IV.jpg

You can delete the image if you want. As long as the poster is up on the Saw IV page, I don't really care if you delete the poster. Image:Saw IV Teaser poster-1-.jpg Enter Movie 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bah, who cares if you think it is not fair use. Orphanized it. (Image:Joe-pa-sports-illustrated-2005-cover.jpg)

Bah, get a life shh...of course I'm kidding. A rude kidding. It is sad that you have to do the images for deletion process. You have way too much time on your hands. The odds of me being the copyright holder is very very slim. Forget wikiquette and just be rude. Just orphanized on questionable "fair use" images such as magazine covers that don't relate to a subject. You're informing me an upload that I did over a year ago. No need to go all the time consuming images for deletion. Be a rebel and an orphan image bot. On your user page: I'm a self-described-self-described image cleaner and fair use inquisitor. Good luck with the 1.6 million pages of going through... --J. Nguyen 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Chandrasekhar image

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page about the image. I don't understand how one can obtain a free picture of a guy who died 11 years ago. Thanks. Dr.K. 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, (may I call you Abu? it's been so often that we talked lately that we must in the end as a minimum be on a first name basis!), anyway, this time you did your homework well and I respect that. If faced with this kind of facts we must alter the strategy. Good research stands on its own merits and you did well. So I would like to ask you, if I reduce the image size by 70, 50 whatever percentage could that help? I gave MangoJuice the link last time and there is a special category for reduced images. Could you let me know? BTW from last time we had a bit of a debate, and I want to let you know that after the first impressions I have come to respect your capable contributions here. Take care. Dr.K. 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu, thank you very much for your advice and your kind comments. Indeed I accept your well made argument that we should not compete with the original website. However given that the scientist is dead and pictures are no longer available, I will experiment with some downsizing. If you find it acceptable then it would be ok, if not then it's over. Thanks again. Tasos. (Dr.K. 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Is this ok now? It looks grainy to me. Let me know. Thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

This time is ok I think. Dr.K. 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Promotional" mis-tagging

You're sort-of preaching to the choir; this category is a mess (if I recall, the Wikipedia:Signpost quoted me on that quite a while ago). In theory, however, it should not matter whether or not media is actually "promotional" or not, because there is nothing about something having "an implicit license to reproduce [but not modify]" that should matter in terms of en:'s Wikipedia:Fair use criteria policy; the claim ("rationale"), in theory, needs to be just as compelling for this material as it does for any other unfree content. Of course, we are substantially less likely to get contacted by an irked copyright holder if the media really is promotional, but this should be beside the point. In any case, as I am sure you are aware, the board is doing some thinking about the role of unfree media on the various projects, and it may be that we will get some direction on the larger issue at some point in the not-too-distant future. Jkelly 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To take the last point first, you're quite right that we need to take responsibility for cleaning up our messes, and not wait around for some statement from the Board that will magically make problems go away. Your main point is something that we haven't really explored in all of the discussion about unfree media at en:. Most people know, I think, that we should immediately delete any media that comes from stock photo providers, because the commercial impact is very easy to show. Some people are clear that we shouldn't be using media from information content providers, like CNN, AP, or the BBC, because it is difficult to show that our use is transformative and there is an argument that their value is being similarly impacted. Your position is that other websites depend upon having traffic driven to them, and our use may impact that traffic. I have some sympathy for that argument, but it immediately leads to some very big questions, which I would sum up as "should we [uploaders] be worried about Castle Rock vs. Carol Publishing Group"? -- it is not obvious to me why our image use is significantly different than our publishing of text about other people's intellectual property. I think that we would all agree that we are not in the business of entertainment, but instead that we are offering educational material about our subjects, and our use is in that spirit. If our policy is actually followed, this will be immediately obvious; our claim should be so compelling that even the copyright holder wouldn't disagree with it. In practice we have not yet found a very good way to help users make sure that their uploads are following policy. I therefore suggest that the best way forward in cleanup is to do more or less what we do already -- identify any ways in which individual files may fail policy and tag them for deletion, and take questions about use to discussion forums (like talk pages, project pages, or IfD). All of that said, and I've said quite a lot, we need to be clear on what policy actually is -- replaceability has become quite misunderstood. The point with replaceability should not be "Would it be relatively easy to get a freely licensed image", but, instead, "Is this image absolutely irreplaceable for the article" whether by some other image, text, a diagram, etc. This is precisely where we could use some leadership on the issue, because this makes many users unhappy, and will not be agreed with merely through repetition, reminders of our mission, or pointers to the various (fascinating through repugnant) reuse of our material that is already happening. Jkelly 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Cater Image

Please note, removal tag has been disputed on image page, and comments added to talk page in supporting a keep Hackajar 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Viguerie Image

Image:Richard viguerie.jpg is being contested as an invalid image. Please review talk page for explination. Hackajar 12:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg

Thank for messaging me. Please take care to see Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg where both source and license are provided, and this, since the document's upload. Thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no license tag. Please, pick one at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Let me know if you need any help. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take care to see Image:X 4922 - Bernay 1986.jpg where both source and license are provided, and this, since the document's upload. Honnestly look, thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, Captain Scarlet, are you referring to the {{WP Trains fair use}} tag, that says in bold letters "Warning: This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag'"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Honnestly, aren't you a big boy that can dump in the Fair use template in it? You're bothering me, for somehting you can do yourself? and no i didn't notice because there's no point, it says Fair Use and it is, if it's no appropriate add a fair use tag yourself and no need to message me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only about "dumping a fair use template in it". I wouldn't be able to write a valid fair use rationale explaining how the use of this image on SNCF Class X 4900 is ok with each of the items on WP:FUC. This isn't something I can do by myself. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you can't copy paste. Since you've read {{WP Trains fair use}} you must know what you claim not to being able to do ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if my observations are not welcome but might it have been easier if Captain scarlet would have simply added an appropriate tag once this had been brought to his attention. There seems to be little point in a continuing debate about this as I would suggest that adding copyright tags are best left to the original uploader as they will have the best idea as to how the image meets the fair use requirements. Adambro 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just put in the god damn template you want there to be ! Adambro, should I create a new account for you to stop contacting me, i have politely expressed my feelings towards and i repeat, whatever your opinion, you are not welcome on my talkpage. Abu, you clearly know what template should be in there, put it in according to all the correct and appropriate information already provided without wasting my time with bureaucratic crap you can do yourself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

and this {{Restricted use}}, hard to copy-paste in there?? I don't think so, do it yourself next time. 08:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain scarlet (talk • contribs)

Arrest.svg

Thanks for your addition to Template:Law-enforcement-stub - I dig it. Could probably double as an icon for the BDSM folks as well:) Bobanny 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Imagevio

I reverted you. Don't add it back again. The imagevio tag is for identifying images that are claimed to be free but which are actually copyrighted by someone else. The image is identified as copyrighted, the copyright holder is identified, and a fair use claim has been made. If you dispute it, there are proper channels, namely WP:IFD, but that's where this is going to have to go. The imagevio tag is NOT for general use to try to delete any fair use image you want deleted. Mangojuice^talk 12:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you said "Please, understand that "historically significant photo" are "generally permitted under fair use" when used in an article or section about the photo itself." I do understand that, actually, and there were a number of image deletions I got involved with where that was the specific issue. (I can dig out the specific instance if you're interested.) At the time, I actually asked Jimbo about his thoughts on the issue because the guidelines seemed to contradict one another. His response (which I can also dig out if you're interested) was that he didn't see a big deal in using a "historical use" photo without specifically discussing the photo, just as long as the photo is really irreproducible. In the batch of debates that came up at that time, several of the images were deleted, and this one may be as well, but the issue was controversial and attracted a lot of debate for an IFD, so it needs a process where open discussion can take place. However, I do really think, based on my experience on this issue, that a photo of him at some significant moment, like winning the Nobel Prize, would likely be kept. Mangojuice^talk 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My memory was a little fuzzy. Here's a diff of my own edit, but Jimbo's relevant response is in the same section: [2]. He actually sets out some boundaries that are kind of obvious: on the one hand, any random picture of a very famous dead person like Elvis should definitely not be considered irreplacable. But on the other hand, he refutes the idea that the photo itself has to be significant, although he prefers to give the example of a depiction of an event in an article about that event, rather than a famous person that wasn't photographed very much. I hear what you're saying about replacability being only one concern, but there's a difference between having an argument against an image and it being necessary to delete that image. Best, Mangojuice^talk 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do think the image I suggested finding would be appropriate for Wikipedia, yes. The article on Chandreskhar isn't just about him winnng the Nobel Prize, but that event is quite important to the subject, so it's pretty close to the kind of use Jimbo endorses. Plus, Jimbo's opinion isn't the only thing that matters: it also seems quite reasonable to me. Mangojuice^talk 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CV should only be used for images that are supposedly free but are actually copyrighted. Still, there does seem to be a process duplication going on somewhere, because we also have WP:PUI. But for images that are marked as copyrighted, neither one is really appropriate, but rather, WP:IFD should be used. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bit of a hole in our procedures, I'll see what I can do to fix it up. Really, I don't see WP:CP handling images being a good idea when we have both WP:PUI and WP:IFD. Mangojuice^talk 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lawro.jpg

Since you are evidently confident that a free image of Mark Lawrenson could be reasonably be found, can you please find one, instead of merely removing the image from the page? Where can one be found, please?

In the (likely misplaced) anticipation that you have a clue what you're talking about, I've reinstated the 'fair use' image, until you can demonstrate that a free one can be found, reasonably or otherwise. jamesgibbon 22:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove musical artist discography, not images?

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Bogus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Though most of musical artists CD, DVD images are permitted, why are B'z, Jun Shibata album covers removed? X Japan (see X Japan discography), Glay (see Glay discography) and Dir en grey (see Dir en grey discography) etc album covers are not removed. Why are they no problems? Removed personal attack --Hatto 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on an article for me?

An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It's been several days since you posted your last message on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?, but I want to let you know that I've replied to it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali. Thought you should know. Megapixie 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Naomi Campbell pics

I bet the blurry one is legitimately CC-licensed. From the rest of the pictures, it looks like he went to this event and sat pretty far away. I imagine he downloaded some professional photos (including the good naomi campbell one) and stuck them in the flickr set to let other people know what was going on... asking on flickr would probably be a good solution. Calliopejen 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please examine the KLF page

Your take on what is and is not acceptable for photos is an interesting one. I therefor invite you to look at the article for the rock group The KLF. Though the picture used in the infobox does not seem to be acceptable under your standards it was included when the article got featured article status. Doesn't the existance of this photo prove that your take on fair use is mistaken?

--Wowaconia 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no action on Image:The KLF - Why Sheep?.jpg I see.

The page itself says "The previous version(s) of this image are copyrighted and were used under a claim of fair use. In accordance with the Wikipedia fair use policy, a smaller or lower quality version, or a freely-licensed replacement, has been uploaded in their place." The KLF aren't even dead or broken up and the page says "given the band's very low number of public appearances [a free image] is unlikely to be found".

By your interpretation this image shouldn't even exist in wikipedia, but instead its part of a featured article.

--Wowaconia 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Raam Punjabi

Thank you for your message. But why do you think that this image fails to meet the fair use criterion? Meursault2004 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you for your explanation. I think the image can be deleted and we can search for a free picture of him. Meursault2004 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Own block

I've seen some admins misusing the "tools" lately, but this is the first time I see one really shot his own foot. :) --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. -- Zanimum 13:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:LinkedIn favicon.png

I wasn't aware that the fair use policy prohibited use outside of the article space. Thanks, I'm learning more every day. :) pbryan 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Megatren lrt2.jpg

Regarding your reversion of Image:Megatren lrt2.jpg , per Philippine_copyright_law#Government_copyright, works of the Philippine government (as well as government controlled corporations) are ineligible for copyright. This image appears on the official web site of the Philippine government, so it appears to fall under the scope of {{PD-Philippines}}. Thatcher131 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this copyrighted?

Hi! This site lists itself as "Operated for NASA by SAO This site was developed with funding from NASA under Contract NAS8-39073." As far as I know, content by NASA is considered public. So can we use these images. What is the exact legal status of these images? I am in process of contacting these people and getting this image on Wikipedia. Please reply on my talk page, and I am a little busy in my real life so please don't hope quick reply :)--Scheibenzahl 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly we can't use these images. Following the "Image Use" at the bottom of the page, we see their politics on image use: "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes". Non-commercial is not free enough for Wikipedia.

Thanks for the info. I don't know how I missed this part :)--Scheibenzahl 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFC

Any reason you haven't ever given a response in your RfC? It's at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Author permission for a straight public domain

[3]

The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web, for a straight public domain. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you/the author mean by "for a straight public domain"?

In general, you can only use this material if the author (assuming he's still the copyright holder) would agree to give permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose. Simply giving "permission to post materials of his book on the web" is not enough for Wikipedia. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "for a straight public domain" was used by WP advisor in response to my above question. I understood that the "straight public domain" is synonimous with "permission for anyone to use the material for any purpose". Granted that, what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Barefact 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please advise me what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? Can you advise me? Barefact 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you, just composing the answer is a feat in itself ;-). Barefact 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility

This edit is unhelpful and borders with personal attack. I have reverted it. Please do not do it again. Alex Bakharev 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Electra

Now, that's more like it... close enough to kiss. Yum! I take back every bad thing I ever said about you. :) Wahkeenah 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please delete any image I've posted if you so desire

If you dislike any images that I have placed in an article please delete them as quickly as possible and I hearby give you persmission to do so without cluttering up my talkpage with notifications. It seems likely that Wikipedia will soon instigate the same photo policy as wikinews which bans any photos that claim fair use at all - allowing only free images. Again please delete whatever you like, I do not contest your actions, I do not require and do not want notification. Thank you for your time,

--Wowaconia 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Chandra images

Abu badali, I have confirmed that Chandra images, if not tagged on the site as including information from ground-based telescopes which are not under the control of NASA, are, in fact, completely public domain for all purposes, including commercial, so long as NASA-endorsement is not implied through their use (which is actually a completely different issue from use). If you have listed Chandra images for deletion, could you let me know what they were, so I might look up and find out if they truly are fair use? Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Abu, I am happy to mediate any disputes on wiki since I do not like disputes. There are two things that may be needed:

• You have to explain to me your vision of the conflict
  • If I have a conflict of interests or a strong preconceived opinion of the matter I will recuse, otherwise I am happy
• I have to ask Alikvar whether he wants my mediation. If he agree I am happy to start the work Alex Bakharev 10:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paul Hellyer.jpg

you guys are more then welcome to remove this image if you want, I just felt it would be a good idea to put a recent picture of him up b/c he does not look similar to his old photo (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:GeorgeMason.jpg

Deleted image -Nv8200p talk 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on image recent deleted

Due to your recent image nomination in deletion process, I would like just to hear your opnion here. These boys are getting crazy with fair use just to show their fanboy alma --Ciao 90 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the sake of prevent what is, and would be, unnecessary friction, this discussion was merely discussing why the image was deleted and how it could have possibly prevented with the use of a more specific rationale. Ciao, apparently, did not see this and assumed bad faith, immediately choosing to try to spark a conflict instead of discussing the subject. In the end, the image was deleted, and nothing can be done about it; no one said you did anything wrong by nominating it, but the discussion was merely discussing a way to prevent it. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting another person's personal information

Hi, Johntex. Plase, reconsider this. Posting another person's personal information may be considered harassment. Please, take this as a good faith warning. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take your message as harrassment. That photo was released to Wikipedia under the GFDL and we have the right to post it where we like. Johntex\^talk 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will give your sentiments further reflection. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Its use on Wikipedia does not compete with the copyright holder"

Where does this quote come from? I cannot find which policy contains it. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Someone just made up that statement so it really does not mean anything. I removed it from the fair use rationale. I suggest renominating the image for deletion with your reasons that the image does not qualify as fair use. -Regards Nv8200p talk 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should not make a unilateral deletion without discussion of the merits of your argument with the community. I would still suggest renominating for deletion or you can request a deletion review. -Nv8200p talk 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a badly written fair use rationale. That does not mean the image is not useable under fair use. You should have no qualms about renominating it. The reason is not the same. You first reason was that the image did not qualify as promotional. To resolve the issue, the tag was changed to fair use. If you don't buy this tag either then renominate on those merits. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Munich massacre

The image was (I believe) clearly tagged as being a screen capture from the DVD of One Day in September, and I believe in that capacity qualifies for fair use. Please advise further if more copyright info is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BassPlyr23 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

IfD discusions

Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Permissions mail

Got the email; might take me a little while, but I will follow up. Thanks. Jkelly 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the permission was for Wikipedia only. I have replied with a request for a clear statement of release under a free license. Sorry for the bad news. Jkelly 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking?

Please don't stalk other users, follow them to my talk page, and then make quips at them there. Policies like assume good faith are in place to help users get along, not to be useed passive agressivly as weapons. It is not funny or clever to try to wind people up. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your message unnecessarily offensive. Considering that user's recent behavior, I believed to have good reasons to keep an eye on his (public) logs. This is not considered stalking ("...this does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason"). When I saw the message he left on your user page where he attributed bad motivations to my steps, and felt it was appropriate to explain him that's not in line with the project community's spirit.

Now, I feel that Wikipedia:Assume good faith would also be a good suggested reading for you. And please, take that as a friendly advice.

All the best, --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Let's keep the conversation in one place. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vogue song and dance

The dance move was (I believe the article says somewhere) inspired by the poses on the covers of the magazine, and likewise the song was about the dance move. Neither of them would exist without the magazine. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sage Francis Image

The image that I added to the page which you deleted is listed as a press photo on the Epitaph Website, here: [4] and was added to the page by me at the request of Sage Francis Febodyed 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your copyright paranoia

Is getting ridiculous, seriously can somebody ban this guy? I'm referring to your comments on Ashley Massaro's Playboy cover. Trevor GH5 01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please don't waste your time trying to explain your reasoning to me I've read all the relevant discussions and you have a deluded, sad agenda against any and all pics. Trevor GH5 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not against these ones. --Abu badali (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm so impressed. If you spent the time you do devoted to your copyright paranoia, you could have 1,000 images. Trevor GH5 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

unfree image?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivana_Baquero&diff=113233434&oldid=113070016 ? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1972 Israeli Olympic Team photo

I think I'm starting to understand your rationale for wanting this photo deleted. "Abu" is a title frequently used by Palestinian terrorists (Abu Daoud, Abu Nidal, Abu Mazen and Munich's Abu Halla come immediately to mind). Nobody wants to be constantly reminded - especially by photograph - of innocent victims of their ethnic group's crimes. Would you rather I had posted a photograph of the blown-up helicopter? Would that make you feel better about this whole thing?

You say you enjoy being confrontational - that's not the point of this project. I am not intimidated by you, whom I have never seen before as a legitimate editor of Wikipedia. According to other frequent editors of Wikipedia with whom I've been in contact, I have provided enough information to prove the fair usage of the photograph in question. Please stop threatening to remove it. BassPlyr23^talk 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had already been called everything... --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You thought wrong. You left yourself open for this kind of commentary, both by your attitude (not only towards me but towards other Wikipedia contributors in needlessly threatening to remove legitimately uploaded photographs) and by your actions in this particular instance. I have proven beyond doubt that the photograph falls under the guidelines of fair usage. Please stop now. BassPlyr23^talk 13:55, 01 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand what this means? This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

It means that the photograph qualifies for fair use, as I am commenting on the film and its contents (in this case, its subject matter). Please stop your crusade now, before I contact the proper authorities of Wikipedia. You have already been cited for harrassment on other matters - please don't force me into a position where stronger action is taken. BassPlyr23 ^talk 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

• Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible arb-com case

Abu badali, have you seen User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali? I figured you should if you haven't. I hope it doesn't escalate to that. Best, Iamunknown 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I don't think I have reasons to be afraid of arb-com, though. And I'll be willing to participate in any civil forum about my behavior. Thanks for caring. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. I appreciate the work that you do. And I'm sorry for any collateral damage I may have caused by my little tiffy at ANI. Sometimes I can remain calm and civil and other times not. I get more frustrated than naught when Wikipedians diss those do image-related cleanup. It is a necessary task to keep Wikipedia from using material that clearly does not qualify under fair use. I don't doubt Irpen's intentions; he is great Wikipedia editor and author. The only times I have interacted with him, however, it has been to do with images and he is so abrasive and rude. Anyways, no more commentary, I'm sorry that you got associated with me over there, I was definitely not in a good state of emotion. Best, Iamunknown 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:ExcaliburSword.jpg

Instead of arguing an telling me that there are better, free images, why not find them. Also, do you know the 4 conditions of fair use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use. Also, before being a copyright terrorist, maybe read the context and learn about fair use. You seem to have a trend of deleting/threatening to delete legitimate images and I think it should stop. Slayerofangels 01:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My input may not be welcome, but I shall take the liberty to point one thing out: the sword is not an exact replica of Excalibur because no one knows what Excalibur looked like, no? Then why not use one of the free images the Wikimedia Commons has to offer? I found three quickly at Image:ExcalaburCaledfwlchTranslucent.gif, Image:ExcaliburStone.jpg and Image:CaledfwlchClose.gif. Regards, Iamunknown 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just realized a parallel discussion is ongoing at Slayerofangels' talk page. I cross posted this there. --Iamunknown 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I ALREADY TOLD YOU TO DELETE WHAT YOU WANT TO

STOP BEING RUDE, on this very talk-page I told you to delete whatever you wanted to and to stop cluttering up my talk page with notifications. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abu_badali#Please_delete_any_image_I.27ve_posted_if_you_so_desire

Feel free to go through my logs and delete any image there that you find wanting, but stop posting notifications to my talk-page I have no desire to contest anything you do. I am now of the mind that Wikipedia should be stripped of any images that are not free. --Wowaconia 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you seem to know a lot about the free use and copyright policies and I have a question - I hope you don't mind. I've been doing some work on the articles about The Mighty Boosh and I noticed that the photo Image:Autoboosh.the.list.cover.jpg is used on this page, and I'm not sure about the copyright to it. On the magazine cover copyright template it says that the image is fair use if:

• to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
• with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above.

But does this mean that only one condition must be satisfied (in this case the second is and the photo should stay right?) - or do both have to be satisfied (and the image has to be removed from the page?

Sorry this seems like a trivial matter, I'm still getting my head around WP:FUP. Thanks, ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Clooney directing.jpg

He directed the film and received an Academy Award nomination for it. -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I deleted it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotional images

Abu badali, I'm curious, have you ever come across a promotional image that was from a press kit or a site indicating in the terms of use that the image may be used for promotional- or press-related things. A while ago when I picked thirty or so promotional images at random, most of them did not include a source, those that did were from an official website but weren't promotional, and think that there was one I thought might actually be a promotional image. What have been your results? --Iamunknown 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have once see a source for real promotional image for the Lost tv-series, but I'm not sure. I also have the impression that I once was pointed to a source of real promotional image for Comedy Central's produtcions.

But the fact stays that 90% of the images claimed to be promotional in Wikipedia simply are not. I wonder if we could get a bot to tag for deletion all images claimed do be promotional but whose source is in a blacklist we would provide, containing the most common mistaken sources, as imdb.com, tv.yahoo.com, abc.go.com. fox.com. wbtv.com, sony.com, starwars.com, startrek.com... --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, though I'm not sure how easily it would go down. People seem resistant to the idea that "Oh, an image on an official website!" is not necessarily a promotional image, no matter how much you want to believe it is. To get around that resistance, we individually could create a list of image description pages that link to those domains, create a list of image description pages that are in Category:Promotional images and its sub categories and then intersect the two lists and go through them manually (preferably with api.php or query.php) (ugh). --Iamunknown 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated Edits?

Are you running a script or bot with this account? I've noticed a high rate of user_talk:'s regarding images. The content of these is not in question, simply the edit rate. I could have just caught you at a fast peak, but if you are running this automarically then you should be running this from a bot account to avoid flooding recent changes. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) <please reply on my talk>

Thanks for the reply, happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sartzetakhs2.jpg

Hi Asu Badali. Picture is used with free license. Please ask for translation. I specified this to the President's secretary and she told me that the President agrees. Thanks. Dr.K. 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Samuel Knox Skinner.jpg

I noticed you tagged this as no source simply because the link was dead. This is because the extension changed from .asp to .html, so please check if that has happened in the future. --Tom (talk - email) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		With the increasing refusal of users to explain their edits, your consistent use of edit summaries deserves recognition. Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crystal_Headshot2_3.jpg

I never 'uploaded' this image, I simply restored it to the form it was in when the uploader first placed it on Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to pop in to let you know that I think I was correct to remove your "replaceable fair use tag" because the tag itself says "... If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed." The image did have a fair use rationale that specifically explained why it was not replaceable (point 5 in the rationale). However, you did not post any explanation on the Image talk page as to why you disputed the given rationale.

Having said all that, it is certainly fine that you have re-added the tag after actually commenting on the talk page. There has been more discussion there if you would like to come by. Johntex\^talk 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The ones pushing for this image have yet to demonstrate that it is what it claims to be, while admitting that their purpose in pushing it is to tacitly demonstrate that she was not bruised at the time it was allegedly taken. It violates several wikipedia policies, fair use being only one of them. Wahkeenah 03:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oriole Park

It is not likely to get a similar replacement photo, as the ballpark burned to the ground in 1944. Wahkeenah 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bull Durham Greensboro photo

Technically, it would not be possible to get a free photo like the one shown, except by waiting for a bus to pull into the stadium parking lot. Wahkeenah 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Jane.jpg

Hello,

You left me a message on my talk page regarding the image I "uploaded." I was merely reverting this image that you yourself reverted from Yummushummus's upload.

That last sentence was a little confusing, so here's the story: when patrolling recent changes, I came across this edit, which I decided to investigate. I did a Google image search [5] and checked IMDb [6] and found that this image doesn't look close to Janice Dickinson, so I reverted the image back to this one.

Now that I look at Google image search, I can see a possible source of the image is from thehollywoodgossip.com [7]. But where The Hollywood Gossip got that particular image, I don't know. You might want to ask Yummushummus, since he is the one that uploaded the correct image of Janice Dickinson originally. Unfortunately, Yummushummus doesn't seem to be a very active user, so that's a problem. Looks like we may have to use one of the publicity images from IMDb and call it fair use.

Thanks,
BazookaJoe 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your IFD Got Me to Thinking...

Hi Abu badali,

Your IFD of one of the images which I had uploaded and used in an article got me to thinking about the number of questionable images which I see. I am wondering what to do with them...

Some of them are sports images from websites or magazine covers like [8].

Many fall into the into the category of being listed as Sports Posters and I've been compiling a list of those as "questionable FU"[9]. If you can tell me the best way to proceed to tag these images in some way to get the editor to replace the wrong license and then to apply the correct license, I'd appreciate it.

I like to do things correctly when I know how to do so.

Thanks for any input that you can provide.

Take care,

--Lmcelhiney 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you

help me to insert the correct tag about the copyright content in instead of judging the criterias and analazyz about it?

Image:LeToya_Promotiona_Pic.jpg

Eduemoni 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Weasley

Do not remove images from articles without good reason, please. Michael Sanders 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mahidols-1938.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Abu badali (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Image, please do what is necessary in your opinion. Maharaj Devraj 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I've a problem with an article, can you help me?

First of all, check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeToya_Luckett#revision.2C_but_under_vandalism_action

I've revised this article, with the intention to someone else, revise it, correcting, removing some unfactual and unbalanced statements, even if I wrote any. This one and the album too, LeToya (album), you can even check prior version, in both articles. Then take a look at the main article, LeToya Luckett. I was about to violate the 3RR.

I would like to know about your opinion

regards, Eduemoni 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin?

Hello,

You recently left a message on my talk page, and I thought it best to reply immediately, explaining my actions.

There is a backlog of IfD discussions, many of which were open — even though the images in question were deleted. Given that the items I have been working on were at least six days old — the standard for most deletion discussions — I was simply being bold.

After closing out the discussions for images which were already deleted, I started reviewing the rest, looking for possible consensus. Many of them already had the {{ifd}} tag removed from the image in question by other users, so I went ahead and closed those as well.

According to the deletion process, it is permissible for non-admins to close discussions, provided there is no conflict of interest and the closer is in good standing.

Of course, since you object to certain edits, I apologize for running roughshod on you. Furthermore I accept your reversions.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but hopefully your questions have been answered. If you have any other related ones, please feel free to leave me a note.

Cheers. --Aarktica 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Explaining policy

I'm the main contributor to Michael Jordan, which passed FA last month with a vote of 19–0 after the nom was re-set. See the second sentence in the article, statements are allowed to be put in the lead if they are sourced elsewhere or not likely to be disputed. Leads do not require sources, I know you don't contribute much writing to articles so you might not know this but, leads are supposed to be summaries of the articles they're in therefore they do not require sources. As a matter of fact leads generally don't have sources, also as said before the fact is not likely to be disputed. See the legacy section that explains all his achievements and recognition from various sources. Quadzilla99 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, disputing that is kind of like disputing that the sun is hot or grass is green, etc. Quadzilla99 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In both cases the knowledge is so common that it's acceptable, there was never one complaint about that in an exhaustive FAC for Jordan. If it were in any kind of dispute there would be a problem. For instance, look at the Britannica article for Michael Jordan:[10] it's just a succinct and apt way to describe the person. In cases like these I think statements like what we're discussing are fine. I don't think we should get too carried away in worrying about being POV that we can't just accurately describe things. Incidentally, I'm not really a contributor to Thorpe I just saw that it was up for FAC so I figured I'd try to save it. I never edited until yesterday. I'm saying that as this isn't some deluded fanboy talking who's trying hype somebody up. Quadzilla99 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Meant to say FAR up above. Thorpe is on featured article review. Quadzilla99 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IFD Closures

Hello Abu, thank you for your message. I did close several IFD's yesterday. Most of them I closed to delete, I believe, and deleted the corresponding image files accordingly. Not all IFD's end in delete, of course, that is why we have a process for deleting them. An admin looks at and evaluates the various arguments presented. Some of them are closed as keep.

I would like to make a slight correction to the impression you seem to have of me. You said on my talk page, "I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's instance on unfree content." This is not quite accurate.

I am very happy to promote free content. In fact, just yesterday I placed several new, free images (created by me) on Commons, added a couple of them into relevant articles, and added some more links from articles to their appropriate commons repository pages.

However, promoting free content does not and should not mean that we fail to make appropriate use of fair use content when it enhances our role of creating an encyclopedia. It is when we blindly or mechanically begin trying to remove all fair use content that we have gone over the top. We must balance the objective of promoting free content with the objective of making an informative encyclopedia.

As was argued successfully by other people at IfD, the images I kept were appropriate images. For instance, a magazine cover depicting the very blow that apparently caused a fighter's death is clearly a significant historical image. Johntex\^talk 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, I appreciate that you disagree with me on some of the closures. You have the right to disagree. I don't have time right at the moment to discuss each image with you. If you like, I will review your objections in more detail when I have more time - which would likely be this weekend. As I said, from looking at the discussion on some of the IFD's, it seemed to me there was a good case for keeping a few of the images. I closed those in favor of keeping. Several others needed to go so I deleted them. Johntex\^talk 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abu, I'll get back to you this weekend. Best, Johntex\^talk 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abu, I got a little distracted. I had an article that had been listed as a GA nom for a month, and someone finally reviewed it and had a bunch of things for me to fix. That took most of my Wikipedia-time for last week-end.

I think you saw one of the images did get deleted by a different admin. I have had in the back of my mind that perhaps some of the others should as well. So, I am sorry I have not gotten to them as expected, but I have not forgotten either. I want to review them thoroughly as I think they were not clear cut. Could I ask for your continued patience for one more week-end? Best, Johntex\^talk 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedia Libre

You've tagged this article as if it needed sources. It already has them; look at the end of the article. User:Ejrrjs says What? 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines."

However, I wouldn't mind if you want to go ahead and do it. Best, User:Ejrrjs says What? 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you put up for a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:In_the_Big_Inning.JPG listed for deletion

I see it's tagged that way, but I don't see it in the page that lists images for deletion. I think it got removed from an article so essentially it's an "orphan". Is that the reason? Wahkeenah 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Aa!.jpg and Aika_02.jpg

Contrary to your beliefs, the attribution and rationale for these and other photographs that fall under WP:H!P are above and beyond what is needed. if you think free replacement images exist for these items, I challenge you to find them. If not, then I recommend the removal of your witchhunt tags within 12 hours. --Cjmarsicano 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tenerife disaster image

Just so you know, I retagged this with {{nsd}}. You're right - the image is clearly not a newspaper scan covered by the tag since no newspaper name, etc. is visible. Considering the importance of the image, I felt fixing the info would be best, but without the source I can't... so if it gets deleted, that should be why. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My Bad

Yes, you're right. My ability to articulate thoughts is the terrible. I've fixed it. WilyD 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NFC criteria

I noticed you comment that you "wouldn't oppose a full revert". Why? The draft was posted for 10 days (and two days before that, in fact). This was announced twice on the talk page, with invitations for feedback and complaints. I spent a lot of time producing the new version; why would you revert it after I've done the right thing, going through a rather long consensus period.

To my logic, there is consensus if no one has complained or asked for changes under those circumstances. If not, what do you consider would be consensus? I even asked whether anyone wanted a different timeframe ... nothing.

Thanks for your edits; they're really good.

Tony 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Abu. That's excellent advice, but I don't know how to implement it (in particular, the tag). I wonder whether you have time to whip up one?

I do feel strongly that the language of the criteria needed to be fully edited, and was disappointed that none of the experts would participate in the process until (11 days ago) I implemented the changes. Gmaxwell fully reverted it then, and I want to avoid a repeat of that; I'd be upset if your comment encouraged him to do so again. I'd feel then that it was impossible to copy-edit language that is of great importance to the running of WP, and that was pretty badly written and formatted.

I can understand people's caution, but that doesn't stop me acting to improve the language. As a non-expert, I sympathise with WPs who had to try to understand rules that are very difficult even when expressed well.

Thanks. Tony 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your contributions to the new version. Tony 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Images on pages

Care to add three more pages to your watch list for images? Kata Kärkkäinen, Marina Baker, and Monique Covét. You should see why in about 12 hours time.  :) Tabercil 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Johnbracken.jpg

I wanted to respond to your tag on Image:Johnbracken.jpg. John Bracken died many years ago. I do not understand how a free image of him could be obtained. --Eastmain 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Notification and possible stalking threat on my page

Hi, i think we have discussed about the situation of Hwang Woo Suk pictures in the past. To be honest i dont have such time to be arguing with you again. If you want to delete the pictures, fine, thanks for screwing the article's quality.!

I dont care about defending the images with fair use vs wikipedia copyright policies againg, that political blur is not for me. But if you want to fill my discussion page with empty and automatically made messages, please stop!, i dont like that.

Let's say i am filled with nostalgia, but it doesn't mean much to your ticked-off victims, who probably remember a time when wikipedia image watchers had human made responses.

Why does a wikipedian which seems to spend more time watching images on an online encyclopedia rather than to worry his or hers personal life, rely on an abusive automated interactive message system to deal with other users. It is very time consuming and irritating.

Those acts are really a symbol of stalking people. If you want to feedback a response to my page fine, but stop being rude. --HappyApple 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexandros Papagos.jpg deletion

Hello, I saw you put the picture up for speedy deletion. I have answered in the relevant talk page. I would appreciate a reply as to your reasoning. Regards, Cplakidas 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Eagle_4184_crashsite.jpg

I do not recall where I obtained the image, but do I remember the caption credited the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as noted on the photo description page. ericg ✈ 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you have removed the pictures

Of Ernest Hemingway and Bob Hope on the English American page . why?

--Anglo6719:40 UCT

Miirrha Alhambra

I do believe that it could be saved, but I would never have created it. I only noticed that it had been created and that there was a dead link. As I have clearly stated, I am an inclusionist (when in doubt). If information is accurate, I believe that a person looking for information, even on obscure topics, is served by finding the information in an online encyclopaedia.

Truly what led me to contribute to Wikipedia in the first place was the diversity of information I found here when looking for it, much of which might not meet the strictest challenge. My time is much too valuable to do more than minor edits at this time. Doc ♬ talk 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bill_Ayres.jpg

Can you explain please why this does not meet the criteria?

There are no images available and copyright and ownership info are provided with the picture.

Juda S. Engelmayer 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On the photograph of Hasan Taqizadeh

Thank you for your note. Iranian copy-right law specifies that copy-rights on photographs expire 30 years after the date on which the photograph has been taken. Taqizadeh having died in 1970 (that is 37 years ago), it follows that all his photographs are at present public property. Consequently, I should like to request you to be kind enough and restore the original copy-right status of Taqizadeh's potograph; for the reason indicated above, all photographs of Taqizadeh displayed on Wikipedia pages belong to the public. --BF 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note in my personal page in response to the above message. You should realise that I am not the official biographer of Hasan Taqizadeh so that I cannot tell you where all of his countless photographs have been taken. If you look through the chronology of his life, you will realise that he has been born in Iran and has died in Iran. On this particular photograph he looks like an elder statesman, so that either the photograph has been taken in Iran (from the background it looks almost certain that it has indeed been taken somewhere in Iran), or if it has been taken outside Iran, he has been in the diplomatic service of Iran, implying that no foreign agency can have any claims on photographs pertaining to him (as you may be aware, by convention diplomats are always in their own country, that is why when they travel their luggages are not searched). To summarise, all the copy-rights corresponding to his photographs fall under the jurisdiction of the Iranian copy-right law. Unfortunately, I am in no position to provide you with more assurances. Please note that Hasan Taqizadeh died 37 years ago and I am not aware of any Taqizadeh's in the entire world (there are some Taqizadeh's with a second name attached to "Taqizadeh" so that they cannot be members of his family), implying that most probably none of his close family are alive --- I know that he has been married, but I am not aware that he has had any children. Further, a major book by Taqizadeh can now-a-days be downloaded free of charge from a number of sites. To summarise, anything pertaining to Taqizadeh has long since been public property, including his photographs. With kind regards, --BF 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your e-mail. I have absolutely no idea where the photograph was first published. I believe you are being too rigorous on this subject. As I have mentioned earlier, Taqizadeh died 37 years ago, and it is best possible that this particular photograph has been taken 50 years ago; to my best knowledge there is no one who may have any claim on this photograph. That must be sufficient, I believe. Please note that neither I nor Wikipedia is having any financial gains by showing this photograph of a dead man exposed on the pages of Wikipedia. He died, the place of which he was the President (Iran's Senate) was disbanded 30 years ago, the regime he served doesn't exist any longer. Given these facts, you should just feel comfortable with having this photograph staying where it is. If not, please just delete it. I have nothing more to add on this matter. I should add that in case you decide to delete that photograph, I will also stop contributing to Wikipedia and wish you all the very best with your efforts --- you may delete the entire biography as well. Thank you. --BF 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not an Administrator, why are you then sending me messages? Please accept my apologies, this will me my last communication with you. If you have any further enquiries, please direct these to some other individual. --BF 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Issue and Speedy Deletion

I uploaded [11] There is no public domain photo of Rend al-Rahim Francke. She is normally on TV programs which are of course copyright. She has been to press conferences which are also attended by the media and are again copyright. I cannot take a picture of her myself. There is no freely available picture of her. I spent considerable time looking for one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Where should I go to get a free image of Rend al-Rahim Francke? I have looked all over th internet. I looked in the library. All photos were copyrighted. Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly also use fair use copyrighted images. What is the difference? It is quite legal under fair use to use the photo I used. It conforms to the 1976 copyright act.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness why is it ok to have a copyrighted image of Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly but not Rend al-Rahim Francke? In both cases there are not public domain photos available.

It is legal under fair use to use a copyrighted photo of someone for scholarly use if no free image is available. According to you it should not be. However the US courts have clearly allowed it. Even wikipedia allows it. Wikinews:Image_copyright_tags

I quote:

"If this image is of a living person, it should not be used without first making an effort to find a free alternative (at the very least, search mayflower and yotophoto). Should you find and upload a free alternative, please label this image as depreciated."

You are in effect outright banning any fair use of a photo of a living person because maybe some time in the future, someone somewhere may obtain one. That is extreme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Even if you think that all regular photos of living people don't qualify under fair use please note the following about: Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg

a) no public domain photo is available. b) This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. It also was trying to demonstrate that the demarcation between his head and face was blurred as a result of the beatings. The article talks about it. He also was hurt very badly in one eye. The photo shows that. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible, because hopefully he will heal. Additionally people in Zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the Zimbabwean government tried to suppress all photos of him in this state for political purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of Zimbabwe.

Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you think that all regular photos of living people don't qualify under fair use please note the following about: Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg

a) no public domain photo is available. b) This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. It also was trying to demonstrate that the demarcation between his head and face was blurred as a result of the beatings. The article talks about it. He also was hurt very badly in one eye. The photo shows that. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible, because hopefully he will heal. Additionally people in Zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the Zimbabwean government tried to suppress all photos of him in this state for political purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of Zimbabwe.

Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that this image is useful to the article, but it doesn't free us from the obligation to respect BBC's copyright. BBC has a business based on producing news. When we copy their work, we are replacing the original market value of the copyrighted work the paid to produce. This is a violation of item #2 of our policy on unfree content usage. Also, consider reading another policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before adding bits about "barbaric and illegal" things to articles.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Andrea_Mackris_Benedict_Morelli.jpg where the author gives the justification of an event photo that cannot be replicated as:

The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

1. it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; 2. the photo is only being used for informational purposes. 3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public. 4. Specifically, it depicts a press conference where Mackris and her attorney are talking about the Bill O'Reilly case which made her notable. AnonEMouse 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

what is the difference between my use of a pic and the above example.

The BBC is not going to lose revenue over this. The give the news. This news is quite old now. Rule 2 states: Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

This Wikipedia article presents history. The commercial value of the bbc news is not depreciated. Once news is old, no-one is interested in it. People aren't interested in yesterday's news. The original market role was to provide news for that day. Now time has passed. That role can no longer be fulfilled. Otherwise historians would be unable to reproduce items from newspapers under fair use. Yet we see that they are.

Everytime one used one of it's images freely, it's lost revenue for them. --Abu badali (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong - major falacy. Most if not all people viewing the wikipedia article if they would not see the pic concerned would not choose to pay for it. Indeed media organizations buy the rights not individuals. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its inclusion in wikipedia does not degrade its commercial value because it doesn't compete with its commercial value. Its commercial value is as news not as history. Many historians use images from the past under fair use. (Of course if this was a current affairs wiki that would be different entirely.) Custodiet ipsos custodes 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mauer3.jpg

Response to deletion request, there is a discussion on the Smithsonian template right now about images from there and fair use, it is possible the consensus will be to change the smithsonian license template to a source template if so this image and many others would have a source. see [[12]] Nowimnthing 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Abu badali, due to your continued tagging of justified images and refusal to participate in a fair and open minded debate on their merits, your non response to your six month old RfC and your stalking and harrassment of users, I and several others have launched an arbitration against you. Jord 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will put it on my watchlist. Hopefully, everything will be cleared. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Note, you are expected to respond on the arbitration page here. - Jord 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What am I expected to respond? I can think of anything to add at this moment. Am I missing something? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is up to you, but you have the right to rebut our claims about your activity. - Jord 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is considering whether to accept or reject the case that has been filed against you. If the case is accepted, an evidence page and workshop would be created and all parties (and other interested editors) would have the opportunity to be heard. The result of the case could be sanctions against you and/or against any of the other involved parties. At this point, you have a right to make a statement concerning whether the arbitrators should hear the case or not. If you do not believe that a full arbitration case is warranted, this is the time to explain why, especially since 2 arbitrators have already voted to accept the case, and opening the case takes 4 arbitrators' votes. If you have any questions, please let me know (I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks). Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Banner

Just for your information: The current project banner for the law enforcement wikiproject is {{law enforcement}} not {{Law enforcement stub}}.

Best Regards and Happy Editing

Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Images Colmar_Pocket_Map.jpg, M2_4.2_Inch_Mortars_at_Utah_Beach.jpg, Elba_1944.png

Regarding your text on my talk page "I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." -- These are all products (either Signal Corps photographs or maps created by the U.S. Army) of the U.S. Government, specifically the United States Army, and "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of 17 U.S.C. § 105" -- what more source information is required? Please clarify before you delete public domain images. Thank you. W. B. Wilson 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can post the source documents for the images. Don't delete them after 48 hours; I'm on vacation at the moment and will need a few days to gather the citations from the library when I return home. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W. B. Wilson (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Online sources for two of the images posted. Will need a few days to get the citation for the third as it is in a book I cannot immediately access. W. B. Wilson 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

CBS images

There is absolutely NO reason why we should not use them on this site. The same images appear on other sites such as soapcentral.com and soaps.com. The images illustrate the subjects of the articles very well - screenshots just don't cut it. I provide sources and very valid rationales for any images I upload. Kogsquinge 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Ackroyd article, take a second look

Hi, I think the article on Jack Ackroyd is sufficiently fleshed-out now to warrant an end to calling for its deletion. I just wish the article's originator took more time to form a proper stub. As it was originally composed, it was poorly written, and I think that is why you asked for its deletion. I believe the current revision is more than good enough for a start category, and could easily be considered a B category with a few improvements. What do you think? Abebenjoe 09:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking a second look. Is it alright for me to remove the deletion tag in the article, now that you have withdrawn the request? Abebenjoe 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brooke Shields

Just delete it. Wahkeenah 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You are constantly shrinking the definition of fair use as much as you can to justify deleting as much as you can. Wahkeenah 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg

I have updated the fair use rationale for this image. It's a publicity photo from the official government website, which expressly states that the image may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes. I've added an expanded fair use rationale to the image. Please review it and let me know if there are any questions. Regards Rpvdk 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield

I have noticed that you have proposed the deletion of File:JayneMansfield.jpg, which was appropriately deleted. I always thought the artcile has way too many pictures, most only depicting how the subject looked like, adding no informational value or historical significance. Can the number of purely eye-candy images be reduced here? I know the images are of a subject who is long dead, but the number of images may be carrying that loophole in the policies a bit too far. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evidence

If you wish to respond to the evidence provided by other users you can create a subheading under your own section for this purpose, titled along the lines of "Response to evidence present by X." Picaroon (Talk) 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

New Brunswick premier images

With respect to your comments...

1.) With respect to the use of unfree material on list pages, I have no opinion on that matter, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with copyright laws and liability. I do know that in general Wikipedia prefers free images, but, that when a free image is not available, unfree images are allowed on a limited basis. You should note that the last time I editted that list page, there were no images on it.

2.) With respect to the specific images you have cited, three of are dead politicians where no free replacement would be able to be found. The fourth is of a retired politician who is no a business man who I suppose a free image could be found of perhaps at the Annual General Meeting of the company he heads.

- Jord 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still not sure I see your issues, I will go through them blow-by-blow:

• Image:Richardhatfield.jpg - source, per page, "Senate of Canada"
• Image:JohnMcNair.jpg - source, per page, "New Brunswick government"
• Image:Camille theriault.jpg - not sure what contradiction you mean, images, per page, come from the "Transportation Safety Board" and the allowed use details are there
• Image:Louisrobichaud1960s.jpg - here you are right, the source is missing, I uploaded it over 2 years ago so you'll have to excuse my memory... I am quite sure I found it by means of a Google image search. I did a Google search again now and the only results I find are a fork of Wikipedia and lower res version of the file. - Jord 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Senate of Canada" and "New Brunswick government" are not verifiable source information. Can you be more specific?

In Image:Camille theriault.jpg, the comments says the image can be used for "personal" use and "non-commercial use", but the tag used says "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose". Non-comercial is surely a restriction over "any purpose". That's the contradiction that I meant.

Image:Louisrobichaud1960s.jpg was tagged for deletion. I understand you uploaded it long ago in a good faith attempt to help Wikipedia. I hope, as the experienced user you are now, you understand we can't keep this image the way it is.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've searched the Senate and New Brunswick websites and found links to the specific pages from which these images came which I hope is specific enough? I am not sure why the burden for that should be on the original uploader of an image; it seems to me that if Wikipedia wants to be the repository of as much information as possible then we should err on the side of caution and, rather than delete images as soon as their is some suspision that they are not free, work to find sources and details to justify their use. Perhaps that is overly optomistic of me.

With respect to the Theriault image, if I have selected the wrong tag, I apologize. If you would be so kind as to match the tag with the copyright information, as you seem to be far better read in areas of Wikipedia images than I, I would appreciate it.

Finally, for the Robichaud image, I do not in fact understand why it cannot be kept. It is a very useful image whose use would be justified if it was free or not, therefore why should it not be able to be kept under fair use/source unknown or some similar classification? - Jord 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

re: your PD question

re: Image:German1 shepherd German States Before and since the French Revolution I Baden .jpg

Hi, Fabartus. Is this PD map still useful in some article? --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

belated cross-post answer

• Yea, verily! Good find. I'll fit that in a couple of places. My bad, I should check and see what else I've uploaded that I may not have used. Been overwhelmed with interwiki stuff, but I recall mining the archives at the University of Texas for some of these historical maps. This will actually fit nicely into George III who became King of Hanover since the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved... Ditto Francis II of Austria, and a few others I can think of off hand. SO MANY THANKS! // FrankB 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (delivered: FrankB 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

• You may find this of use: {{Allpages}}. I found this on Meta as part of my WP:TSP travels. See application on this diff. It'll be a few days but I'm going to morph it to take 'display arguments' such as those I stubbed in in that edit. (Actually hope to shame User:Patrick into it, since he wrote the danged thing! <g> He helps us some with TSP, so there's a chance! <g>)

• If you image specialists could do some interwiki tagging using {{Commonscat1A}} and {{Wikipediacat1A}} between our image categories and those of the commons, I think in the very short run, it would cut some of your workload. The two templates (in final overhaul proofing--so usage is 'skimpy') take the same syntax. Basically, if there are no 'Wikipedia Article pages' that apply (or guidelines or Help pages) just put a pipe exclaimation in the braces. If the cat name is different, give that as {{{2}}}. Additional Cats and article links can also be given (2A= ..., 3A=... and 2C= ..., 3C= ...), etc. [It's set up for minimal typing on generic category pages, where (hopefully) there is some kind of main article page on the topic.] No reason they can't reinforce image guidelines and such. The more questions we focus onto a text page, the less we have to deal with mistakes and miscatting, and so forth.
  
  Oh! Don't forget to back tag, from the commons to here! I usually, tag, preview, cut N navigate, edit, land the link, preview. Adjust. (Maybe reconcile the two...) Save, land any reconciliation, preview, save. In one cyclic edit spate. Needs some backing up, but works pretty well! (As a P.S.)// FrankB 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• IMHO, you should probably have a 'policy template' on all image categories asking whether the image should be here on or the commons. See, for example, the prototype template on Category:Old_maps, which wearing my Maps Project Wikihat, will eventually find it's way onto old maps pages, assuming I ever get back to Maps issues! (I be a busy boy!)

• In the meantime, thanks again for that query -- that's got a lot of places it might fit. // FrankB 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Fair use and publicity photos

Don't want to get into a big thing--just want to understand. You pulled [13] on the grounds that it is unfree despite a clear rationale . Just interested in your opinion of this issue as you did not post to the discussion page as instructed by the tag you apparently posted ("Tagger: If this image has, at the time of tagging, a rationale explaining why it is irreplaceable, please do not forget to explain on the talk page why you think that rationale is not valid. Tags applied in contravention of this requirement may be removed; if a rationale is added after the tagging, the normal process for disputing a tag should be followed). The rationale was there: it is a publicity picture and no free replacement is available that accurately represents the subject. Did I place this is the wrong part of the image entry? Are you aware of a free alternative that I missed? Looks like your an expert on this so I could use your help-- particularly as the image had been proposed in the talk section as a replacement for over a week with no comment or objection.Mediathink 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:DrAngelRamos.jpg

I know that you are doing things in good faith and that is why I'm taking this up with you in a civil manner. You have posted said for deletion and I have added the rationale behind the posting of the same. I have removed the "tag" which claims that the image was orphaned because it is a false claim, the image was not orphaned as claimed, it was posted on Angel Ramos (educator)'s artilce. The image has been added once more until a consensus in regard to it's copyright status is reached. Take care. Tony the Marine 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

John Bender image

The image of John Bender on the Judd Nelson page is intended to protray Nelson in the role of Bender, as specified by the text right next to the image. The image of Nelson in the role of Bender can only be replaced with another fair use one as filming of the movie ended some time ago and the character of Bender does not actually exist as a living person. TheQuandry 19:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Carioca RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:EMuniz.jpg

O.K. Abu, you can help. I have a couple of people who are willing to grant Wiki permission for the use of their images on their articles. What would be the proper way for them to phrase this? After I recieve their e-amils, I'll get in touch with you so that these permissions are properly stored. Tony the Marine 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abu - thanks, I already sent the first one to the e-mail address that you sent me. If it is returned or something, I'll get in touch with you. Tony the Marine 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My question

You understood my question wrong about keeping the images. I may have selected the wrong licenses, and I meant, can't we change them to the Correct one released by the holder. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, here's a little something for your help

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Hey, here's a photograghers barnstar for your good work on images and license tagging, thank you for helping me anyway. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that the user that gave me the above barnstar was indef blocked some hours later. I Guess I bring bad luck... --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Shahrukhkhan_200502_ng.jpg listed for deletion

Khan's appearance on the cover of National Geographic magazine was a very rare occurance. Celebrities of most kinds from the movie or song world are not a cover choice for this magazine. However Khan got this rare honour when his image appeared on their Asian edition for a article on Bollywood. I had neglected to mention this in the article, since I felt it was self explanatory. I have since made this mention under Other recognitions. Hence I feel Image:Shahrukhkhan_200502_ng.jpg should be retained.--PremKudva^Talk 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You mention that The Hindu article did not have an accompanying image. But as I remember the print editions of almost all these newspapers had the image of the cover. The point is, you will not see Shah Rukh Khan's cover image on the National Geographic or Time magazine sites at all. Heck that way the first Indian celebrity to appear on a Time cover was Parveen Babi. But that cover is not there on Time's online archives. Similarly if you check the NG cover archives the cover for the month on which SRK appeared was an image of a flying owl. Of the three cover images offered for selection (I think they have now dropped this editior's pick section a few years back on their website) none was that of SRK. So chances of people who have not got the magazine seeing the image is not very bright.

So I feel that the use of this cover image will be fair use considering that it may not be available in other places. And uh I wouldn't like to make a link to my blog entry on the article page.

I feel you can give this issue another look, and mind you I am not a big SRK fan or something, I don't edit his page except for inserting this image last year. So for a fan it will mean something to see the image.--PremKudva^Talk 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What were you trying to convey when you said "The was that it showed that the use of that unfree image..."?--PremKudva^Talk 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Abu, I followed your instructions and today I received the first e-mail from ORTS in regard to Image:Cumpianoatwork.jpg. In the e-mail they also sent this: Ticket#2007052110016369. So, is that it or am I supposed to do something else? Tony the Marine 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Stcatscoa.jpg

Feel free to get rid of the image. The images of the COA being linked are now PNG. Snickerdo 18:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

Hey. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ángel Ramos (educator)

I think I have fairly addressed the issues and hope you are satisfied, or if not will comment on, my suggestions? SGGH ^speak! 21:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Abu, Since I won't be around for a couple of days, I want you to know that I accept whatever decission is reached. I do not hold any ill feelings toward you. I also want you to know that I do appreciate the help you gave me with the permissions on the other images. Do not be surprised if some time in the furure I come up with some questions. Tony the Marine 01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

Just a heads up; it's often considered bad form to communicate in templates to long-time users. You'll likely get some people mad at you if you keep it up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Back when I uploaded all of those I assumed that naming the copyright holder was enough. I've found sources for most of my images, but I'm still working on fair use rationals. Don't tag any of mine in the immediate future, I'm getting around to bringing them all up to code. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cap Anson

I thought a 1908 photograph was assumed to be in the public domain. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Pre-1292"??? Well, the uncropped photo itself has a border that states it was from opening day 1908, and it's obviously taken at West Side Park, which was demolished in 1920. Baseball Bugs 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Does this link work for you? That is, does it take you to the picture in question? [14] Baseball Bugs 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• It works for me on a separate computer and IP subnet, so I'm assuming it's not just some temporary URL. The original photo has "1908" clearly stated in the border, if you can read backwards and sideways. Baseball Bugs 18:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ponce de Leon Park

I found the specific source for you, now noted in the photo. It is not readily possible to get a "free" photo of the ballpark, as it no longer exists. Baseball Bugs 18:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Abu

Yes i'll chat about english stuff. Regards.

--Anglo67 20:06,26 May 2007 [UTC]

Loud templates on my talk page

The image was not fairuse at the time of upload. It was tagged PD-Soviet, which was considered a valid license. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Muarice Ferrer image

Hi Abu, how are you? I'll be returning from my trip tomorrow. I dropped by Wiki to take a look at things. The Maurice image that you mentioned came from here: www.mdx-way.com/about/ images/Ferre_Maurice_A.jpg. That was uploaded some time ago and definitely the tag is wrong. I'm not sure if the image is free. Take a look at it and do the right thing.

In regard to the cropping, I will be willing to upload a cropped version of the same image. I just don't want it to be cropped yet by someone else because it will interfer with the galery that I have. When I get back tomorrow, I will crop a another version of the same image and then upload it to the article. Take care. Tony the Marine 01:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jvport.jpg

Hi, I saw you tagged this image to nominate for deletion. Even though Image uploadder provided sources on the image that I am mentioning right now, but you nominated this image for deletion. Before you nominated this image for deletion, you said that nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material. Could you please explain to me why nndb is not a source for PD-USGov material in my talk page? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response will be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel 5127 07:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Abu, what would be a proper tag for a press release? Tony the Marine 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I'm refering to this press release where I'm mentioned and which is my copy: Image:Press Release2.jpg. Now, I know that I tagged it wrong and I would like to fix it. Tony the Marine 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Luis Muñoz Marín

I thought you'd like to review the images on this article. Some are clearly not fair-use, and you have much more experience on this issue than me. Regards. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"bozo"

Hey Abu,

I read that Pageant, in frustration, referred to you as a "bozo" in an edit summary, and I read your response. I just wanted to let you know that in the U.S., "bozo" is considered a very mild insult, usually used in a joking way. It's like calling someone "silly". (I wouldn't call my boss a bozo to his face, but I'd rather call him a bozo than an idiot, for instance.)

Wikipedians still shouldn't call each other names, including "bozo" -- but I just wanted to let you know that it's not as rude as calling someone an "incompetent fool", as a dictionary definition might suggest.

By the way, what's your native language? Arabic, maybe? (I know "abu" means "father" in Arabic; are you the father of someone named "badali"?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)