User talk:Azathar/2005 Archives
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lowell Residency
Well since I'm a resident... Stirling Newberry 15:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So am I, going to Graduate School @ UML. I live in the Highlands.--Azathar 21:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I live on Pine Street a short distance from Tyler Park. Drop a line if you are interested in an FTF at somepoint. Stirling Newberry 21:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Copyright status on images
You need to make sure to tag all your images. If you do not have the copyright for the images or have not obtained permission, you need to notify an administrator to delete them. CryptoDerk 03:42, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a list of images you need to put a tag on or have deleted: Image:Niki177.jpg, Image:Ds5 010.jpg, Image:044.JPG, Image:Chiaki 007.jpg, Image:SV-MRosman-B 2x3 240.jpg, Image:Jal4.jpg. CryptoDerk 03:45, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- You might as well delete them then, which will suck, since the articles should have pictures, but all but one of the pics I have owned for over a year, and have no clue where I got them from anymore, and the sites I got them from didn't own the pics anyway, they were fan sites, which are usually ignored, as far as I know, about having pictures up.--Azathar 01:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Articles should have pictures, but if it's breaking the law to have them (that is, permission from the copyright owner isn't given) then we must delete them. Just because other websites break the law doesn't mean that Wikipedia can. CryptoDerk 01:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Why couldn't a notice have been placed under the pics like the one that is used for Hilary Duff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hilary_Duff_Photo_Shoot_August_2004.jpeg
- Articles should have pictures, but if it's breaking the law to have them (that is, permission from the copyright owner isn't given) then we must delete them. Just because other websites break the law doesn't mean that Wikipedia can. CryptoDerk 01:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- You might as well delete them then, which will suck, since the articles should have pictures, but all but one of the pics I have owned for over a year, and have no clue where I got them from anymore, and the sites I got them from didn't own the pics anyway, they were fan sites, which are usually ignored, as far as I know, about having pictures up.--Azathar 01:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
|
This image has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added ({{{1}}}). |
- The pictures should qualify as fair use under US copywrite law.--Azathar 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- People slap fair use on all kinds of images they shouldn't. If you just downloaded some images from a fan site, you can't arbitrarily slap fair use on them. Before deleting I noticed that some of the pictures were of such quality that they looked like magazine scans, in which case they are most definitely not fair use. In general, if a picture of a person isn't intended for wide distribution, it isn't fair use. Something like a CD cover is fair use, something like a picture for a magazine article isn't. If you want images to use, contact someone affiliated with the person through proper channels. There are form letters available on Wikipedia to send to request permissions. CryptoDerk 04:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- The pictures should qualify as fair use under US copywrite law.--Azathar 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DiGreppo
I've left a comment on Sam Hocevar's talk page about my view of this little mess. Thanks for the heads-up. DS 01:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Live Journal Users
I see that you created Category:Live_Journal_Users, and added yourself to it, but there is another category that is more appropriate. It is Category:Wikipedian_LiveJournalers CanadaGirl 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the Barnstar!
RadioKirk 04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my haste - my first deletion, actually. For exactly this reaason, I always make it a point to start articles with enough information to make it clear that there is a 'there' there. BD2412 T 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow - in fact, I did a bit of work saving the Saaya Irie article from VfD some time ago! BD2412 T 06:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Kara Borden pic
I'm all for reverting the picture. I even tried to revert it but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to go back to the old one. :( --Yamla 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Linked to Boot Hill (role-playing game)
I don't know if this is considered "being bold" or just rude, but I took the liberty of fixing your user page link to the new Boot Hill (role-playing game) page. GRuban 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Nomination
Um... wow, I don't know what to say. To be honest, I'm still learning (a lot) about WP and I'm not sure I'm yet experienced enough to accept this... RadioKirk 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- After some thought, I have accepted. Again, my thanks, and I hope to live up to expectations :) RadioKirk 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Fellow Granite Stater!
I saw that you were on [[Category:New Hampshire Wikipedians]], and I was wondering if you'd like to join us in improving content related to New Hampshire at Wikiproject New Hampshire. Please let me know if I can help you out with anything. karmafist 23:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
RfA
Sorry Man, I was hoping for you. Next time for sure! --Azathar 05:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thanks once again for the nomination. As I mention on the project talk page, I don't consider this a rejection :) RadioKirk 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Azathar. Images with an unconfirmed copyright status should only be left on Wikipedia for up to seven days in order to allow the uploader to verify copyright status. This image had been awaiting copyright status confirmation for a month, which is why it was deleted. If you're able to find an image which you know the copyright status of, please do uploaded it and provide details of the copyright status. Regards, CLW 14:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Azathar, and Happy New Year! The deleted image was tagged with the "The editor who uploaded this work is unsure of its copyright status. An experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future. Works without confirmed copyright status will be deleted within a week." tag and had been since 1 Dec. There were also details of the site where the image was found, along with a note to say that you had posted on a forum to ascertain the ownership and copyright details, but unfortunately the correct copyright tag does need to be added to the image within seven days. Regards, CLW 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)