User talk:Melesse/Archive 51
 | 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. |
Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat Logo
For your information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Joseph_and_the_Amazing_Technicolor_Dreamcoat.jpg FreddyE (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify
Dear Melesse (short for Melisande?), Would you kindly clarify what is required on the three images you tagged? I do not understand in what sense you consider the fair use rationale provided to be invalid. What is NFCC #8? What should I add or revise to clarify the matter? Thanks. Bverter (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not short for anything, just the name of a city that I found particularly pretty. You can read the full fair use policy here, but I'll just copy criteria #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The article already has several representative artworks from him, where really only one is necessary. And actually, I noticed a new one today, which his his estate released under a creative commons license, which means that all the other art from him should be deleted in accordance with criteria #1. Melesse (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been working closely with artist's estate -- they supplied me with all the images I've posted. They sent the release at my request for his fine art painting, since that is the only work shown that has not been reproduced as a book or record illustration. Docktor is known primarily as an illustrator, so deleting all the other images would give a terribly skewed perspective of his work. If the artist's estate needs to release each of the other images, I can request that of them.
Each image posted is discussed in the article. For example: "His cover for an album by Art Tatum is an exercise in synesthesia, suggesting through strokes of color the tones of the pianist's music." Deleting the image would significantly decrease the reader's understanding. I would be grateful if you would kindly remove the tags you placed. Bverter (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you can ask them to do that then I recommend you do it, because creative commons licensed images are always preferable to fair use ones. Melesse (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:DUlogo1.png
Thanks for uploading File:DUlogo1.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where to put that, so I put it under screenshot of a computer program. It was a website actually, but I just copied the picture I made. You can find it on my userpage. Feel free to move it to a better spot so I can keep it. I was just trying to do attribution to the website and South Park. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that there's any way it can stay. Fair-use images aren't allowed to be used in userspace, only articles. Melesse (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it was made from a website and copied. Since it is a production of a "creator website" and myself, couldn't it be something like "own creation"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you can see, I just went ahead and had it deleted G7. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it was made from a website and copied. Since it is a production of a "creator website" and myself, couldn't it be something like "own creation"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy Melesse's Day!
 |
Melesse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use
Hello, I saw your message on my page.However, i could not make out the problem that you have cited with my upload. I have uploaded a couple of pictures from public domain.One of them was deleted,may i know the reason,please?Maverick.Mohit (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- That photo is from a website with no clear licensing notice, so you can't just assume it's public domain. And since it's an existing structure, somebody could take a photo of it and release it under a free license. Wikipedia always favors freely licensed materials over unknown or fair use licensed ones. As for your deleted picture, you'll have to ask the person that deleted it because I don't know. Melesse (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually now that I look into it more carefully, it's a duplicate of an image at Commons. But most of what I said before still applies. Melesse (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you,for explaining me the actual problem.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Vitali Klitschko vs. Odlanier Solis poster
I have did what you asked for and that need to keep the poster getting deleted. I hope it is corretctly done, what, I have done. As you can see, i am new here, but i really know and think that the article needs the poster. So if it is not correctly done, please tell me, have to do it corretcly. Regrads - David-golota :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Cayuga Nature Center
Thank you for your note about this logo. As I explained, the logo will be used in Cayuga Nature Center when that article is moved into article space. We are waiting for a copyright review before the move takes place. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
King-curtis-live-at-fillmore-west.jpg
Thanks for pointing that out to me, the article Live at Fillmore West is now created so the file is no longer orphaned. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Logos fixed
Melesse, I've fixed several recent revisions of your work with regard to image logos. Just because they use the FUR template does not mean they are actually copyrighted. Please take a few moments and decide whether they meet the criteria of text only logos before removing all instances just because they are mislabeled. — BQZip01 — talk 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are you trying to add an apparently non-existant photo to this article? (talk) Krissakristine 20:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Capitanich 140x190.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Capitanich 140x190.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 12:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Logos fixed (take 2)
Melesse, I've again fixed several recent revisions of your work with regard to image logos. Once again, just because they use the FUR template does not mean they are actually copyrighted. Just because they lack a template doesn't mean they require a FUR. You are a veteran editor and I would imagine you should know this. Please take a few moments and decide whether they meet the criteria of text only logos before auto-nominating for deletion or adding an inappropriate FUR. I'm assuming good faith here, but you've ignored previous requests. I will treat further actions as disruption on WP and will upchannel them accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 03:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Image deleted
Melesse, I found out that "File:SV-2 sys internal comm desc.png" file was deleted from the MagicDraw article by you. The comment said that some troubles with the license. Can you explain in more details what was wrong, because that image was created by my colleague. This image was created with commercial product but we have licenses for that. Thank you for your help in advance. JustinasG (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, the license would be {{Non-free software screenshot}}. You didn't specify any license at all. Melesse (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Re-Orphaned non-free media
I think the file (Capricomfm300.png) has been sorted now; would you mind checking this out. Thanks. Otelemuyen (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Discussion regarding you at WP:ANI
FYI — BQZip01 — talk 04:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Some images have been incorrectly tagged
Hi, Melesse. I am stopping by to clarify what tags are required on corporate logos. If the logo has text only, and does not have any artwork or only has simple geometric shapes, it does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore does not qualify for copyright protection under copyright law (and therefore does not require a FUR). Fonts are not subject to copyright, so even an image with a unique font does not qualify for protection. Examples that do not qualify for copyright protection: File:That '70s Show logo.png , File:Logo NIKE.svg, File:Star Wars Logo.svg. These images are subject to trademark restrictions, not copyright restrictions, so the correct templates to place on the images are {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. More information is available at Commons:Image casebook and commons:Threshold of originality. Please acknowledge receipt of this message. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Magpul Masada image restored
The original photographer is a Wikipedian and added in his licensing; see the edits by Zak Smith.
I have restored the image... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Photo for prospective PNP VP.
A Photo which was given permission of use was deleted by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamaicanMD (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Harbour_park.jpg. Deletion
Give me a chance please, you tagged the file for deletion on the grounds of being orphaned, when I have been preparing an article that uses it in myuser area User:Technonath/Harbour_Park which will be published in a few days when it is completed. I have removed the tag and pointed it at the temporary page, I hope that is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technonath (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I see that your article is more or less ready and is in good shape. Therefore, while non-free images are not allowed outside article space, we can make exceptions. I advise you to publish the article to main space immediately and continue improving it there. (A bot might come around and unlink the image from your userpage.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
"File:ANDCbuilding.jpg"
Reloading this file. The image is taken by me . Will enter the correct licence. Savi.odl (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Heidi/Heather pic
After reading your post and the one from another editor who flagged the picture for speedy deletion, there are so many requirements on me to ensure that the picture is freeware that I will never be able to get it done today and its therefore not worth my time. Just go ahead and delete it now. Ckruschke (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Tollison.jpg
I noticed that you deleted File:Tollison.jpg. Did you not see the OTRS-pending template? I had just corresponded with Tollison before I added the template, and he indicated that his permission statement was forthcoming. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you can help me on this. This picture was published in Great Britain in 1885. I would have thought the copyright would have expired by now, but don't know so claimed "fair use". That seems to be wrong. The group portrait is historically interesting, and would help illustrate articles on several of the subjects portrayed. It obviously cannot be recreated and almost certainly exists only in this form as published by the Church Missionary Society. What is the right thing to do? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the UK, copyright expires 70 years after the creator's death, so based on your dates, it is in the public domain. Melesse (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Chris_Cline_5-26-2011.jpg
Hello, Melesse! I'm looking for a free picture for the article I'm doing on Chris Cline the miner. You may delete the picture I've uploaded... I can't see a way to delete it myself. havagut 08:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havagut (talk • contribs)