User talk:Whpq/Archive 15
 | This 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Question about Criteria One
Hey- can I ask a quick question? All the details in this map File:Map of the Russell Islands.jpg, including illustration of undersea features that could be hit by ships, elevations on land, etc would be helpful to the readers. If this map were redrawn with all of those details, it would be the same as this image, right? Hence, redrawing the 20th century professional perception of this area in a new map would just be a recreation in duplicate of this image. Please help me! Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really understand all of what you want to do with this map, but the creation of a free version of the map could be made by drawing only the essential elements that you want to illustrate. Looking at the map, there are all sorts of elements such as scales, label placements (do you need all the names?), colouration, shading, numbering schemes that need not be slavishly copied. I haven't checked but I would expect that there are freely licensed maps that could be used as a starting point and modified to illustrate what you need. See c:Commons:Free media resources/Map. You might get some more assistance and other opinions by posting your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your reply. My intent is to provide the readers with a window onto the late 20th century (1968-1995) professional perception of (1) the spelling of the names of over twenty geographical features (that could be duplicated), (2) the contours of the undersea features in the positions they were at as understood at that time (I guess that could be duplicated too), and (3) the contours of the coastlines and land elevations as they were understood at that time (that could be duplicated too, right?). My thought is that if you duplicate the core content of the map and then change the colors or scale, isn't that just a form of copyright infringement? Thanks again for your patience. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you post your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some other perspectives. Facts cannot be copyrighted, but the creative expression / presentation of the facts can be copyrighted. Input from other editors would be helpful to give you guidance on how to proceed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per recommendation, I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Question_about_Criteria_One_of_WP:NFCCP. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you post your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some other perspectives. Facts cannot be copyrighted, but the creative expression / presentation of the facts can be copyrighted. Input from other editors would be helpful to give you guidance on how to proceed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your reply. My intent is to provide the readers with a window onto the late 20th century (1968-1995) professional perception of (1) the spelling of the names of over twenty geographical features (that could be duplicated), (2) the contours of the undersea features in the positions they were at as understood at that time (I guess that could be duplicated too), and (3) the contours of the coastlines and land elevations as they were understood at that time (that could be duplicated too, right?). My thought is that if you duplicate the core content of the map and then change the colors or scale, isn't that just a form of copyright infringement? Thanks again for your patience. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 41
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
- New partnership: Taxmann
- WikiCite
- 1Lib1Ref 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Copyright Issues
Hi! I know that my two images were proposed for deletion. I agree with the decision to delete them. Thank you for taking them off of Wikipedia and teaching me about copyright infringement. I was not aware that they had a problem. I know that multiple copyright offenses can lead to banning. I do not wanrt to be banned, so I will not be uploading again anytime soon. I know now to always provide the proper license and to not upload images that are something created by someone other than the uploader or photographer. Thank you and happy holidays! Dswitz10734 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Those two images were uploaded in good faith. I don't think you should be worried about getting blocked for that. As you agree that they should be deleted, you can tag them with {{db-author}}. That will have them deleted right away and the logs will show that they were deleted by your request rather than any copyright issue. I don't want to discourage you from making use of freely licensed images you may find on the Internet. Many of those images would be perfectly fine for you to upload. If you find an image you want to use but are unsure about its copyright and licensing, you can post at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some answers and opinions. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
|
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
| For helping me with copyright issues and helping me navigate through it, I hereby award you the Copyright Cleanup Barnstar! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
Miyasi Sandeepani image
I got your idea. But, can you do me favor by changing what you suggest to save the file? Because, it I edit anything, it may be wrong again. So can you please consider my request? Thank You Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- non-free content can only be used if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of this particular image, WP:NFCC#1 is not satisfied. Per the guidelines, "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." AS the subject s a living person, a non-free image is not going to be acceptable. This image would need to be released under free licenseby the copyright holder. Note that the copyright holder is normally the photographer and not the subject of the photo. The alternative is to find a different image that is freely licensed or use no image in the article (there is no requirement that a biography must have an image). -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can I upload the same photo as one of my own photograph taken by myself. So, then it will be easy to upload it. The photo is not in the internet. What is your suggestion?? Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Are you the photographer or copyright holder? Based on the upload information, I would think not. Lying about being the copyright holder would be a very good way to get yourself blocked. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the actress Miyasi Sandeepani. She sent me this photo through [the email] to use it in her page. So, I can upload it through my own copyrights. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- You are not the copyright holder. You can contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the photo under a free license. If you just upload it and claim to be the copyright holder, that would be a copyright violation and very likely result in you being blocked. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the actress Miyasi Sandeepani. She sent me this photo through [the email] to use it in her page. So, I can upload it through my own copyrights. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Are you the photographer or copyright holder? Based on the upload information, I would think not. Lying about being the copyright holder would be a very good way to get yourself blocked. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can I upload the same photo as one of my own photograph taken by myself. So, then it will be easy to upload it. The photo is not in the internet. What is your suggestion?? Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the photos I uploaded
Hi, I saw you tagged two photos that I uploaded, It was taken by a close friend of mine and I asked him permission to use. I asked him via Twitter DM, so I found no way of making it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PareeKatti24 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Whpq,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
9 years ago
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Millet
I see you commented about this 9 years ago. I just came to WP to look him up and find nothing. Is there a way to look at deleted articles to see if this was a well written article or just a bunch of trash. I also want to see if it mentions his 12 year career as President of the Association of Global Auto Manufacturers? If not, then maybe the article was just a stub or short article.
Do you know what administrators are willing to temporarily undelete articles in the sandbox? Senatoramius (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know. I don't think the article qualifies for Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, but you could contact one of the admins active there and explain the situation. Good luck. -- Whpq (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Images you've tagged for deletion
Hey! I'm writing here too in case you missed my message on my talk page:
So I've understood it correctly - is the fair use rationale I've used not sufficient if it could be argued that it would be possible to find an equivalent free image in the future, or just that there is doubt that there isn't one already available? I've searched quite extensively for an image to use for skyline images of Taghavard, Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher, on Commons and elsewhere. Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher have been heavily shelled and are currently uninhabited, and Taghavard is on the frontlines after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, and access isn't currently available for the inhabitants so I considered it to be fair use with regard to the "historical image" description. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Jezza_Town_Sign.jpg
Hello, you recently left me a message on my talk page concerning whether or not the image File:Jezza_Town_Sign.jpg qualifies for Wikipedia's replaceable fair-use rules. As per your instructions, I have written a response here. Thanks, Asm20 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
Thank you
Thank you very much for catching my errant file tags, I’m sorry I got that wrong. May I ask you for next time, what process should I use to produce the template you substituted, is there an option on Twinkle (I didn’t see it but maybe I overlooked) or does the template just need to be pasted in manually? Thanks and sorry again. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Innisfree987: It looks like we were both typing our messages at the same time. I left a note with the information at your talk page at the same time you left me this note. -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, ships passing—thanks very much for the note. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Informations
Hello.That is the official website that I found the image that I uploaded: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair use images that are actually free
I notice you've been finding fair use images that are actually free, like File:Hullo Marmaduke.jpg, and retagging them with the proper license. First, thanks! This is important work. Second, would you also consider using WP:REFUND or similar processes to request that the images be reverted to their original, full resolution versions? (I am happy to handle such requests personally as well.) Wikiacc (¶) 00:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Wikiacc: I as not looking for them specifically. I was reviewing the file contributions for a specific contributor because he was uploading a lot of non-free content that failed to meet criteria and just came across these that had fallen into the public domain. I won't go looking for these specifically, but now that you've pointed out that refund can get a larger image back, I'll try to remember to do this if I come across any more images that can be converted from non-free to free. -- Whpq (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Joey McCoy Summer Time Memories cover
Hey Whpq. I saw that you disputed the non-free use rational for Joey McCoy Summer Time Memories Cover.jpg because it was "being used in an article section contrary to the stated purpose of primary visual identification and lacks any significant sourced commentary about the cover itself." I then saw that I put that it was used "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." If I changed it to be a visual identification for the section Joey McCoy#Summer Time Memories (which talks about the album), would it be ok? Or would it still be disputed and deleted?
Thanks. reppoptalk 03:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Reppop: The use of the image would still fails WP:NFCC#8 since there is no significant sourced commentary about it. Album covers are accepted as the primary means of identification for articles on the albums and are deemed to meet WP:NFCC#8 because the entire article is about the album. The same does not hold true when the album cover is used in a section of an article about some other topic (such as the musician who recorded the album). -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Why did you need to revert my Honey Hornee article
I already explained why this article shouldn't be reverted. I said that there are at least 50 different reliable sources. And what is in the article isn't in the Wayne's World 2 article in itself. Plus, Kim Basinger would play the character once again in the 2006 DirecTV television ad. So it wasn't just a forgotten, one-shot deal. Why can't you if you don't want a stand alone article, transfer what I add in there, in the main Wayne's World 2 article? BornonJune8 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Commented on user talk page as another editor has started the same conversation there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 42
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
- New EBSCO collections now available
- 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
- Library Card input requested
- Libraries love Wikimedia, too!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently deleted image
Hello! You recently left a message on my talk page about an image I uploaded for the Jack DeSena article. I understand why it was removed, but how does somebody go about adding updated images for actors? Was there any way to use that image, or any image from an IMDb page, in a correct way? I will admit the different licensing types when I was uploading it was a bit confusing. Zacatero (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Zacatero: Generally speaking, an image needs to be freely licensed. Images are copyright by default and most images that you find on the Internet are copyrighted. Free images will usually have an explicit license statement to identify the specific licensing. As for images for actors, it's almost always the case that images from IMDB are copyrighted so you cannot use them. Non-free images can be used if the usage meets all of the non-free content criteria. Note that non-free images of living people (including actors) are almost never acceptable because a free image of a living person could be created even if one does not currently exist. This is a very brief explanation. Copyright is complicated, and has lots of exceptions and odd rules. If you have questions about media copyright and how to use it on Wikipedia, Media Copyright Questions is a good place to post to get some help. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyright question
Hi, Whpq! We've talked in the past, about the two images I uploaded. You told be about db-author, so thank you for that. I'm here regarding a new topic. I found an unpublished book. It's located here, and I wanted to print it out. Can I do this without violating copyright? This is unrelated to Wikipedia, I just wanted to read this for pleasure. Thank you! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dswitz10734:Sorry, I have no opinion on that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
PlayStation screenshot
I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to the Crash Bandicoot screenshot by nominating the two screenshots found in Mega Drive and the one in Sega Saturn? Both FAs at that. ♦ jaguar 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: If you think the files should be deleted, you can nominate them yourself. However, I think you are just upset that files you uploaded have been nominated for deletion. If you want to see the crash bandicoot screenshit kept, then read what AtomCrusher wrote in the FFD. If sourced commentary were added to the PlayStation article that doing what he outlined, there would be a better case for keeping it. As it is currently used, there is no commentary about the image. The non-free usage rationale looks to be copied with no thought to verifying that the rationale makes any sense. -- Whpq (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Explanations
Hello.I would like to say something. Why did you delete the photo of Christophoros Papakaliatis that I uploaded? I had said my source I don't know how to explain it in English language.Είχα παραθέσει την πηγή, έγραψα την ημερομηνία, είχα βάλει την άδεια χρήσης.What's more did you want?
Abs Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου: It was a copyright violation. Although you applied a free license, The source page did not have such a free license stated. If I missed where the license statement was displayed, please point it out. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Images from Farsi sites
You have reported many of my images which have stated they allow referencing on their website in Farsi. You clearly cannot read Farsi so abstain from reporting images from sources in websites you cannot read in. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali313korosh (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ali313korosh: You have specially applied a Creative Commons license to these images. Point out the specific part of the page which states this license and it will be taken care of. -- Whpq (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-free images uploaded by Niko3818
I see you've deleted multiple non-free files with correct fair use rationales and giving no explanation on doing so. Care to explain? niko3818 (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The images were from Getty, a commercial image agency. See WP:NFCC#2 and WP:F7. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
copyright
you recently put on my talk page about how i made 2 copyrighted images on wikimedia commons. i didn't know about this rule before so i apologise, but now i cannot edit any pages. have i been temporarily banned? what happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallavid (talk • contribs)
- @Dallavid: The images in question were uploaded to the English Wikipedia, and not Commons. As far as I know, you are not blocked. I am not an admin, so maybe there is something else stopping you. You can request help from an admin by adding {{Admin help}} to your talk page with an explanation of what help you need. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of image
Hello!
Do you mind explaining to me why this image has to be deleted?
In the article it says: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckgold (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Beckgold: Although the image is licensed under a Creative Commons license, it is not one of the acceptable licenses because it restricts use to non-commercial. The licensing must allow for commercial use. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
My uploads
It’s apparent you’re patrolling my recent uploads and tagging them for deletion. I’ve asked you in my talk page to tell me which ones you are concerned about so that I can update the free use rationale without you having to obnoxiously tag each and every single one of them. I would appreciate if you’d do that. Thanks. LJF2019 talk 13:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC) LJF2019 talk 13:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
RabbitFanon2021
You may have your own insight to give in regards to this user. Whether you do or not, I've opened an ANI discussion regarding them. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user- false block summaries/warnings, disruptiveness/edit warring over files. Magitroopa (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- FYI... it appears they have now created LolaBunnyFan2022. Likely most, if not, all edits they do can be WP:BANREVERTed. Already sent a message about this sock to the one who originally blocked the previous account, and already reported at AIV. They've already even tried to save one of their images from deletion... Magitroopa (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa:I am not surprised. This editor appeared to be intent on doing whatever it was he wanted regardless. I expect we will see many sock appearances. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yep... pretty sure I've already found an account that has not made any edits yet, but more than likely is another sock. Feel free to use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RabbitFanon2021 if you come across anymore. Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa:I am not surprised. This editor appeared to be intent on doing whatever it was he wanted regardless. I expect we will see many sock appearances. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 42
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021
- New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
- 1Lib1Ref
- Library Card
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Bhupinder Singh Mahal
Relevant requested info furnished. The photo of Bhupinder Singh Mahal was taken by his wife Suneeta mahal during their travels. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
A Thanks
Thanks for marking the photos I uploaded for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and alerting me about the nature of the program. I am new here, so any help by experienced editors is welcome.
Warmest regards,
Varaxes (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Question about paid editing notice
Please feel free to delete John Maclean's salmon photo. Please explain what it is about the "nature of my edits" that makes you think I'm being paid. Please consider offering suggestions rather than ambiguous criticisms. Thank you very much for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderssonpublishing ;(talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 43
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
- New Library Card designs
- 1Lib1Ref May
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Harem Scarem
Hello and thank you for a clear explanation of the rules regarding that Harem Scarem image. Hopefully it's ok to reply here? And yes, you're right it is confusing... I accept rules are rules, but do think this one is bonkers... There is no image of the band, but you can't use an album cover image just in case (just in case...) somebody takes a 'free one' at their next concert... Given the band have been around for 30+ years and a free image hasn't surfaced, I'm not sure there's much chance of that... And that's without Covid in the mix. But no matter how stupid a rule it may appear, a rule is a rule as I say... I wonder if there's a way of saying: "hey guys, this is bonkers and should maybe looked at?"
Anyway, I've flown off on a tangent, emailed the band direct via their UK agent and asked for an image. Let's see what comes of that.
BTW, what does that automated message on the image page actually mean? If I understand correctly it suggests the image is shrunk in size and won't be deleated? Or does the above trump the automated bot thing? I suspect it might. Stay safe.SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC).
Al Ain FC logo 1968-1977.png
Hey, can you please tell what difference between this image File:Tottenham Hotspur old logo.png and mine why there is no issue with there upload!! Sm3a (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sm3a: Use of non-free content must meet all the non-free content criteria.In this particular case, WP:NFCC#8 is the issue. Compare the stated purpose of the Hotspurs crest usage with the stated purpose of the old logos in the Al Ain FC logos. You've just copied some text from somewhere statins that these logos are used for primary identification. They are not. See also WP:NFG. These logos are just dumped in an image gallery with a single unsourced sentence making a general statement about the logos. Compare that to the Hotspurs article. Do you see a difference?
Okay can you help me make these logos legal for usage ? Sm3a (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sm3a: You need to find reliable sources writing about the logos. I suggest you ask at WikiProject Football for assistance. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I will not find a reliable sources because these logos came from the club fans archive, but i will try. can i redesign these logos and upload it ? Sm3a (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sm3a: It's not clear what you mean by "redesign". I f you mean you intend to copy the logos by somehow recreating them using some drawing software, then no, that doesn't change the fact the the images are copyrighted. If you mean to alter the logos in some way so they are different from the original logos, then, it is also no as it is a derivative work which still has the issue of the original copyright, and it would also means these are not proper representations of the logo and so their use as true logos would be misleading. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Bukit Alpha Balikpapan image
Hinorisakamachi Sorry, if you may ask what template do you usually use for the cc image on the website link? Because I can't fix it. Please give feedback, thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hinorisakamachi:There is no CC license tag that can be applied because it is not released under any Creative Commons license. The site copied the image from here. The twitter post makes no mention of any CC licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Hinorisakamachi I've updated, but still can't. am I wrong cc or not on this link? Please requested for the feedback, thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hinorisakamachi: The image needs to be released by the copyright holder under a free license. The twitter post of the image has no licensing statement. There is no correct CC license to apply to the upload because the image is not licensed under any Creative Commons license. You cannot use this image on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Khadempour322
Hi Whpq. You might want to take a look at c:User talk:4nn1l2#مزاحمت یک کاربر and c:Special:diff/Khadempour322/565734040 because both posts are about you. Perhaps Khadempour322 is unaware of WP:HA#NOT, but they also seem to be just as unaware of C:COM:L and WP:NFCC. At some point continuing to issue warnings loses its meaning; so, as unpleasant as it sometimes may be, you may need to go to either WP:ANI or c:COM:ANI to seek administrator involvement. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just in case you might not have noticed. Even without this happening, this account seemed to determined to sail full-speed ahead into a block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Mexith8670
″Note - Youtube videos that have been released under a Creative Commons license specifically states it in the video description (clock more). This video has no such license declaration.″ Could you expand on this? I struggle to understand what I have to do to validate a screenshot image from Youtube, as most pages seem to manage without being harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mexith8670:Youtube videos are copyrighted. Some Youtubers choose to release their videos under a Creative Commons license. If they have chosen to do this, then there is an explicit statement. On my web browser, when I am on the page for a video, I can click on "Show more" in the description. If the description has a license statement with "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)" then the video is freely licensed, otherwise it is not. For example, this video has a Creative Commons license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Question about image
If a wikipedia article is created by me and no image is uploaded by me so will it be accepted?Badassboy 63637 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Badassboy 63637: It is unclear to me what you are asking. Are you asking if you article is acceptable without an image? -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes i am asking that onlyBadassboy 63637 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Badassboy 63637: There is no requirement for any article to have images. So the lack of an image is not a reason for an article to be unacceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes i am asking that onlyBadassboy 63637 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you and i am sorry :(
Are you auto tagging?
Was this your doing, and was it an auto tag: :File:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.jpg (log): CSD F7 (Db-badfairuse); additional information: {F7 rationale: AP photo}; notified Atsme (talk · contribs) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−4) ??? What are you referring to as "badfairuse"? Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme: The image is an Associated Press photo. See WP:NFCC#2 and WP:F7 point b. Yes I tagged the photo although I do not know what you mean by "auto tag". -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but both of the reasons are invalid and do not apply to this image. It cannot be replaced - it was a first, it is historic, it has significant meaning to the discrimination of female jockeys for centuries until 1968 when female jockeys like Crumb and Testa made history. I have contacted Fastily and am challenging the reason for your tagging. Just point me in the right direction to get the image restored. Atsme 💬 📧 17:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've re-reviewed the image and find myself in agreement with Whpq's assessment. This image is an Associated Press photo (i.e. a "press" image), and unless this photo itself is the subject of the article, it will be eligible for WP:CSD#F7. Companies such as the Associated Press and Getty Images are reliant on the income generated from licensing fees/sales of copies of these images, and we try to be respectful of that here on Wikipedia (hence the "commercial opportunities" clause in WP:NFCC#2). I know AP photos are nice, clean, and high quality, but is there another image you could use in its place? :-) -FASTILY 22:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi Atsme. I can't see the file that was deleted, but just going to point out for reference that fair use and non-free content are not exactly one and the same when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are lots of photos that would meet the definition of fair use that Wikipedia could possibly use, but doesn't because Wikipedia's policy was set up to be more restrictive that US copyright law in some ways. Files which are deleted for "Invalid fair-use rationale" reasons are usually done so per WP:F7 and this most likely because the file fails to meet WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2, but also sometimes be of WP:NFCC#8. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet, and failing even WP:JUSTONE is enough for the use to be non-compliant. Again I can't see the file, where it was being used or how it was being used, but perhaps you'll find some helpful information in WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFCI (item 8), WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:DECORATIVE. The non-free use of "historic" photos can sometimes be tricky to justify because it's often the even that the photo is associated with that is what's really "historic" and not photos taken at the event. Usually, only photos which themselves have received some sort of critical commentary over the years (maybe for some controversy they created, maybe they won major awards or otherwise had a large impact on Society in some way) are the ones which are considered historic when it comes to Wikipedia; in other words, simply being old or showing something or someone discussed in an article doesn't make a non-free photo automatically "historic" and there generally needs to be some reason that not seeing the photo would be detrimental to reader's understanding of what they're reading in the article. If you can remove the photo without there being any real detriment to the reader's understanding or can replace the photo with another similar photo without there being any real detriment to the reader's understanding, then the justification for non-free use isn't very strong to begin with. It can be hard to assess a non-free use when you're the one who uploaded the file and added to an article because it's hard to step out side of yourself and assess things as a general reader; this is why there's WP:FFD for cases where they might be a disagreement over a particular non-free use. Just for reference, I have both Whpq's and Fastily's user talk pages on my watchlist because they both do lots of work with files. Both have a very good grasp of non-free content and how relevant Wikipedia policy tends to be applied to non-free content use. That doesn't necessarily mean a mistake wasn't made in this case, but neither of them is the type of editor who goes around tagging or deleting files (non-free or otherwise) just for the sake of doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: For reference - File:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.jpg, image, description page -FASTILY 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Based upon the links provided above by Fastily, the file seems to have WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 issues. There's been a pretty long-standing consensus to not allow non-free photos of still-living persons (even when used for primary identification purposes in main infoboxes) per NFCC#1, except perhaps in certain cases (see item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI) where an individual's physical appearance itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is one of the main contributing factors to their Wikipedia notability. Simply wanting to use a non-free image to show how someone looked in their prime is generally not considered a sufficient justification for non-free use. Since Tuesdee Testa is still living, it would be hard to justify a non-free image of her just for that reason. Even if that hurdle could be cleared, there's still the NFCC#2 issue with commercial use that would need to be met for the file to be considered OK. Then, based upon what's written for the "Purpose of use" in the non-free use rationale that was provided, I don't see how this or any non-free image is needed to support article content about "Female jockeys first opportunity to obtain a jockey license and race at sanctioned race tracks." would meet NFCC#8. How would seeing this image support such content so that not seeing it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding? Did reliable sources comment on the photo in such a way or was it just a photo that appeared in a newspaper article which discussed such things? Again, this might be a bit of subjective assessment, but there seem to multiple WP:NFCCP in play here and only one of them needs not to be met for the use to be considered non-compliant, and I don't think a consensus could be established for this file's use at FFD for NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 reasons, even if NFCC#2 wasn't an issue. There might be some older images of Testa out there that could possibly be licensed as c:Template:PD-US-no notice or even c:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement, but it would be hard to justify the use of any non-free file here for primary identification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate everyone's input and want you all to know that I have carefully considered everything you've put forward. I will add that as a regular member of VRT, particularly Commons permissions (formerly OTRS), I am pretty well versed about free use vs fair use images, not to mention my former career and the fact that I've maintained an error & omissions policy for ages, although I am not infallible. I am confident that my use of the image is definitely fair use per the template Non-free historic image because unlike Commons, en.WP can and does utilize fair use images for that purpose. Furthermore, WP would not be the first to use that image under fair use as indicated here, and here, along with a hundred or so others. The reason the deleted image passes as fair use is quite simply that it is not just a picture of a jockey that can be substituted by another picture; rather, it is the photograph of a moment in the history of a society (on a global scale) that once prohibited female jockeys from obtaining a jockey license because of their gender. The person in that picture set a significant milestone for women's rights at that moment in history. She set a record as a first female jockey in history to not only race at a major track but to win at Santa Anita. She received a standing ovation from a crowd of over 45k people, and that image depicts her riding down the stretch waving her crop to the cheering crowd. It is not only historic, it is educational and it resonates loudly to women around the world. WP is an educational resource, so we are covered under fair use to use that picture. I will gladly reduce the size of the image to more closely accommodate our fair use criteria, if that satisfies the concerns expressed here, but realistically, WP is neither hindering API from earning income for that photo nor should we consider it our job as WP editors to protect the copyrights of professional photographers over the needs of our project because that places us in a far more precarious situation than does fair use. If anything, the use of that image with the API text attached serves API in a positive way; i.e., exposure, and tells our readers where to license duplicates. I cannot remove the API stamp but either way, it has no bearing on fair use. Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing that the use of the file would somehow violate the concept of fair use as covered under US copyright law. It almost certainly wouldn't. What is being said is that the use of the file doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, more specifically one or more of the ten criteria listed here. You seem to be bascially arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE, but you'd be better off trying to argue how the file's use meets all ten non-free content use criteria, particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. As I mentioned above, the long standing consensus has been to no allow non-free images of still living persons to used for primary identification purpose, except under certain conditions. Same goes for NFCC#2 when it comes to photos commercial use concerns. It makes no difference whether these photos are being used on other websites even if they're being used under a claim of fair use when it comes to Wikipedia because relevant Wikipedia policy has been intentionally developed to be more restrictive than fair use. The application of WP:NFCC#8 can be more subjective than the other two and this is what much discussions about non-free file use that end up at FFD usually are about; however, all of the stuff you wrote above about Testa applies more to her and her achievements than this particular photo and we shouldn't be really interpreting the photo as meaning all of those things unless reliable sources are interpreting the photo as such. Trying to do so is sort of like WP:OR and WP:SYN, but only with respect to a photograph instead of textual content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. It appears you don't quite understand the significance of that photo, so I have nothing more to add. Happy editing. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not clear what you're disagreeing about. Are you disagreeing what I wrote about fair use and Wikipedia policy not being the same? Are you disagreeing about NFCC#1 and NFCC#2? My guess is that you're probably disagreeing about NFCC#8 which is fine and which is something that probably can be discussed further, but it will make no difference if the NFCC#1 and NFCC#2 issues can be resolved. FWIW, I'm not trying to force you discuss something if you don't want to discuss it. I'm not sure and maybe Fastily can clarify, but perhaps WP:DRV is an option if you want to further contest the file's deletion. Anyway, happy editing to you as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. It appears you don't quite understand the significance of that photo, so I have nothing more to add. Happy editing. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing that the use of the file would somehow violate the concept of fair use as covered under US copyright law. It almost certainly wouldn't. What is being said is that the use of the file doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, more specifically one or more of the ten criteria listed here. You seem to be bascially arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE, but you'd be better off trying to argue how the file's use meets all ten non-free content use criteria, particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. As I mentioned above, the long standing consensus has been to no allow non-free images of still living persons to used for primary identification purpose, except under certain conditions. Same goes for NFCC#2 when it comes to photos commercial use concerns. It makes no difference whether these photos are being used on other websites even if they're being used under a claim of fair use when it comes to Wikipedia because relevant Wikipedia policy has been intentionally developed to be more restrictive than fair use. The application of WP:NFCC#8 can be more subjective than the other two and this is what much discussions about non-free file use that end up at FFD usually are about; however, all of the stuff you wrote above about Testa applies more to her and her achievements than this particular photo and we shouldn't be really interpreting the photo as meaning all of those things unless reliable sources are interpreting the photo as such. Trying to do so is sort of like WP:OR and WP:SYN, but only with respect to a photograph instead of textual content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate everyone's input and want you all to know that I have carefully considered everything you've put forward. I will add that as a regular member of VRT, particularly Commons permissions (formerly OTRS), I am pretty well versed about free use vs fair use images, not to mention my former career and the fact that I've maintained an error & omissions policy for ages, although I am not infallible. I am confident that my use of the image is definitely fair use per the template Non-free historic image because unlike Commons, en.WP can and does utilize fair use images for that purpose. Furthermore, WP would not be the first to use that image under fair use as indicated here, and here, along with a hundred or so others. The reason the deleted image passes as fair use is quite simply that it is not just a picture of a jockey that can be substituted by another picture; rather, it is the photograph of a moment in the history of a society (on a global scale) that once prohibited female jockeys from obtaining a jockey license because of their gender. The person in that picture set a significant milestone for women's rights at that moment in history. She set a record as a first female jockey in history to not only race at a major track but to win at Santa Anita. She received a standing ovation from a crowd of over 45k people, and that image depicts her riding down the stretch waving her crop to the cheering crowd. It is not only historic, it is educational and it resonates loudly to women around the world. WP is an educational resource, so we are covered under fair use to use that picture. I will gladly reduce the size of the image to more closely accommodate our fair use criteria, if that satisfies the concerns expressed here, but realistically, WP is neither hindering API from earning income for that photo nor should we consider it our job as WP editors to protect the copyrights of professional photographers over the needs of our project because that places us in a far more precarious situation than does fair use. If anything, the use of that image with the API text attached serves API in a positive way; i.e., exposure, and tells our readers where to license duplicates. I cannot remove the API stamp but either way, it has no bearing on fair use. Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wow. A huge FFD seems to have materialized on my talk page. I will just state why tagged this for WP:F7. The image is from the Associated Press. That is not under dispute. As a press agency image, the established policy for use as a non-free image is that the image itself must be the subject of significant sourced commentary. That is so uncontroversial that it is codified in speedy deletion criteria. I reviewed the article and the image did not have such commentary so I tagged it for speedy deletion. The deleting admin has already reviewed the contested deletion and stated that they agree that the deletion is appropriate. It looks like the discussion is going to go around in circles. The next step is really WP:DRV as further discussion here will not result in any sort of formal decision. -- Whpq (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, is right - the lead of that article is the commentary about that picture and what made her notable - THAT race at Santa Anita - THAT picture is THAT race. It depicts her reaction to that historic FIRST WIN. I was adding the material when you nominated that picture for CSD. How can I explain it anymore clearly than what I have already done? It IS fair use of the image and Fastily should restore the image. Atsme 💬 📧 02:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme: That is not commentary about the image. That is commentary about the victory which the image depicts. Regardless, the next step is WP:DRV as user:Fastily has already declined to reverse the deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, I've restored and listed the file for formal discussion at FfD. Thanks, FASTILY 03:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies
Hi Whpq. My apologies for pinging you in my latest post in that discussion. I know you’re aware of the thread and can comment if you want. I did so out of habit and without out much thought until after I hit “Publish changes”. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
New article on 11 Guinness World records holder, Indian Chef Vishnu Manohar
Hi,
Hope you are doing fine.
I was trying to upload images, however unable to do so.
I could do the same now. however one image fails repeatedly, with a message that the same is duplicate.
I am unable to understand how to use the existing image which was deleted, as new upload was failing everytime.
Lastly I wanted a help to understand how to add short details under the main Image at the top before the contents.
Thank you for your help and support. Best regards, Ash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlesha.vr (talk • contribs)
- @Ashlesha.vr: - With some very narrow excepions, Wikipedia only accepts freely licensed images. Most images that you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia unless they meet all of the non-free content criteria. The images you have uploaded appear to be copyrighted images. For more information about use of images on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you have questions about copyright on images and their use on Wikipedia, you can post at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
In relation with removal of File:Kalabhavan-Rahman.jpg
@Whpq: I would like to bring attention to the fact that it's a photo of the actor and credit has been given from the source it was taken. I'm a new wiki editor, and I would like to improve all the pages associated of my regional language film industry (Malayalam). One reference would be File:ActorMammootty.jpg I tried to replicate how this photo was posted and give the credits to the source. As an avid reader, I feel the image is also at most important to process any article information. As they say, we always need to put a face to the data. Hope you can help me out here, or guide me to the right direction to use an image, in fair use. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadirulez8 (talk • contribs)
- @Aadirulez8: Compare your of File:Kalabhavan-Rahman.jpg with File:ActorMammootty.jpg. Your file is non-free content whereas the Mammootty file has a free license. Non-free images must meet all of the non-free content criteria which is a stricter standard than fair use. Specifically for the file you uploaded, the image does not meet WP:NFCC#1 which is about replaceability. As previously explained on your talk page, non-free images of living people are almost never acceptable. Even if a free image does not currently exist, a free image could be made by somebody taking a photo of the individual and releasing it under a free license. The short answer to your questions is that you cannot use a non-free image for Kalabhavan Rahman (or any other living actor). If you have other questions about media copyright and non-free image usage, Media Copyright Questions is a good place to ask them and get help. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Vango (online marketplace) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability, promotionally toned text. WP:BEFORE shows nearly nothing of WP:CORPDEPTH. There's no evidence this was notable even when the company existed. Tagged since shortly after creation 6 years ago; no edits in past two years.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)