File talk:Image is needed male.svg

use this?

http://i50.tinypic.com/vonddz.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyconall (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

easy there big fella

i think it might be nice to have some links to the copyright laws. especially the famous page at cornell that breaks down exactly what is and isnt in the public domain.

ah yes here it is.

http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

Decora (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This thing is lame

See Image talk:Replace this image female.svg#This thing is lame. Punkmorten (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! What can we do to get rid of it aside from manually deleting them? --AStanhope (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goldie_2003.jpg (found on the drum and bass page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.96.134 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, added to Goldie infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any real reason we use this and the female one rather than the neutral one?

Among other things (stereotypes, etc), this image looks like the guy had a horrible accident which mutated his head... Why not just use Image:Replace this image1.svg? Skittle (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it looks somewhat worse. And if you have issues with the guy's head take them up with NASA.Genisock2 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

?! Are you suggesting that Nasa mutated the guy's head?! Skittle (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The image ultimately derives from Image:Pioneer plaque line-drawing of a human male.svg.Genisock2 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But that image features additional lines showing that there is hair; they can't be held responsible for what the world has done to their image! Skittle (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wording

I don't like the 'do you own one'. It doesn't matter if someone owns one or not, it's whether they can obtain one in digital form that is free and upload it to Wikipedia. "Can you provide one" would be a lot more sensible. Richard001 (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"that is free" yeah people don't really get that so we bring the whole ownership thing into play as an attempt to work around that problem.Genisock2 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Placeholders

A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders has opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and may be of interest to editors watching this image. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Norm Johnson and received his permission to place a photo of him here (one from his personal webpage) I have this documentation (though not a "legal release" in the context of a signed/notarized form) but an email from him stating he would be very happy to have his photo included. Is that enough to post it? If not, as I have means to contact him, what do I need to add this image? Thanks, just want to do this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OneHappyHusky (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The image would need to be released under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License.Genisock2 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a new version in the meantime:

(I couldn't replace the old image because the page was protected.) I'd be happy to make one for the female if anyone's interested. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

You may publish an image of Slipher from the following homepages: http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/ http://www.lowell.edu/Research/library/paper/vm_slipher_pict.html I am only a registered wikipedia-member in Germany an I don't want pass through the bureaucracy of wikipedia because of the foto (have tried it once in Germany). (rwalle, 29.05.2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.193.219 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Español

{{editprotected}} es:Imagen:Falta imagen hombre.svg Could someone add this?--Domingo Portales (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain?

Why not add public domain to the suggestions for how to release your rights to an image you own? To some this may be preferable to the various nonsense "licenses". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.231.232 (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because in order to keep things simple we minimized that kind of choice if a user wants a choice of licenses they will be better severed by regular upload.Genisock2 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free pictures

I think a mention as to why the placeholder was put there would be appropriate in the image description. Untill I had completely read WP:NFC, I couldn't understand why a non-free picture would not be accepted per fair use policy. Here's the relevant part:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

While after reading it I could understand how this fit with fair use, I couldn't really figure it out before. --Dandin1 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if say a building is still around it should be possible to get a free pic of it.Genisock2 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the background shading look dramatically different on different computers?

To give background, I have been a very vocal opponent of how contrasting the image is (I support lowering the image contrast of the human figure to almost non-visibility). However, I am in a hotel on their computer and the background image of the human in the picture succesfully looks almost opaque and is dramatically lighter in color, but the image has not been modified since many months back when I first started having an issue with it. I am wondering why the image is so different. It suggests to me that Wikipedia users and those in the debate regarding this image are seeing two different images of it. Perhaps the background color is actually not Web Color compatible or compatible to those with older video cards and shows differently to some -- has anyone compared how the image looks with a 16-bit True Color format compared to 32-bit True Color? On my personal computer I use 800 x 600 res and 16-bit True Color -- and the background person is jarringly contrasting (a big gray thing looming in the background) and this contrast is why I am so vocal against the image. With whatever settings the hotel has, though, the image is not bad at all. Anyone have an answer? (Question crosslinked to David Gerard, the most recent image changer). -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Why isn't this image showing up? It's just showing a blank in the infoboxen; see James Otto for instance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was a temporary server problem; seems fine now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Effectively disable

{{Editprotected}} I keep encountering this thing in articles; not all editors are aware of the Centralized Discussion that nixed, by WP community-wide consensus, the use of this and similar images on article pages, and some are thus still deploying it. The status of this image as deprecated is very clear and needs to be made clearer (but it should not be deleted; the centralized and pre-centralized debates about it are of great precedential value, but would be rendered rather inexplicable if the image disappeared, as it is used numerous times in the course of the debate).

1. Please place the following at the top of the image page: {{Warning|1=Do not add this image to article pages. The proposal to add such images to articles [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders|has been rejected]]. The image is preserved for historical reasons, as it is frequently cited in the proposal debates.}}
2. Please also remove the HTML comment and transclusion, or at least comment-out the latter (and collapse the pointless blank lines in such a case). The transclusion in particular still strongly suggests that these placeholder images are accepted and directly encourages their use.
3. The Category:Protected redirects code should also be removed, as this page is not a redirect.

These changes should be applied to any and all images in this series. I have so far tagged two of them for this editprotected cleanup.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

From reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, the status of this image as deprecated is not clear at all. Which discussion was the image actually deprecated in? --Brilliand (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I never heard about this discussion - this thing is used all over the place and continues to be used. --B (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

InterWiki

Please let us use this image for public purposes and add the syntax: "Hình:Ngoi_sao_nam.svg", too. Thanks a lot. TanPhat Nguyen.

I have a very recent picture, but am not auto confirmed.

I have a very recent portrait photo of Anger, which I took during his performance with Brian Butler as Technicolor Skull in Copenhagen last saturdag (8th of october 2008), and I'm willing to publish it under a creative commons share alike lince, but I can't seem to upload it since I am not a autoconfirmed member. Does anybody have any help to offer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnuskaslov (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can upload the image to wikimedia commons].Genisock2 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Does one not need to be autoconfirmed there as well to upload? It makes sense not to require it there since uploading images is (or should be) the main work there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You could do six more edits to become autoconfirmed or submit via Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Source and license

This image needs a source and a license.--Rockfang (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Um NASA via a PNG by my and an SVG by editor at large. All PD.Genisock2 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the fact the image is public domain, but it should still follow policy. Which means a source and a license should be added.--Rockfang (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

They were on the talk page (PD means none of the normal legal requirements for tags apply) but appear to have got lost.Genisock2 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this

Aren't all images on the Internet free? I mean, since when do you have to pay to save a picture?--Xasitchaine (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please add the following text to this image's page:

This image is based on [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/cd/20070323163647%21Male_no_free_image_yet.svg this version] of [[:Commons:Image:Male no free image yet.svg]], produced by [[:Commons:User:Editor at Large]] (En user: [[User:Editor at Large]]) based on the original [[:Commons:Image:Male_no_free_image_yet.png]] produced by [[:Commons:User:Geni]] (En user: [[User:Geni]]). {{PD-because|Original work of User:Geni released into PD, adaptation by User:Editor at Large also released into PD}}

Please see the above section as to why I'm requesting this. I got the above bolded information from a link in the licensing template here.--Rockfang (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No. The reason the image is so firmly PD is that as a result you don't actualy need a tag on the image page and the talk page is quite sufficient in this somewhat unusual case.Genisock2 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected disabled per Geni. If there is a compelling reason to add it and a consensus on this page that it needs to be there, feel free to readd the tag. --B (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the template. I think policy=consensus in this situation. All images are supposed to have a source and a license tag on their page. If we put it on this talk page, what is to stop someone from removing it again? If we put it on the image's actual page, the chances of it being removed decrease. There is no valid reason that I can see to ignore policy in this case. Is there a valid reason to not have the required info on the image's page?--Rockfang (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. I have added attribution to the bottom and the appropriate category. This should meet both concerns of wanting to have licensing information+attribution information clearly spelled out while not confusing a potential visitor to the site who would like to contribute an image. I have also fixed the warning which did not accurately reflect current policy. --B (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems sufficient.--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have to be so greedy?

It should be enough that anyone who owns the copyright to a picture allows it to be put on here - to have to give it up and subscribe to some of wikipedias political notions is amoral and wrong. So drop the bullshit about releasing it under any kind of nonsense license. --EnBruger (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why no one use a picture of him like this: http://www.experienceeldorado.tv/cms/images/stories/perrykingheadshot-newa.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.235.92 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not under a free license.Genisock2 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia used to allow the uploading of images published under a "non-commercial" liscense. That is, we used to re-use images whose owner's sites said, something like: "You can re-use this image, provided you don't try to make a profit from it." The policy was changed about four years ago. My understanding is that the reason for the change is that while the wikipedia doesn't make a profit from images, we can't control what those who download images from the wikipedia do. Since we can't control what wikipedia readers do to images, we shouldn't upload under an image that seems to promise we can control what our readers do with those images. Geo Swan (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to commons?

Instead of giving a link to a wp upload, why not link to the commons? Guy0307 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove images via bot

Well, now that these types of images have been deprecated (not to mention disliked), why not create a bot to specifically remove these placeholder images from articles (or possibly add the feature to an existing approved bot)? Surely a far-reduced "link to" list would have editors thinking twice about adding these images into an article. A big warning at the top of the page in red warning people not to add this image to an article would also aid in the total retirement of these ugly placeholders. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page because I read a note on an article talk page that someone had excised this image because they read that this image was deprecated. This page refers to the centralized discussion, which starts with:

"Use of placeholders in a nutshell: Use of these placeholders in neither encouraged nor deprecated. Although many editors object to their appearance they work for the intended purpose."

So could you please explain why you call them deprecated? Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please add,

Or similar language as users as still removing these citing the language currently on the page. -- Banjeboi 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"they work for the intended purpose" might be considered subjective and a personal view, which should probably be avoided if these images are controversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, what would be a better wording? If they didn't work we wouldn't use them at all. Maybe - Although many editors object to their appearance the placeholders do seem to generate image submissions. - better? -- Banjeboi 20:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you happy with the above message box? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think looks accurate. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is deprecated, as explained on the template, the community discussion produced no consensus for inclusion in main space. The bot testing that preceded any discussion should be removed. cygnis insignis 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't really any consensus to change anything. The RfC established there was general displeasure with their appearance with no agreement on what should change. If a new idea emerges or does gain consensus we can look to updating things again. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was against their 'appearance' in mainspace - at all. The look of the template, and other digressions from the primary objections, would have been redundant or of little concern if it was placed on the talk page. Reducing that community discussion to 'a not unpopular idea, that worked, but some people don't like the way it looks' is an inaccurate summary. cygnis insignis 09:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm deactivating the request while the discussion continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was no consensus as is evident on the discussion itself and that the placeholders are still here. If there was consensus they would be removed. Even the summery notes some feel the 66% is erroneously high as they wouldn't have !voted for a complete ban but felt that proposal was the closest or similar rationale. Also of note is that 66% represents less than 40 editors. Indeed this is a tangled issue with no leading consensus to do ... anything. Over the past two years discussion has failed to gain consensus to either replace or remove them. This page should be updated with a clear statement that reflects the communities divided opinion. -- Banjeboi 13:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A summery interpretation of the winter of discontent. This is pretty simple, two thirds opposed use in articles, there was no other consensus obtained (except amongst a couple of tendentious and verbose proponents). cygnis insignis 15:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue remains that there is no consensus to remove them and no consensus to change anything. Surprise, a lot of people agreed that they don't like how they look. Ergo we look to avoiding disruption and should state something neutral so those unfamiliar with the issues don't use the current verbiage to excuse a deletion spree, which is disruptive. The complaining is over, no fixing or improving is taking place so now we are back at point A awaiting a better "replace this image" image. None has appeared so while we await our collective hero(es) let's stop the disruption. -- Banjeboi 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1

Proposal 1 reached a consensus. The contributions of two or three editors buried discussion and a clear consensus, it is a model of how to disrupt a discussion when it doesn't go one's way - seize on an apparently subjective issue and digress to make that the only issue. Beauty here is a page of prose, with references, giving encyclopaedic facts; soliciting readers, superfluous information, and sucking is where other sites excel.

There was a failure to properly archive four pages of largely unrelated blather, a dubious page move, and no later attempt to gain a consensus for its use in mainspace. It is disruptive to leave them in articles, with a vaguely-worded nutshell here, giving tacit endorsement to something that made contributors of actual content unify their objections and vehemently protest. Those contributors were insulted, exhausted, then ignored; so will thousands of others who, after sweating over actual content, get it slapped with a template implying 'amateur, no image, help!' cygnis insignis 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a contentious discussion and the summary stated outright that even though there was a majority it shouldn't be considered a consensus in this case. This is, in part, why we work to find consensus, not to silence others but to make the best decisions possible. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion of instructions

I noticed that the instructions are transcluded onto the file page. Why not use the link= parameter for files [[File:Replace this image - temple.png|100px|link=Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/Temple]] as I've done on the right which will take the person to the instruction page directly without all the distractions that are on a File: namespace page.

I like the idea of having them contribute the picture directly to commons; however, commons is even more unfriendly to newcomers than Wikipedia is. Thus I fear that those we want to help, i.e. those who are most likely occasional editors or not currently editors are more likely to be bitten and give up and we will lose their submissions. --Trödel 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I implemented the above suggestion on {{Infobox rugby league biography}} and {{Infobox MotoGP rider}} --Trödel 15:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This template and the related instructions has no consensus for use in mainspace, there was significant opposition based on policy, guidelines and good taste. The community-wide discussion did not deprecate its use on talkpages, it should only be developed for use there. Commons is a wikimedia site that makes images available to all the sister sites, not just this one, bypassing this part of our wider community is a divisive solution. The elaborate procedure used in uploading an image presumably stems from Copyright concerns, or paranoia, bypassing that process is also likely to raise further opposition. Both communities can be hostile environs, with bewildering and contradictory advice, but each have friendly editors who are more than willing to help a new user upload an image. This is how most content has been built, not with templates and placeholders.

A new discussion needs to be raised if this continues to be rolled out to articles or, by stealth, in infoboxes. cygnis insignis 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that commons suffers from paranoia driven by their Copyright concerns. And I agree that there are friendly editors on en.wikipedia; however, the admins on commons are overworked and deal with people who aren't just making mistakes but that are trying to trick them - thus I have met very few who are helpful. Their goal is to enforce the rules and not to help people. I've even been told that "AGF is not a commons rule" by a commons admin.

I don't find your argument that "this is how most content has been built, not with templates and placeholders" as persuasive as to where we should be going to move forward. As Jimbo recently said at Wikimania 2009 in his State of the Wiki talk, “We are mostly male computer geeks” and if we are to be more diverse we need to find ways to reach out to non-computer geeks.

I don't think that this is a great solution - in fact I think the solution lies in minor adjustments to the software overtime to help newcomers to be more successful at editing while retaining our goal to improve quality.

I do think this is could be a step in the right direction. Thus I think that specific WikiProjects should decide for themselves whether they should implement placeholders, the placeholders should only be used in templates so they can be removed from all the articles quickly without a bot if the community decides they are too ugly. Additionally, the only way those pictures are going to make it into the article quickly is if members of specific WikiProjects monitor the categories into which the uploaded files are automatically placed. Additionally, I think the placeholders should be used sparingly - and definitely not on articles that have pictures but not the perfect one yet.

Finally I think your comment that I might make changes "by stealth, in infoboxes" contrary to consensus demonstrates that we haven't had much interaction. First there is very little changes that can be made on templates that will go unnoticed. Secondly, I clearly indicated what I had done here, and only made changes to templates that already had the placeholder images in them - I just made them link to better instructions on what to do next. Finally, although I am often bold, and implement good ideas directly on the article pages, I notify interested parties of the change, respond quickly to comments on talk pate, do not revert equally bold modifications to those changes, work to address the concerns raised, and, if necessary, remove the change altogether. --Trödel 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That Commons admin failed to understand the underlying principles of AGF, and that invites repeated vandalism and 'trickery'. Others are brilliant, polite and helpful. A different community with different politics, so it goes.

I'm not representing the communities views, so that argument (meant as an aside, an observation) should not be seen as representing the overwhelming reasons cited by the community. I think it accords with Jimbo's view, as it does with making the site "not suck" ... it is the opinion of a non-computer geek.

Strongly agree

Strongly support established consensus. This was trialled before and during the wider discussion, it didn't fly and was deprecated. The wider communities opinion is needed for any further bot edits or manual additions, I'm not aware of any requirement for images in our text based document: it distracts the reader with yet another bit of useless information and, worse, solicits them with a selfref that is WP:NOT. Seeing if anyone will object has already been done, they did. Adding it template documentation, bundling it for insertion by editors who are probably unaware of its contentious background, underpinned the 'by stealth' remark. This seems to have happened quietly, long before today and probably in ignorance, like the initial rollout that allowed the 'counter-argument' to policy "but this is already in 1000s of articles". Regarding this misunderstanding:

I always attempt to make comments on content, that my edit conflicted may be the reason you may feel I was impugning your methods or motives. I'll break the rule to comment on your good self. I don't think we have interacted before, I have no reason to doubt you personally, and your posts have been exceptionally polite and thought-provoking. I'm probably bolder than most - cheers and well met.

This needs be discussed elsewhere, "Attention" in edit mode notes, "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users", the proposal in the section above needs to be implemented. — cygnis insignis 18:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it didn't fly and was deprecated." Near as I can tell from reading the summaries at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders is that no one likes the look of them, the idea of asking for help is seen by some as self-referential (though the edit tab is too :), we're not sure what to do - lots of different ideas (including some really ugly pictures with bright blue color that are awful), so the result is basically the status quo with the "Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages." That seems to me to be a recommendation that generally we don't include, but if inclusion is justified in a specific situations and agreed by those that edit like articles then it can be used. I'm not sure that the extension of the recommendation to any placeholders (as opposed to people placeholders) is supported by the discussion. Some of the views expressed in the discussion are specific to people (for example: use on people where no picture is likely to be found, the ugliness of the placeholder image itself, etc)

Not sure where else to discuss so please point me there - I was going to place it in the centralized discussion but it looks like that discussion is archived. I put it on this talk page since I intended only to modify a couple templates that already use the image by changing the destination of a click on the image (not whether or not an image is included contrary to existing practice) I didn't see it as violating the non-consensus - just providing a more friendly implementation.

Thx for the kind words and I feel likewise - as above please point me in the right direction TIA --Trödel 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Zomdish, 5 June 2010

{{editprotected}} I'd like to add some pictures to this page as i am the artist,

thanks

Zomdish (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please upload the files first and then post a request on the talk page of the actual article in question. Thanks, —fetch·comms 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PKK Winder, 9 June 2010

{{editprotected}} All I'd want to change here is the non-existence of a picture.

PKK Winder (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific with your request? --CapitalR (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like they want to replace this picture with an image of something besides a placeholder... when in fact this is intended to be a placeholder image. Gary King (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dsilwal, 27 July 2010

{{editprotected}} could you upload picture of Hari Bansha Acharya: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Hari_Bansha_Acharya.jpg

Thank you

Sid Ney 14:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use

This picture? 79.177.20.174 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons license

Why can't we use images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.64.64 (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Routine housekeeping...please correct the license template as follows:

• {{PD-author|[[User:Geni|Geni]] and [[User:Editor at Large|Editor at Large]]}}

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you confirm exactly what needs done here? The page currently uses a handwritten PD note rather than a template: it also states that the file is a derivative of an older work. Should that comment be removed? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary to me. As far as I can tell, it makes no difference to the categorisation and conveys less accurate information than the current version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hammouday, 19 February 2011

I uploaded a photo of ahmad kaabour and wish to put it the background information area http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmad_Kaabour.jpg thank you Y.H (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong template and wrong page, but I've placed it in Ahmad Kaabour's article.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

Can I add a picture please?

T4ff9 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're asking this in the wrong place, you need to ask on the talk page of the article itself--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

i want to give pic for this person..

182.185.200.72 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Think you're in the wrong spot. Try asking on the article's talk page. — Bility (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Help on Hebrew link

Hebrew link is need to be added, i'm not allowed to that : he:ויקיפדיה:תמונה חופשית] --Midrashah (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)