User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 25

Image deletion Michael W. Dean

Howdy sir. You deleted the image on the Michael W. Dean article, was deleted before that too. The image is from Dean's website http://www.clonethehomeless.com under the image it reads "(Press photo of Michael W. Dean by Debra Jean Dean. Covered by creative commons. May be used anywhere with credit.)"

Doesn't that make this image ok for wikipedia use? Thank you (please respond on my talk page.) ElizaBarrington 01:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moncrieff Disappearing Gun.jpg

Angr, could you PLEASE have look at the (image) discussion page and the link provided? AGAIN I have to note that this is not one of those images that should be replaced in the crusade to rid Wikipedia of all fair use images. The use of the image for uses like Wikipedia is specifically, right on the origin-page, allowed. Getting a bit sick of having to defend it all the time. Why do you think I added the explanation, and the comment on the discussion page?. Cheers, MadMaxDog 05:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about sounding rather grumpy. Still, getting back to the matter at hand, would PermissionAndFairUse be okay instead? MadMaxDog 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Answered at Image talk:Moncrieff Disappearing Gun.jpg. —Angr 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zork mac screenshot.png

You deleted Image:Zork mac screenshot.png, because of "I4 (no source given)". However the image description page described the source quite clearly: "Screenshot of Zork I running on the Spatterlight interpreter." I see you haven't even bothered to list it on IFD, and deleted it without any discussion. Screenshots of games are allowed to be used where appropriate according to the current Wikipedia policy.  Grue  15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not source information, that's a description. Images without source information are subject to speedy deletion (i.e. no IFD discussion is necessary). If you can provide source info, I'll undelete it. —Angr 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the screenshot was made by the uploader. This silly wikilawyering does nothing to improve Wikipedia.  Grue  17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, CSD I4, for reference: Lack of licensing information. Images in category "Images with unknown source", "Images with unknown copyright status", or "Images with no copyright tag" that have been tagged with a template that places them in the category for more than seven days, regardless of when uploaded.

No such template were present on the image for any period of time. Therefore, your speedy deletion was invalid.  Grue  20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image of Crystal Mangum

Don't you think an explanation as to which licensing/fair use policy was violated would be appropriate on the talk page of the articles you delete images from, instead of just unilateraly removing content which other users obviously did not think was in violation of policy? This would be helpful, I think. With that in mind, could you please explain why you deleted the image of Crystal Gail Mangum? Regards, Ikilled007 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It had no source or licensing information. Straightforward violation of WP:CSD#I4. —Angr 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it had that information. You should have checked to see if that information was vandalized out in order for the image to get deleted. I know you've visited the article for a while now and I'm quite sure you would have deleted the image sooner had that info been missing in the past. Very curious. Ikilled007 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it had the source/licencing info, too... I looked at the image page before and I can't remember anything out of the ordinary. Voretus 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture's source was the Durham Police Department. If that information was missing, it's because one of the vandals removed it. Unlearned hand 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the picture to her page and someone else restored it to the Duke Lacrosse Scandal main page. It's sourced and meets criteria. Ikilled007 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Information is there ... don't know what else you are looking for, or seem to think is needed. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cerimorgan.png

Ah, couldn't get around that. Alright, I made a decision then. Maybe not one the stricter image admins like, but I think falling under the category "possibly living people" makes it fair enough. Based on age he was a harder than the other one though to pull the trigger on.--Wizardman 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

360 Architecture

Angr,

Please check page history for 360 Architecture on March 23. The page was cleared by Administrator King of Hearts as non advertorial, so I ask that you remove the deletion tag. Also refer to "HOK" for a comparison to an architectural firm entry.

Best regards, Sdkucera 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrigan / Closet039 picture

You deleted the Corrigan DL picture without explanation of the problem nor in giving the stated 48 hour notice to correct the problem. This is the second picture in the article you've either tagged for deletion or deleted. The first image had proper notice provided to WikiCommons and now this second one, as I read fair-use guidelines, was also properly attributed. I'm looking for an explanation of your actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jodyw1 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Please read the pages linked to at the top of the page. Wikipedia policy does not allow nonfree images of living people. —Angr 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"These legal doctrines, called "fair use" and "fair dealing", permit the use of copyrighted material under a restricted set of criteria. They are not a blanket permission for the unlimited use of text, images, and other copyrighted materials. "Fair use" is a technical/legal notion that may not match what an individual thinks of as being "fair".

Content used under these doctrines on the English Wikipedia must meet US legal tests for "fair use". Significantly, Wikipedia places additional restrictions on material that is not available under a a free content license; the content can be used only if it is not replaceable with free content. See "Downstream use" for a more detailed explanation of the rationale for these additional restrictions. For example...a modern publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person ***would be subject to stricter criteria.*** "

The picture of the ID fulfilled the term of "fair use" as outlined here and in other sections of Wiki. Regardless, if you are contending it does not do so, under Wiki policy, tagging the picture with a notice and a request for more information *before deleting it* is the way the system is supposed to work.

Please un-delete the picture, list your concerns, and add the appropriate tags. Discussion can commence from there. Jodyw1 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish Speaker Map

Here is the source I used for Irish speakers by county (NI data was from the 2001 NI Census) - CSO 2002 Census Results - Irish. (See table 4A) Sulmac 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion - Azmi Bishara

you've recently deleted an image of Azmi Bishara. i've looked up the "replaceable" documentation, and i have to say that there is no way you can find a replacement free image of him voting and i request the image re-instated. Jaakobou 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't need an image of him voting; any image of him will do to identify him. —Angr 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

that assertion, as to the need of a certain pose, is invoking on an image that's very depictive of the man. do i really have to get permission to use that image for EVERYTHING before it's allowed, is it not enough that i personally contacted the photographer and got his concent to use it freely on the azmi bishara article? Jaakobou 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For any image of a living person, you have to get permission for it to be used under the terms of the GFDL (see WP:ERP for some suggestions on how to formulate the request). Permission to use the image only on Wikipedia is not enough. —Angr 07:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrence Malick

What was your justification for deleting that one? No source? He certainly qualifies as a recluse and I do not think a fair-use image would be replaceable if it were properly sourced and credited. I cannot find the image talk page (perhaps it should be policy that any admin deleting a replaceable image move any discussion of that issue to the talk page if it is not already there) so I can't tell if a decision was reached that an image of a film director who has it in his contract that no official photos are to be taken of him during production, nor does he have to make public appearances to promote the film, and gives no interviews or otherwise appears in public is "reasonably replaceable" by a free image. Daniel Case 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you wanted a source to prove the reclusiveness. I found one and put it in; I think you can undelete the image and put it back in the article. Daniel Case 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it for not having a license. I believe he's a recluse, but even nonreplaceable fair-use images have to comply with the other parts of the policy (even dead people and recluses can't be illustrated with screenshots, book or album covers, postage stamps, images from news agencies, etc.). —Angr 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Was it a book cover or screenshot (and I always thought those would be permissible if no other image possibly existed, which I admit is not the case here). Can you state that definitively about the picture? I have been lookling through the many results Google brings back and I haven't found anything to suggest that picture was from that particular blacklist. AFAICT it's an actual promo shot (it sure looks like one) that would be perfectly acceptable for someone for whom a replacement image could not reasonably be created. Unless you can demonstrate that it was a cover image or something otherwise unacceptable, I think it should be allowed. Daniel Case 03:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This IMdB page credits the photo to the studio, which suggests "promo photo" to me (they usually run whole presskits in their image galleries). Now will you reconsider? Daniel Case 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was a book cover or screenshot, I was just speaking generally. I thought promotional photos always came specifically from press kits. In fact, someone once said in promo photos, "the subject [is] doing little else but looking straight at the camera and/or striking a pose", which wasn't the case in this photo, which looked more like a snapshot taken on a movie set. —Angr 06:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Touché. But really, while I thought it was a promo shot when I first saw it, I wasn't sure. In any case, either a promo shot (such as this image of another living recluse, an image that exemplifies my generalizations about promo shots) or a "snapshot taken on set" would be acceptable once irreplaceable fair use is established ... it's the cover and screenshots that can't be used for identification purposes. (So, in other words, there's no reason not to use it once it's properly licensed, credited to a source, and rationalized). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 05:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Question on images

Hi Angr. Sorry to bother you. I'm having trouble figuring out what I should do about an image that's been claimed to be fair use but clearly falls outside fair use guidelines, and is also clearly just a scan from a (presumably copyrighted) book (the image in question is Image:MtDNA_Caucasus.png). I guess I'm not sure whether I should take this to Images for Deletion, or list it as a copyright infringement, or how to even list something as having an inappropriate fair use rationale. I know you do a lot of work in this area so I was wondering if you knew. Again, sorry to bother you. Take care, --Miskwito 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There's all sorts of problems to tag the image for. It has no source, so it can be tagged {{subst:nsd}}. It has no copyright information, so it can be tagged {{subst:nld}}. I'll go do that right now. If a fair-use tag gets added to it, it's replaceable fair use (anyone could plot the graph), so it can be tagged {{subst:rfu2}}. It has no rationale, so it's {{subst:nrd}}, and it's not being used in any articles, so it can be tagged {{subst:orfud}}. —Angr 06:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

you deleted an image of lou fellingham, although this photo was released as a press shot in a press package to people, including myself. photos on pages of other christian artists such as vicky beeching still exist, and i tried to post it up under the same license? i may have posted it up under the wrong one, it was meant to be under "promotional"

thanks

Wikipedia in general doesn't allow nonfree images of living people, which includes promotional pictures in almost all cases. The fact that there are still such pictures around just means no one's gotten around to deleting them yet, not that they're allowed. —Angr 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WPTL todo

I recently constructed an attempt at a more organized WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics open tasks template, but I haven't received any responses on the project talk page. If you could take a look at the test: User:Mitchoyoshitaka/WPTL todo and comment on it, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback or criticism! mitcho/芳貴 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary

Hi, you recently deleted the images Image:JolieInterrupted.jpg and Image:JolieHackers.jpg for the article Angelina Jolie, because "there is no critical commentary on the film in the article", though both films are discussed with a paragraph in the text, citing critical reviews of the NY Times, Variety and movie critic Roger Ebert. I'm curious what you consider critical commentary, if that doesn't apply. -- EnemyOfTheState 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. What I meant was, the images didn't actually illustrate what was said in the critical commentary. —Angr 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Carl Bearden Picture

Hey, I've had two pictures deleted off my boss' wikipedia. I understand why the first one was deleted, but I took careful measures to ensure that the second one was properly labeled. These are pictures taken by the Missouri House of Representatives official photogropher and they are public property, let alone the fact that it is a picture of the man who the page is for. What exactly to I need to do to keep these pictures from being deleted.

BTW, I have read the requirements for posting a picture on Wikipedia, that's why I took so much effort on the second post.

-DJK403

The image I deleted, Image:Carl Speaking 2.JPG, was uploaded with the "fair use image of a living person" tag, which automatically marks it for speedy deletion. Your description claims it's public domain, but you didn't provide any source or any reason to indicate why this should be so. Please note that while all works of the U.S. Federal Government are public domain, works of most state governments aren't. If Carl Bearden is your boss, couldn't you take a picture of him yourself and upload it under a free license? —Angr 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Christieplan

Don't accuse me of something I didn't do - I didn't delete anything, all I did was fix the tag as it was not an image of a living person. I don't have time to fix this up at the moment, and from what I can read, there's time for this to be left for the moment until I can. JRG 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit you removed the dated RFU category as well as Category:All replaceable fair use images, meaning that no admin looking for RFU images would ever find it. —Angr 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It must have been an accident - I didn't do it deliberately. JRG 12:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anu malik

Hi I noticed that you deleted the image on the article on Anu malik. Why exactly did you delete it? Is it because it was copy right?

Regards,AJ-India 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Please see the pages linked to at the top of this page. —Angr 07:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which link, can you be specific?AJ-India 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All three links inside the tan-colored box at the very top of this page. —Angr 08:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my image

Who are you? "Mr I am a big admin so I will delete your image" You deleted a fair use image on the Iian Stables page several times now. This is a publicly available image so no reason to remove.

Anglisch

Would you check out my language and tell me what you think?Cameron Nedland 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven images

Hi I noticed you have deleted two images from the Stairway to Heaven page. The message you added was "rm imgs that are not fair use here". Could you please explain why the images were not fair use? Thanks Edelmand 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stairway73.JPG is licensed as a screenshot from a film and can only be used in conjunction with critical commentary on the film; Image:Page.jpg is licensed as a promotional image of Jimmy Page and could in principle only be used to illustrate him (except that as a nonfree image of a living person, it can't even be used for that); and Image:Mellotron2.JPG was the same for John Paul Jones (and has already been deleted). —Angr 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I totally appreciate the work of the editors on Wikipedia. I love the site, have read, edited and bought the t-shirt. However I do feel that the way images are treated on Wikipedia is confusing and does not at all encourage people to unloads images. It also seems random which ones are deleted. Take two examples. I uploaded a photo of Sara McGreavy from a newspaper site and used the reason that there is no freely available image. Although I can't see where on earth anyone except Sarah's friends and family are going to get a decent photo of her I accept that I didn't have any permission to upload it and accept the deletion. Now the deletion that I am questioning is of Darren Tate. Here there is no reason to delete yet it was deleted by yourself. Again I am not going to get angry and be an idiot but what was the reasoning behind this and how on earth is it possible that any image could possibly ever get on Wikipedia if this one can't? Thanks for working and keeping Wikipedia going. I await your reply! :-) Cls14 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the images in question are not freely licensed, and Wikipedia policy does not allow nonfree images of living people, since it would be possible for freely licensed images of them to be made. They are considered "replaceable fair use" and are regularly deleted. This applies also to Image:DarrenTate.jpg, which I am now tagging as replaceable. Please read the pages linked to from the top of my talk page for more info. —Angr 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That still makes no sense to me. I what on earth is free license? I very rarely understand Wikipedia explanation pages so please explain yourself, lol. I do not see how someone giving me permission to use a photo of themselves, and the person who took the picture giving me permission can not be used. How much more 'free' do you want it to get? Cls14 08:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A free license is one that allows the image to be reused by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes and making derivative works. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for some examples. —Angr 07:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not totally clear on this either. If the image is replacable, will you replace it? If you can't, is it not replaceable? Hewinsj 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable means someone could replace it, not that I personally am intending to. —Angr 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where would I get an image to replace a "repalceable image"? I'd be willing to take the initiative if you could point me in the right direction. Or did you mean someone would have to go snap picture of the person?

In the case of DarrenTate.jpg, I did a little digging and found that the image is part of the press kit that he distributes on his website to anyone that wants to download it. Would that be considered free? Hewinsj 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you can find free images of famous people on Flickr. You have to make sure the image is tagged "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA". Sometimes you can find images of famous people when they've made appearances at the White House or with members of the U.S. military, because all photographs made by employees of the U.S. Federal Government as part of their official duties are in the public domain. Otherwise, the best chance is that a Wikipedia or Commons user will take a picture themselves. Press kit images are not "free as in freedom" even if they are "free as in beer". —Angr 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok cool, I'll keep an eye out. Hewinsj 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Angr: I opened a Wikipedia account and uploaded photos to the St. Anthony Hall website, and included changes in the text. The photos which I uploaded were pictures that have been in my possession since 1982, given to me when I was at Trinity College, the Epsilon Chapter. The collection includes photos from other chapters. Included in the upload was a photo that I personally took of the Epsilon Chapter a few years back after a second tower had been built to cover the addition of an external fire escape mandated by the city of Hartford.

The images I uploaded were deleted by you. They have no copyright information associated with them and if anything were privately published by the fraternity many years ago. Two of the images I know are beyong the time limitations of copyright imfringement, and one was my creation. After reading the mandatory rules you ask people to read before posting a note, I can't see where I broke the law or infringed on someone's property. Also, what have the uploaders of the other images on the same page done so that you don't take their images down? As I stated I am a graduate member of that organization trying to improve their wikipage, that's all. Please clarify and advise. --Marco Medrano, New York, 5-25-07

Irish phonology

Sorry to bother you, but I see that you have an interest in Irish phonology. Maybe you'd know if the following is correct?:

Irish: An Cumann Peile Chathair Dhoire, IPA: [an̪ˠ kʊmən pɛlʲə xahaɾʲ ɣɛɾʲə]

I used the International Phonetic Alphabet for Irish page as a guide but wouldn't be certain I fully comprehended it or got all pronunciations correct. It's for the article about Derry City Football Club. Thanks. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good! I'd only make a few small changes: IPA: [ən kʊmən̪ˠ pɛlʲə xahəɾʲ ɣɛɾʲə] —Angr 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

extra-short vs. non-syllabic

Hi Angr,

I'm following the recommendations of the SIL font designers in using the non-syllabic subdiacritic in place of the extra-short superdiacritic for letters with ascenders, parallel to the use of an overring for gee and engma. Neither are actual IPA symbols for 'flap', so both are equally ad hoc. (When you raise other diacritics of gee or engma, you also change their official values: the diacritics for breathy and creaky phonation become homographs with centered and nasalized, for example, but that's accepted.) This came up with SIL when several of us proposed new symbols for their PUI for the Gentium, Charis, & Doulos fonts. They accepted five, but rejected our proposals for dedicated symbols for palatal and velar lateral flaps, with the recommendation that those be indicated with breves - rotated below the letter in the case of the palatal. This was a serious consideration for a linguist working on Iwaidja. I'm going to switch back, because the symbols aren't legible the way we have them now, and the analogy with devoiced etc. gee in intuitive given the context of the article. (Don't mean to step on your toes, but I don't have much Wiki time, am distracted by other matters, and am afraid things will get left undone if I don't take care of them immediately.) kwami 06:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But do they recommend doing that when the result is ambiguity? /ɡ̊/ is unambiguous because IPA has no "ring above" diacritic. And while /ɡ̈/ and /ɡ̃/ are fairly meaningless with the canonical meaning of the diacritics (since centralization applies only to vowels and a nasalized /ɡ/ would simply be /ŋ/, /ÿ/ and /ỹ/ can really only mean a centralized /y/ and a nasalized /y/ respectively; breathy-voiced and creaky-voiced /y/ would have to be transcribed /y̤/ and /y̰/. The IPA Handbook does say "some diacritics may be placed above a symbol when a descender on the symbol would interfere with legibility", but it doesn't say all diacritics may be moved like that, nor does it say that diacritics normally belonging over the symbol may be moved below it when an ascender would interfere with legibility. Finally, even if it were true that the breve could be moved below a symbol with an ascender, that still doesn't mean it can be inverted in the process: an ultrashort palatal lateral would in that case be /ʎ̮/, not /ʎ̯/. —Angr 07:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Blackchristmasos.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackchristmasos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:24 Season 6 Jack Promo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:24 Season 6 Jack Promo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:McQueen Large.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:McQueen Large.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bounding Main Group.jpg

I see that you deleted this image as "replacable fair use" on April 27th. Do you mind explaining why you think the image is replacable? I disagree, and explained why the image was not replacable and appropriately fair use when I uploaded it. It would have been helpful if you could have put a heads up on my talk page, or the talk page for the article. Looking forward to your explanation. Crypticfirefly 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

According to their article, "Bounding Main has performed at maritime museums, maritime music festivals, tall ship festivals, harbor festivals, arts festivals, pirate festivals, renaissance faires, wooden boat shows, corporate events and private parties." A free picture could be taken of them at any of those venues. —Angr 06:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. Are you planning to find them and take a picture? I sure am not. But if we are going to speak hypothetically, without their cooperation (and who says they should give it) in getting them to pose, one could not get a nicely posed picture of them in costume, joking around on a large wheel that evokes a large ship's wheel, and without a lot of distracting stuff in the background. There is also a good chance that it would not be as flattering. Ah well, we will agree to disagree. As it turns out in this particular case, one of the group members is a casual wikipedia editor, so we will see if the group itself is interested in giving away a picture. Anyway, thanks for the belated explanation. Crypticfirefly 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: File:Shounen Ai Bigaku 01 cover Manga.jpg

I expect that there was a reason for this action... or did User:J_Milburn come crying to you in an email. Frankly, the rather childish obsession in deleting "offensive things" that's been going around on wikipedia lately has resulted in a series of headaches for me. This is hardly an isolated incident, as I've seen countless articles become "christianized" over that last several months (too many to count here). Therefore, I ask why? Sweetfreek 04:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with being "offensive". The argument presented, that the fact that Lolicon is illustrated with a free image means Shotacon could also be illustrated with a free image, was convincing. The image is replaceable per fair use criterion 1. —Angr 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Catfish

I would like that the full of blood, horrible photo of a slayed catfish is removed from the page... Thanks Marco, Italy

Wikipedia is not censored. —Angr 07:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly

Doesn't Smacky have better things to do than this? —Angr 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was attracted by {{unreferencedsection}}, which has been renamed in the past few days. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 21 May 2007 (GMT).

Terence Malick, revisited

So, are we going to undelete the image? Or do you want to do it through deletion review (not that I'm imputing any misconduct to you or anything, I just thought you might want some sort of consensus-building discussion before doing so). Daniel Case 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten all about it. I'll undelete it, but it does still need a valid license. —Angr 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all been done: fair-use tag and rationale. Thanks! Daniel Case 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the semi-protection: it was getting tiresome to keep reverting people. I don't mind changing things when we've had a discussion about why the current text is wrong, but it's just silly if one side's putting their case and then the other's just ignore them and making changes anyway. The Wednesday Island 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I saw your work on the plot template, and the discussion about the copyright violation potentional of plot sections. I've recently proposed a merger of 40+ individual television episodes into their respective seasonal pages. I won't go into detail about everything, because if you choose to look at the discussion I'd rather you had an unfeathered opinion on it. If you can, thanks. If you can't, no biggy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:10077085.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:10077085.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mackintosh Muggleton.jpg

I'm new to uploading information to wikipedia, and I just realized that Image:Mackintosh_Muggleton.jpg was originally deleted by an admin >< and not by me messing up somewhere in editing. Would I be correct in that I would have to contact yahoo and get permission to use the photo they host at [[1]] or did I improperly format the said picture? Perhaps it was (After reading these posts) that I didn't explain enough about the photo / why it would be considered free use for being a red carpet premier photo? I'm a tad unclear, even after reading the links posted above, what the rules are on photos of a living person. All the same, It would be preferred to use this photo as there is limited photos of this new actor and no decent photos ( not even a close up..)in the press kit.

Basically, Wikipedia does not allow nonfree images of living people. The only way this specific photograph could be used is for the photographer to release it under a free license such as the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons Licenses that allow commercial reuse and derivative works (i.e. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), or to release it into the public domain. Any image on which all rights are reserved, or which may be used only noncommercially, or from which derivatives may not be made, is considered nonfree and cannot be used to show what a living person looks like. (See our policy on nonfree content.) —Angr 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

___ I have done some more research on the photo and apparently it was originally released for promoting the movie in a press kit, thus it would be allowed for wikipedia use? ( now I have to figure out how to format it) Thank you for the information =)

Possibly to illustrate an article about the movie, but not to illustrate an article about the actor. —Angr 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion - Cheryl Wheeler

It appears that the image I uploaded of Cheryl Wheeler has been deleted. I didn't see any reason for this deletion, and didn't receive any warning that the image would be deleted. It was my understanding that the person who uploaded the image would be notified before deletion.

The image in question is available on her web site for download. The purpose of those images are to promote Cheryl, and can be used by venues for advertising purposes, concert notes, newspaper articles, etc. Most images include hi-res for printing as well as low-res for web sites. The only requirement is that the official web site is referenced. It seems to me that use with Wikipedia falls into the intent of those images, and the official site is referenced in the external links section of the article.

You can look for yourself at the web site: [2] I would appreciate an explanation of what needs to be done for the image to be used for Wikipedia. I have added your talk page to my watchlist, so you can reply here if you wish. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia does not allow nonfree images of living people. The only way this specific photograph could be used is for the photographer to release it under a free license such as the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons Licenses that allow commercial reuse and derivative works (i.e. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA), or to release it into the public domain. Any image on which all rights are reserved, or which may be used only noncommercially, or from which derivatives may not be made, is considered nonfree and cannot be used to show what a living person looks like. (See our policy on nonfree content.) —Angr 08:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Licko or Ličko

What source do you have that shows Zuzana Licko with the diacritic? The Emigre website uses Licko throughout. [3] Curious: can you show a source?

Gwen Shamblin image

Good Morning, Angr. A few days ago you removed a picture and edited a box on the entry for Gwen Shamblin. The user Sqwikiklean then undid your work in good faith; this user thought you were a vandal. I did at first too, until I read your talk page. Now I realise that you are an admin and are following rules of which both Sqwikiklean and I were unaware. Could you come back over to Gwen Shamblin and fix the infobox and picture again, this time with an explanation for Sqwiki? I'm afraid this user thinks I am overediting and has accused me of "ownership"; by asking you to fix the image again, I am trying to avoid further ownership claims. I would really like to make sure Gwen Shamblin meets all wiki standards, as the page is often altered by Gwen's fans. Efkeathley 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You; much appreciated. Efkeathley 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for help

I'm afraid the user SquikiKlean was indeed angered last night over further edits to Gwen Shamblin. This person keeps insisting that they never deleted information, although the logs clearly show otherwise, and SquikiKlean is leaving long rants on my talk page. Could you point me in the right direction for help or arbitration?Efkeathley 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first place I'd go with the dispute is WP:RFC. —Angr 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I will do so.Efkeathley 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Clapton is God Image

How can I find out who has the copyrights to that image? The only info I can seem to find on the subject was that it was taken in England in the 60's and seen in various music publications. A possible source might be image source but i'm not sure. Any help with this situation would be gladly appreciated. Thanks, Patman2648 08:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can think of is to send an e-mail to one of the addresses at http://www.rocklibrary.com/About/contact.aspx (probably the press@ address) and ask if they know who took the photograph or at least when and where it was first published. If the photograph itself is really as famous as implied in the article, someone must know where it came from. —Angr 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

suggestion for article:dialect map

Hi Angr,

Just a modest suggestion, which you can of course decline if you like... There's no dialect map article. I figured you'd be a good person to write one so I'm dropping a hint. :-) It would be good to have two illustrations: one stylized/simple (Rhenish fan?) and one more detailed... I'm gonna say something on the Linguist List intern's talk page too... thanks Ling.Nut 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit swamped with other things right now to start a whole article, but it sounds like a good topic at any rate. Have fun! —Angr 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my lack of attention! --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ascendancy Top Box.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ascendancy Top Box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)