User talk:Rpvdk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg[edit]

{| align="center" style="background-color: white; border:8px solid red; padding:5px; text-align: center; font-size: larger;" |Warning sign |This file may be deleted. |} Thanks for uploading Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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 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. Oden 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This image still lacks a fair use rationale. Follow this link to see what a fair use rationale needs to include: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Sincerely, --Oden 09:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The image was uploaded before May 4, 2006 so it is ok. Cheers! --Oden 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Amiga emulation[edit]

I see you posted an image of the win-UAE running Phantasie III. I had some questions about the software configuration. If you could email me via the "E-mail this user" link from my user page, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Link fixing[edit]

I saw your change to Peter Popoff and made a small change to it. When linking to a page, it's more readable if you leave the URL encoding out. You linked to "Leap_of_Faith_%28film%29", whereas a link to "Leap of Faith (film)" will work just the same, and is easier to read when editing.

Thanks. -- BillWeiss | Talk

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.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. Abu badali (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale updated! Rpvdk 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the fair use rationale for this image. It's a publicity photo from the official government website, which expressly states that the image may be used for non-commercial, educational purposes. I've added an expanded fair use rationale to the image. Please review it and let me know if there are any questions. Regards Rpvdk 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Rpvdk. Thanks for taking the effort. But the point is, Wikipedia doesn't accept material with non-commercial or educative-only usage restrictions. The point is that Wikipedia's content must be usable, copied, reproduced, modified by anyone for any purpose (including for-profit, etc.). This is what is called free content.
But "unfree" material can be used in some cases, if it's irreplaceble (by a free alternative), highly necessary for our encyclopedic mission (and not just "useful") and doesn't disrespects copyright law. More specifically, the material must fulfill the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, our policy covering usage of unfree material.
Although I agree that the use of Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg doesn't seem to infringe copyright, I believe that this image is not necessary on Beatrix of the Netherlands. If it was a freely licensed or public domain image, we could use it as it's a nice picture. But as an unfree image, we shouldn't use it unless we really need.
I hope you understand. --Abu badali (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The image adds a lot to the articles it is used in, and meets all 10 criteria as listed in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If both articles were littered with non-free images I might agree, but that is not the case. Rpvdk 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In the rationale, you say that the image "qualifies for Fair Use in Beatrix of the Netherlands (...) because it is used to illustrate historically sigificant persons" and also that "A similar quality, uncopyrighted photograph is unlikely to be available from members of the public". A similar quality, uncopyrighted photograph for illustrating this historically significant person already exists: Image:Beatrix05.jpg. The rationale must explain why Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg "adds a lot" to Beatrix of the Netherlands, otherwise it shouldn't be used there.
Let me know if you have any doubts. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll further update the rationale, although I do think it's blatantly obvious why the image is relevant; it's the Queen together with her (late) husband, who is(was) of course also a well-known and important person. I ask that you stop removing the image from from articles because it's really a very very clear case of acceptable fair use. Rpvdk 13:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean "acceptable fair use" as legally acceptable? Do you understand that not every legal image use is allowed by our policy? How does this image helps in the comprehension of the information in the article? --Abu badali (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe it adds to the article because the image shows the queen and her husband Claus, also a very well known public figure. The article wouldn't be complete without mention of Claus, and an image of them together definitely adds encyclopedic value to the article. It's much like the article on Bill Clinton wouldn't be complete without mention and an image of Hillary Clinton. If Claus was little known or a background figure in the royal house it wouldn't be needed, but he was always very much in the public's eye. -- Rpvdk 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Omega and Trivia[edit]

This collection of trivia completely fulfills the criteria of WP:TRIVIA. It is a bunch of irrelevant, unsourced, unencyclopedic trivia, even bearing the "Trivia" caption. Perhaps the first one is salvageable given that there allegedly is a source for that (and it can be incorporated in the article), the rest are totally improper for an encyclopedic article. The fact that something is "interesting" doesn't warrant an encyclopedic entry. More often than not, an encyclopedia is quite boring. PrinceGloria 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See above; please mention any specific issues you have with the rationale. Rpvdk 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I notice that you removed my {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag from File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg. That is not the way to oppose this kind of deletion. Instead you should counter-tag with {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}}. The closing admin will decide whether to keep the file. —teb728 t c 04:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
See the article's talk page and discussion at fair use review. Rpvdk (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beatrixandclausdancing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cargolux europe[edit]

which template are you referring to for european destinations? at CV's website routemap most euro markets are served by truck that's why they were removed from destinations list.119.155.46.217 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For example [1] you see the flight destinations in blue. Where are you getting the information that they are seasonal flights? As far as I know the dutch flights are year round (and I work at one of the airports...) Rpvdk (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Almost none of the Euro routes are showing up in schedules which is being upgraded at CV website, either they are seasonal or not served any more we'll wait and see, exceptions being Prestwick, Barcelona and Milan which continue, while Istanbul is served through another carrier. Some destinations in blue in other parts of the world are also not served in schedules but still showing in map, these are Abu Dhabi, Lusaka, Toronto and Boca Raton.116.71.5.166 (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free image File:GeForce newlogo.png on GeForce 400 Series[edit]

The non-free image File:GeForce newlogo.png was recently restored to GeForce 400 Series by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC) we can keep discussion here...

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is with the fair use rationale for the image you removed. It has a clear rationale that explains the logo is used for the geforce series of video cards. Please explain what the problem is exactly. Thanks Rpvdk (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As explained above, every use of a non-free media file requires a separate, specific fair use rationale for that use. There is no specific rationale for the use of the logo on the GeForce 400 Series article. Generic "series" or group rationales are inappropriate and do not comply with policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
So the problem is, the rationale does not link to the Geforce 400 article explicitly? So why do you not just fix that instead? Rpvdk (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It is incumbent on the people wishing to use non-free content to provide a valid rationale. See second to last line of WP:NFCC. Also note that merely adding a link to the article you want to use it is insufficient. Again, there must be a "separate, specific non-free use rationale". --Hammersoft (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As I read it, that line applies to images that are going to be deleted entirely. In any case, I'll fix it in this instance, but in cases such as this, where the only problem is a technicality, I'd suggest just fixing the problem directly. See WP:SOFIXIT. Rpvdk (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, I won't. This has been debated before, by lots of people, with no result that those removing violations have to fix it. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, my view is that it's better to go around fixing problems rather than just pointing them out. Probably been debated too. Rpvdk (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In my view I am fixing problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)