User talk:Damiens.rf

Image listed for deletion

In reply to your listing the image Image:Johan Helsingius.jpg for deletion: the original copyright message has been added with an added explanation on the copyright status. Please also see the comment on the Images and media for deletion page.

This should satisfy the standing guidelines, please un-list the image for deletion.

Angliski

Please don't edit on the English Wikipedia if English isn't your primary language. You're just embarassing yourself:

Christopher J. Barnes (born June 24 1965) is an American former child actor known for his role as Tanner Boyle in the movies The Bad News Bears and its sequel The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training'

Cbsite (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF

you got a friend... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Go away

There's a message on my talk page warning about disparaging messages - so don't post there, ok? What I did was completely fine, and I will do it again if you continue with the nonsense you are carrying on with. You are making nominations in violation of WP:POINT to bully Australian editors and I will report you if you keep doing so. You do not understand Australia and you should stop making up spurious reasons for deleting photos when they are entitled to be there. There is not a blanket ban on non-free images, so stop trying to introduce one via the back door through pushing the boundaries of policy creep via the back door. If you want a blanket ban then od it through the proper channels. JRG (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what JRG has said. Lots of editors put in hours upon hours to actually write articles here, find pictures, organise everything, and bring it all together coherently. They are contributing. Your action is nothing of that sort; it is bullying and vandalism, wasting the valuable time of valuable editors who have much more important things to do than clean up the erratic mess you are creating. Very kindly, stop. Find something constructive to do. Michael ^talk 08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've made a complaint about my rather unpleasant experience of you several weeks ago, if you'd like to chime in. Cbsite (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg

A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Newsom

Not sure what language you excel in, but it obviously isn't English. PLEASE STOP corrupting the Joanna Newsom page.

Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RE Joanna Newsom

if you knew anything about Joanna Newsom and could be bothered looking at the page (for references) you wouldn't be waisting my time. Vandalise the page again and I will report it! Snoop God (talk)

WILL YOU PLEASE STOP IT?

Wil you please stop putting every fair use image up for deletion. It in no way helps wikipedia and I will be forced to report you if you keep putting images with adeqaute rationales up for deletion. Images of deceased people when a free image is impossible to obtain it is within wikipedian policy and copywright law to use the images if a replaceable image is not available. AN image used to identify the subject is encyclopedia and therefore rmeoval is damaging. Such images providing they have a fair use rationale and are irreplaceable are generally acceptable on wikipedia. Ask any administrator. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Those images you have nominated are not adequate for deletion unless a free image becomes available. If you study WP:FAIRUSE you will see that this is acceptable.Rule 1 is: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

I've been on here a long term and done a great deal of work for wikipedia and know what is generally acceptable for fair use. If we had free images of these people who are no longer living we would be using them instead, but as we don't and it won't be possible to obtain a new one we can legitamtely use them. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think the image policy is but Yone Minagawa has an adequate rationale and a caption within the article which clearly helps the reader encyclopedically. If you remain fixated by your idea of what is not acceptable you are going to make yourself very unpopular on here fast and in doing so have to learn the hard way The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 2 Interpretation

You seem to be basing a large number of your deletion criteria on the fact an image comes from a news agency, and therefore harms their economic interests. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we tag our non-free images as such, therefore, per NFCC 2 "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." our coverage, in and of itself, will not replace the original new agency's market. To this end we limit the number of images per page and require low resolution images, as well as the whole NFCC tagging and categorization scheme. I really would prefer you took this interpretation up at WT:NFCC than continuing to tag compliant images. MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As I explained just now on IRC, Damiens.rf is essentially right in his interpretation of NFCC#2, and I very much encourage him to continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although, it might be wiser to take it a bit more slowly. Not to upset too many people all at the same time, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)