User talk:Nv8200pa

Image:DemLogo2.png

Why was the image, Image:DemLogo2.png for the Democratic Party removed? I realize that you directed us to WP:PUI for explanation. However, WP:PUI is so dense with information it serves to obfuscate the reaons for the deletion. Would you please explain? Thanks. — SpikeToronto (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo of the Democratic Party is copyrighted. Even though the image was created by the uploader, it does not make it a free image as it is a derivative of a copyrighted image. It is against U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia policy to use copyrighted images in in userboxes and on user pages, which is the only place the image was being used. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If your motives are not politically motivated, then when can we expect you to remove the image located at Image:Republicanlogo Pn.png? It is equally a copyright violation. By the way, do you honestly think that any political party would ever object to a supporter using their logo? But, that’s not the point. What is the point is, why have you not also deleted the image used by supporters of the Republican Party? — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Republicanlogo Pn.png has been requested for deletion, but that image is on Wikimedia Commons. I am not an admin on the Commons and do not have privledges to delete the image there. Sorry, I would delete it if I could. -Nv8200p talk 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s just that lately, it seems that every image associated with the Democratic Party is under attack. Given, the election goings on and the often underhanded tactics of neo-cons, I tend towards being suspicious … sorry if I was mistaken. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your constant "beating me to the punch" on tagging images for deletion. (especially the really crappy images) Undeath (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidelberg images

Hi! Would you mind if I delete the puic tag from these images? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know User:JimmeyTimmey personally, but I guess he's an undergraduate at Heidelberg who erroneously thought that the images in the Heidelberg website's gallery are released under GFDL. I myself am a PhD student/ research assistant at Heidelberg law school, and I uploaded some other pics in the article on behalf of the university's press office. I talked to the press office again after seeing the newly uploaded pics in my article, and the press officer subsequently permitted releasing them under GFDL. I would have marked them for deletion myself if there was a copyright problem since I'm going to shoot for GA soon. Fred Plotz (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can ask the press office to send me an email that I can submit to the comitee. Thanks for your cooperation. - Regards Fred Plotz (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

So Larry I notice you’ve been so kind as to request removal of all my images, you could have told me I was doing it wrong earlier (EG AFTER THE FIRST 1 or 2) to save me taking MY time to upload all these images for you to come along on your high horse and request they are removed.

I don’t know why I bother to contribute to Wikipedia at all. ::Manors:: talk to me 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mileyworld.jpg and MileyWorld

I restored the image and put it back in the article. The original IfD was because the image was a copyright violation to be used in the bio article of Miley Cyrus as decoration. The MileyWorld article was recently created and IMO the image is appropriately used in the infobox as fair use. --NrDg 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will ^(talk) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chewstoke.gif

Thanks for the message about Image:Chewstoke.gif saying "the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content". When I uploaded the file in April 2006 I included in the summary "with the permission of the artist Jenny Ireson and the parish council who commissioned it." Can you tell me what else I need to add to clarify the source?— Rod ^talk 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Glass_bottom_boat_dvd.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Glass_bottom_boat_dvd.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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 non-free media 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. Project FMF (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Caterpillar D10.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Caterpillar D10.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. Rossrs (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Colleen oshaughnessey small.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Colleen oshaughnessey small.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. Rossrs (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Dg2008.jpg listed for deletion

Whoops! I totally forgot that image was still sitting out there! Thanks for bringing it to my attention; it can be deleted.
DigitylGoddess (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:DSC_1487.JPG listed for deletion

Your Comment: An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC_1487.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. Nv8200p talk 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You can delete this image if you want. It was going to be used for a reference page but it's not needed, thank you. FYI, I am the photographer of this image if Wikipedia decides it wants to be kept.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

fair use rationale missing

dear admin,the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Der_Untergang.jpg lacks a fair use rationale,would it be appropriate to remove it from its respective article right away??thanksGrandia01 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Faraz Ahmad.jpeg

How do you explain your deletion of this image "per WP:IFD" seeing the actual ifd here does not show anything resembling consensus to delete (only the nominator supports deletion, against two keep votes)? dab (𒁳) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

then why did you refer to IFD? IFD doesn't mention copyright issues. Your deletion wasn't in fact informed by IFD at all, but by a mistaken interpretation of the "summary" section which linked to further information on the uploader, which was added by me, not by the uploader himself. It has so far been undisputed that the image does indeed depict the uploader, which would mean that he has legally released the image under GFDL.

I would ask you to undelete the image at this point, and if you want to discuss licencing concerns tag the image properly and/or re-submit it to IFD discussing licencing issues as opposed to encyclopedicity issues. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

it was in use in a Signpost article. I have restored it[1]. Thanks, dab (𒁳) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete these images?

Image:Dcdvd1.jpg, Image:Dcdvd2.jpg, and Image:dcboxset.jpg. The reason you stated in the deletion log was "per IFD", which I presume is initials for "Images for Deletion". What I don't understand - not having ever seen the images, myself, - is what was wrong with them? Was it a missing fair use rationale? Missing source? Copyright violation? I know the feelings of users are not considered as important as maintaining consistency with Wikipedia's policies, but one user is really upset because of their deletion, and he keeps returning their red links to the article in which they were used, in hopes of somehow restoring them. It is kind of heartbreaking, and as his talk is on my watchlist, I noticed this was going on, and I thought "if the problem with the images could've been fixed, then why have this unnecessary conflict going on in the article they were used in?". Could you please restore the images so they can be fixed, or at least explain why you can't restore them? Please? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did any of those DVD's have enough significant commentary to have articles? Or be grouped into a list? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's a shame, but it is important to follow our policies. Thank you for your time and explanations, anyway. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:RodneyBurrell.JPG

Long story short, Image:RodneyBurrell.JPG belonged to an article that was speedily deleted: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_burrell. I can't find any CSD criteria to tag it with (or if there is one, I'm too tired to see it). Can it be deleted? -WarthogDemon 06:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holder has uploaded it as a free-use image. Why not delete it from here and reupload it to the Wikimedia Commons? I'm sure there's lots of uses for a facial image of a black man. In the article for black skin type, for instance? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion. It is such low resolution, I wouldn't put it on Commons. -Nv8200p talk 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous demotivator

Don't undelete images which have no chance of following our Non-free content criteria. Will ^(talk) 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove legitimate speedy tags eithr. Will ^(talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be speedied. G12 and I7 are specific exceptions to the rule. Will ^(talk) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, if tagging images was too controversial to speedy, we wouldn't have BetacommandBot. Will ^(talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Except there is no "reasonable doubt". The copyright holder is anonymous with a lower-case "A", not upper-case, and it's impossible to differentiate an "Anonymous" on /v/ with an "Anonymous" on /b/. Therefore it is impossible to identify the copyright holder. Which is required per 10a. Will ^(talk) 15:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Dokhtar_Tajiki.jpg

I altered a picture? You mean upload only right? Here is the source how is it altered? Just curious http://www.flickr.com/photos/marusia/203623804/ Cyrus111 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, she has all the right to shine for her nation, a letter © at the bottom of the picture is nothing she would understand or care about I can just contact Maurisa and she will give me this perm, God Bless Cyrus111 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you still watching Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29?

Don't get me wrong, nowhere does it say you were watching it but I noticed you've accounted for most if not all of the other images there. I also noticed you were doing so as of at least the 11th so I wondered if you were giving extra time given the amount of discussion, you had other stuff going on either here or in real life, your watchlist is huge, or you just moved on.

The reason I ask is that I just can't get the "keepers" to understand that it comes from a site which doesn't identify the authors of images in its galleries and is also claiming to release them, including photos taken by other groups like the International Solidarity Movement, under {{GFDL}}. (If they had been released by the author under GFDL it seems either the image's uploader or the site from which it came should be able to identify the authors.) Anyway I was thinking of going to WP:ANI to ask someone to close the discussion one way or another, but before I did wanted to make sure you hadn't set a deadline of your own on this. Anynobody 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good deal, I don't plan on doing that right away because I'm trying to avoid the WP:ANI route if at all possible. Given the amount of discussion if an admin deletes the image after such a request it could be perceived that the image was deleted because I asked not because it's really supposed to be thus engendering further conflict. Thanks, it's good to know I won't be stepping on your toes if I decide there's no other way :) Anynobody 04:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SWAT Kats Images

I just got your messages about the SWAT Kats images I uploaded, and I have no objections to them being deleted if they are in violation. I want to stick to the rules of Wikipedia, and if the SWAT Kats images have to be deleted, so be it. And003 (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach image

Like to get this pic deleted. The reason this is not what she looks like now and its Unencyclope Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg Michaelm (talk)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Gillespie County, Texas

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. I created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Gillespie County, Texas to make it easier for photographers such as yourself to find location specific requested photographs. The other counties in Central Texas have their own category as well. Please consider adding your name on the category page and monitoring other category pages that contain requested photographs in the areas you travel in Texas. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bio-HQ.jpg

I am reviewing the {imagevio|1=undefined} on Image:Bio-HQ.jpg and it looks to me like all the appropriate premissions are in place. While the image is on http://www.dubiotech.ae/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=11 I do not see any reason to doubt that the ownership of the image belongs to the posting editor. If I am missing something please leave a note on my talk page pointing me towards it. Jeepday (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response my talk Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cook image

I am the one who added the image you took down of the Dr. Cook bridle on the bitless bridle page. I received permission from Dr. Cook personally to use this photo. He does not know anything about gfci or whatever licences, and neither do I. Isn't there a way to use the photo if the owner has given written permission to do so? Just wondering. Thanks. He's a very busy man and was very nice to grant us permission to use the photo.... I don't want him to have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to make the photo public domain, or something. Thanks again. --AeronM (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again... referencing the comment on my talk page: I did not place the tag on the image... another editor who was helping me did that and told me it was the correct tag. I will follow up with Dr. Cook to see if it is ok to put the image in the public domain. --AeronM (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Continuing discussion on my talk page here. Your advice would be most welcome. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernice Lui

May I ask why the picture for Bernice Lui was deleted useing WP:PUI when I have receieved no reply upon my argument? Dengero (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg

WP:IUP: "Such images can include photographs which you yourself took (remember that rights to images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject), drawings or diagrams you yourself created, and other self-created work. Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram, however, does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work. Photographs of three-dimensional objects almost always generate a new copyright, though others may continue to hold copyright in items depicted in such photographs." <emphasis added>

The uploader of that image took a photo of a three-dimensional object of which he was the owner and uploaded it under a free license. Derivative works by no means cover this type of situation. Please undelete this image, which had previously contributed to multiple articles, and was tagged as "possibly unfree" with zero explanation as to why. MalikCarr (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Firstly, I was protesting the deletion of the image in the above header, not the one below. Secondly, Wikipedia policy trumps US copyright law - it is intentionally more restrictive in many senses, including fair use applications, but this is specifically covered by the IUP. You're a sysop, and this is the project policy - it should be enforced as such. MalikCarr (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I've poked around on other images (in this case, only related to cigarettes) and found multiple other free images that contain package artwork - here, here and here. Are these invalid and subject to deletion as well? The assertion that a free-use self-made photograph of a three-dimensional object can't contain any kind of copyrighted artwork is absolutely ludicrous - the volume of images that would have to be deleted would thin out the Commons by a fifth or more. There's no conceivable way that that interpretation of US copyright law would be appropriate for Wikipedia in any imagination. Would this be to suggest that the accepted norm on both Wikipedia and the Commons are completely wrong about the interpretation of their own policies, which state in perfectly clear language that this is an acceptable use of relevant media? MalikCarr (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ear8989.gif listed for deletion

Please feel free to delete this image. I have no idea why I have uploaded/altered it. Thanks, Izhaki —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

image removed from Kathleen York page

PLEASE, PLEASE, Please help me to understand what I need to do to keep an image on Ms. York's page. I work for Ms. York, and have posted an image that she owns the rights to (an official head-shot), and have done so at her request. I have done my best to comply with Wiki's policies, but they are nearly impossible to follow, and there is no method of communication to get any assistance in order to meet the requirements. Were there someone who were willing to assist, instead of summarily deleting and pointing to an arcane and confusing set of conflicting legal instructions, Wiki would be far better off.

I would like nothing more than to have the image posted in proper legally-abiding fashion. Would someone PLEASE help those attempting to help the Wiki??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexikav (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ifd oddness

Hi, what is going on here? Those images still have IFD tags on them. If you are not going to proceed, I suggest you remove the ifd tag with a clear message, so that the users can see that they don't need to load the IFD page. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You reverted your nominations.[2] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it now. In attempting to remove one duplicate entry, I rolled back all my edits. I have put the nominations back in where they belong. Thanks for catching that. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NP, not using it at the moment, so go ahead delete it ASAP, but the image may be used using a ref to the site where one got it, it clearly states this, ok then best regards Cyrus111 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:HenriNouwen.jpg

Hello Larry, sorry about that image; I got that from here back when I was still a wet-behind-the-ears Wikipedian. Should have seen the copyright line at the bottom of the page. Please delete the image, thanks. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Feedback 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay of my personal sandbox page

Hey there!!! If you would like me to educate you on what the sandbox is, I can in great depth, but basically, it's where you can play and practice without people editing and destroying your work. Please make note of this in the future. How about you stay off my personal sandbox page, please go read about Wikipedia's sandbox page before you delete images off my own personal sandbox At the bottom of each image is a link that says "what this image is linked to" , if it's linked to someone's sandbox, you might want to stay off. The whole point of a sandbox is to edit things, like licences and such, in DRAFT mode, ie, not PERFECT FOR PUBLIC PUBLICAION. Please restore the image, apoligize, and have a nice day. --Eckre (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yo! read the about sandbox, it does NOT have the same rules as a published wiki, as does the pictures on the wiki. Pictures attached to my sandbox are still in my sandbox STAY AWAY, shoo! get@ psst! SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP, a sandbox is to just throw things up and see how they work and adjust licenses and adjust spelling and format and stuff, it does not have to be perfect!!! go so something other than just delete others work in process.

--Eckre (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update II:

"The Sandbox was created as a place with fewer rules and policies than other pages on Wikipedia. For example, you don't have to follow the Manual of Style or reach community consensus before making a major change. However, it must not be used for malicious purposes, and policies such as no personal attacks and civility still apply"

The pictures or content are not malicious, and the standard rules DO NOT APPLY.

Again, use your COMMON SENSE and COMMON COURTESY if it's on someone's sandbox, hold off. It's not hurting anyone, they can slowly edit stuff and adjust licenses as they wish and learn how. If you will not allow this, please tell me where can I edit stuff in the sandbox as advertised. --Eckre (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hedrick_blackpainting.gif

Howdy, could you enlighten me about your concern for this image? It is my photo. Thank you, Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008

======

Thank you for your very learned correspondence on my talk page. It was very useful and informative, and yes, I was glad to make the copyright correction, making the copyright point a mute issue. As you said yourself, there is now no copyright infringement claim against the image. Thank you.

Next, the next claim upon the image was that the image is 'orphaned'. I know you are very busy, so your error is very understandable. The image is NOT orphaned at all. In fact the image, entitled 'Black Painting', is placed EXACTLY in this paragraph about the 'Black Paintings':

The Black Paintings were Hedrick's protest against the Vietnam War.[11] Hedrick took "about 50" [70] of his early canvases and painted them black. [11] Hedrick's Black Paintings culminate in 1967 with "War Room". This series "was an idiosyncratic protest, but a passionate one." [11]

Clearly the image and the paragraph in the article are 'family', hence the image is not an orphan.

Given the above, I consider this matter resolved, therefore please remove the 'remove' tag from the image when you have the chance. However, if there is some nuance of the claim that I am overlooking, or I am misunderstanding, please help me out, I'm not too bright and I love to learn.

Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friend, thank you again for removing the flags from this image: ie, copyright and orphan. However, it seems that the error messages appeared again. I am new, so could you help me, again, to remove those removal tags...sorry, I am a newbie...but I do appreciate your assistance. --Art4em (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WORLDHEALTH map

Hi, it's been listed for deletion for some time, and there's overwhelming support for deletion, with detail reasons proffered. I wonder whether you can apprise me of the procedure? I notice almost every other image listed has been deleted. TONY (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:GroupPhoto2007.01.14.004.JPG

Hi. I noticed that you deleted Image:GroupPhoto2007.01.14.004.JPG, saying that it was orphaned and unencyclopaedic. I'm a bit confused as to why this was happened: the image was not orphaned, and I'd argue that it was encyclopaedic. I see that you both nominated and deleted the image, with no input from anyone else.

Upon investigating this a bit more, I noticed that this explanation was given a lot at WP:IFD. I hope you don't mind, but I've started a discussion on the talk page (under the section "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic"), using this image as an example. My critisism is aimed at WP:IFD in general, not specifically at you.

Please let me know your side of this issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of photo of which I am the author

Hello, This does not directly concern you, but I found your comments on Peel Mike Peels talk page and found them more intelligent than most things I have seen on the subject. About a year ago, I uploaded a photo by me to illustrate a salient point in a specific article. This has been copied onto Commons, which I wouldn't mind about, except that some idiot has now deleted it from the original upload page, meaning that I now have to go through the hassle once again of downloading and refitting it into the text. Two questions: i) why can't the original stay where it is with a duplicate on Commons? ii) failing that is there another type of copyright that would restrict the photo to its specific use? Most editors seem to consider this a non-issue that I would do better to work around; I think it's a waste of my time and a pain in the arse nobody should be subjected to, especially if repeated. Any suggestions as to where I might take this case? Thanks,--John of Paris (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

=Regarding Deletion of Photos

Bonjour, I was resident of Yanam, India. I have collected very rare photographs regarding olden days of Yanam. I am interested to keep in wikipedia so that everybody can have access to them..can you tell me what kind of license i have to give for these things...Thanks...Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Personality rights warning

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Personality rights warning, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Personality rights warning has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Personality rights warning, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Giacomo Gates

That is strange regarding Image:Giacomo Gates.jpg. I talked with this author and everything and they explicitly made it an Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license. Someone must have switched it since I uploaded it. What a waste of my time. Thanks for catching it. (Mind meal (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Regarding deletion of the image

I am very happy to receive reply from you sir. Actually i got those images from my friend whose grand father was then Mayor of Yanam during the french rule. Indeed his father had scanned those pictures. Even i got other photos also, but they are not that much clear. I got permission from him to publish these pictures. His surname is Madimchetty. You can even check in net about who is Monsieur Madimchetty Satianandam, the then mayor of Yanam. Now a days I am passive in wikipedia, so not able to concentrate much on my articles. Just see to them, if you feel they are really violation then delete them...if not you can keep them. I would be very happy to get a review regarding those images from you sir.Au revoir.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the image Picture19.png

The picture was taken by Harsh Mangal( a user of Flickr). I sent him a Flickr Mail some days ago to ask his permission if I could use his Pic. He replyed by saying that he would love to help Wikipedia and said that he only wanted his picture to be used for Wikipedia. Thats why all rights of the copyright are reserved. So as you know now, I posted it on wikipedia for use by Wikipedia. Is there any way that the picture can remain and not be deleted because Harsh Mangal wants the picture to be used for the use of Wikipedia. The only reason for having all rights reserved of the copyright is so that other people might not use it for their own use.Please Help and Do REPLY .Manaspunhani (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Hex-Hand.JPG

I find this rather puzzling, as I don't remember ever uploading pictures of any sort to Wikipedia. In lieu of any information of what it depicted, I cannot say exactly whether this is so, but it certainly seems unfamiliar to me. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike that - I remember the image to which you refer, regarding how to count hexadecimal on one's hand. I hold no objections to its deletion. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work

Does that mean recreating a product such as a PlayStation 3 with inkscape an using it violates copyright? thumb

The south park character is made using the specific create a character software available on the web, and not only this, but it is entirely my own creation, there is no Agent 47 in south park. In other words, it is a cartoon character I have created entirely, using the animation style of south park. JTBX (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:VLC Vista.png

I request that the deletion be overturned. I had no chance to make a defense statement. I argue De minimis. According to ViperSnake151, we should just delete every single image on Wikipedia that has a Microsoft or Apple GUI in it. What has this place become? --TV-VCR watch 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. :) --TV-VCR watch 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just delete the image. I don't want to wrestle with this mentally-disabled 'editor' anymore. --TV-VCR watch 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)