User talk:Ianmacm

Audio

Well, I think my help qualified me more for a maniac barnstar, but since I don't think we have one available, I guess this one'll do :) Anyway, if you need my ears for anything else in the future, please don't hesitate to drop a note. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 13:12 (UTC)

YouTube

As it happens, I do agree with you about the need to create modern video material in progressively scanned format as far as possible. However, this is beyond the scope of YouTube, because people will upload videos in a range of formats.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that more people will read this article on YouTube than YouTube's own guidelines, which, by the way, simply say that YouTube "prefers" deinterlaced videos, and do not spell out the details. While Wikipedia is not a user's guide, I still would like to draw a greater attention to deinterlacing issues. BTW, the NASA video that I linked in the talk page, looks fine at 480p, but shows combing at 720p, in the same player window 854x480. I don't know who performed the deinterlacing, NASA or YouTube, but the problem seems to worsen with YouTube going HD, because there is less room for vertical smoothing. Mikus (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Deinterlacing involves taking two images shot at slightly different times, and blending them into the same frame. Inevitably, this will involve loss of image quality for some types of material. This is not a problem unique to YouTube, and for average or slow moving material, it may not be a great problem. It has been suggested that for fast moving videos (eg sports) that progressive scanning is preferable. The European Broadcasting Union was very clear about preferring 720p to 1080i in its January 2005 report.[1] However, I don't make the rules at the EBU, and this is not specifcally an issue at YouTube. This is why I have tried not to become too involved here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Deinterlacing involves taking two images shot at slightly different times, and blending them into the same frame." -- this is not the only deinterlacing method, and in fact, this is the worst one, it works for static images only. If you looked in the "Deinterlacing" article you would see that other -- and better -- methods exist. YouTube seems to use field blending as default deinterlacing scheme and it sucks. Many NLEs like Sony Vegas for example, allow using different methods, but use blending as a default one, and many users do not care to change it or they simply do not know/care about how exactly they deinterlace. Here: http://www.100fps.com/ and here http://www.avchduser.com/articles/watching_interlaced_video.jsp

"This is not a problem unique to YouTube" -- I never said it was unique to YouTube. I am saying that the problem is there and must be acknowledged.

"for average or slow moving material, it may not be a great problem." -- exactly, for slow moving material it is ok, but there is very little slow moving material in videos, especially in videos shot by amateurs.

"It has been suggested that for fast moving videos (eg sports) that progressive scanning is preferable." -- Not exactly. Progressive video can be shot with say 24, 25 or 30 fps, in this case it will look like a movie and it will stutter badly if you try to shoot sports with it. Video shot with 50/60 fps is ideal, but very few consumer camcorders can shoot with this rate. So, interlaced video is to the rescue because it has 50/60 images per second rate. Consumer TV sets have no problems displaying interlaced TV feed. Please note, that even modern progressive-scan plasma and LCD panels have no "jaggies", because they deinterlace interlaced video using either complex motion-adaptive algorithms or simple "bob" algorithm, so why YouTube cannot do the same? Why it cannot convert interlaced video into progressive using "bob" or "single field" methods? Anyway, I am not writing this to attack YouTube, I just want to point out to the problem, and to possible solutions. I personally deinterlace my videos with "single field", I lose vertical resolution but I don't get jaggies or ghosting. It still looks great in 480p and in 720p. Should we advertise this method in the wiki? I guess no because this would be a HOW-TO. Should we stress out that bad deinterlacing makes videos look horrible? I believe that we must do this, and we must point out to specific issues like combing or ghosting, so that the readers/viewers as well as content owners were aware why some videos look like crap. Mikus (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in the early 2000s, there was a debate about which standard Europe should adopt for is new HD broadcasts, 720p/50 or 1080i/25. The EBU came down firmly in favour of 720p/50, but the result was not binding on national governments.[2] In May 2006 the BBC and Sky went for 1080i/25, which caused some controversy at the time. Web video is invariably progressive, but I can't really comment on the exact method that YouTube uses to deniterlace its videos prior to streaming. Any conversion process (deinterlacing, NTSC to PAL etc) usually loses some of the picture quality. All that it has been possible to source reliably for the article YouTube is that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos to be uploaded where possible. That way, the uploader cannot complain if they do not like the way in which the deinterlacing was done for them by YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of these developments. I want is to explicitly say that (1) both interlaced and progressive types of videos are accepted, and (2) deinterlacing may cause various artifacts. I will not list those artifacts, if you so much against it, but will link to Deinterlacing article. BTW, yesterday I uploaded three interlaced videos to YouTube, and they were automatically deinterlaced. I do not see combing, but I see ghosting, and as such the image is soft. Obviously, YT uses field blending. But I won't mention these details as this is OR per Wikipedia. Mikus (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that deinterlacing may cause artifacts would have WP:OR issues without a reliable source. It is OK to say that YouTube will accept progressive or interlaced videos, but the only reliable sourcing is that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, it is not OR, it is a known fact. The Deinterlacing article lists many of them, so I think it is fine to list the same ones in the YT article. I already provided you with links above, the www.100fps.com has probably most of the possible artifacts in one place. You want more? I can find more, but I don't understand why I should look for prooflinks for the YT article, these links should be presented in the Deinterlacing article, and I would merely use whatever info is spelled out in that article, because it is already supposed to conform to Wiki standards. Wikipedia would be a mess if there were no possibility to refer to other articles. Mikus (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the main concerns has been to stay within WP:TOPIC for YouTube. There are many things about how Flash Video works that could be said in the article, but they are beyond the scope of YouTube unless they have significant notability. The article should try to avoid reading like an instruction manual for uploading videos to YouTube, and the only official statement that YouTube makes on this issue is that it prefers deinterlaced videos to be uploaded. By clicking on Deinterlacing, it is possible to look at this issue in much more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there should be an incentive, a reason for a reader to click on that link. Simply saying that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos does not urge a reader to read about the process. Mikus (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking for something about this that relates specifically to Flash Video and is not from a blog or forum. This comes from the Flash Video Encoder User Guide and gives the standard advice that video should be deinterlaced prior to Flash conversion. However, it is not specific to YouTube, where it can be taken as read that YouTube will deinterlace videos before streaming them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about Flash, it is about that deinterlacing can cause different kinds of artifacts, like blurring, ghosting (double-image), combing ("mouse teeth"), loss of resolution, etc. These should be mentioned to urge a reader to click on deinterlacing link for details. These are all well-known artifacts. As I said, many of them are mentioned in the deinterlacing article and as such I don't see why they should require prooflinks in the YT article. Mikus (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

About your link:

"Most broadcast video is interlaced, though emerging high-definition television standards" -- was this written 15 years ago and not revised since then?

"the upper field (or Field 1) contains all of the odd-numbered lines, and the lower field (or Field 2) contains all of the even-numbered lines." -- depends on video standard.

"In NTSC video, new fields are drawn to the screen approximately 60 times per second, which corresponds to a frame rate of approximately 30 frames per second." -- this is ambiguous, there is no real frame rate in interlaced TV, there is field rate. Telling people about frames does not help.

"Noninterlaced video frames are not separated into fields. ... both fields that make up a video frame are shown simultaneously." -- Huh? They just said that progressive video is NOT separated into fields, so where did "fields that make up a video frame" come from?

"a computer monitor displays video at 30 fps, and most video displayed on computer monitors is noninterlaced." -- Huh? Using a computer monitor at 30Hz would be a horrible experience. AFAIK, 60Hz has been the lowest refresh rate since 1980-ies. It is not 30fps, it is 60fps or higher.

"Typically you will always want to deinterlace video content used in Flash. Both the Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 codecs used to encode Flash video can cause unwanted artifacts when encoding interlaced video." -- Sorenson Spark? Yeah, this was written long ago.

"There are instances when you may want to avoid deinterlacing: for example, if the source video doesn't contain too many interlacing artifacts (typically caused by horizontal pans or motion)." -- What they meant here is "weave" deinterlacing, because ANY process of converting interlaced into progressive is deinterlacing. They mudding the waters.

"When you deinterlace, you discard half of the video's vertical resolution." -- What they actually meant is that Flash supports (or supported at that time) only a simple "bob"/"single field" deinterlacing, no fancy adaptive stuff was offered.

"You may also want to avoid deinterlacing if you're reducing the size of the video substantially--to 240 x 180 pixels or less--because the pixel averaging that occurs when resizing video to a smaller size can cause interlacing artifacts that appear as a motion blur." -- Indeed, this is what I meant by "blurring" and "ghosting".

All in all, this is a bad, bad, bad document. I would not link to it as it does not help at all. Mikus (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This document comes from the Adobe website, so it must have some "official" status. The main issue is that it must be several years old, because it mentions Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6, which are now less common than they once were. The other thing that caught my eye in this link is that it is possible to use interlaced scanning in a Flash video, although I have never come across one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if this will sound rude, but is all that you care about is the "official status"? Can you draw conclusions yourself? Do you have your own personal experience? How many computer monitors with 30Hz refresh rate you have come across? This document is a bag of worms. First they say "you can use Flash Video Encoder to either maintain the interlacing, or deinterlace it during encoding to create noninterlaced video", this means that ANY process of converting interlaced into noninterlaced (a.k.a. progressive-scan) video is deinterlacing. On the other hand, they say: "There are instances when you may want to avoid deinterlacing: for example, if the source video doesn't contain too many interlacing artifacts (typically caused by horizontal pans or motion). When you deinterlace, you discard half of the video's vertical resolution", this means that by deinterlacing they mean using just one field from a frame ("single field" deinterlacing). They also say that for static images you may want to not deinterlace, but as I understand they don't mean the result is interlaced, they mean the result is deinterlaced with "weave", that is, by combining two fields into one frame to not lose vertical resolution. This document is ambiguous at best and erroneous at worst. Anyway, my original point was not about Flash, it was about deinterlacing. Flash is not the only encoder/company that does deinterlacing, does not it? I want to make a general statement about generic artifacts. I am tired arguing, I will make the change and will provide a ton of references if you insist on them. Mikus (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was only pointing out that it came from the Adobe website. I really can't comment on the specifics of deinterlacing because it is a specialized subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This web page has enough detail to keep even the most interested video hobbyist happy. A lot of this is beyond the realms of the average user, but it does compare the advantages and disadvantages of the various deinterlacing methods.

Duh! I pointed you to this article two or three times already.

This page looks at how to shoot video for streaming, and comes up with the standard conclusion that it is better to use progressive, particularly for high motion scenes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is no news, but thanks anyway. You keep ignoring what I am saying as well as the links I point you to. I am saying that wikipedia should trust other articles. If deinterlacing article already has all the prooflinks and spells out the artifacts, then I don't need to look for prooflinks AGAIN in the YouTube article. Mikus (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am convinced that the average YouTube user does not have sleepless nights over deinterlacing artifacts when they have uploaded a home video of a skateboarding dog. The main issue here is WP:TOPIC. The details of the issue are beyond the scope of YouTube, but the basics are currently mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Four more words will not wander the article off the topic, but will raise reader's interest in specifics of deinterlacing. Mikus (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is some original research on the interlaced vs progressive scanning issue

After a rummage through the vault, I found the master copy of the Philips HDTV demo video Colors of Miami. This is often used to demonstrate Blu-ray Disc at point of sale in shops. It is a 1080i/60 video and plays at 29.97 fps. Here is the MediaInfo:
Format  : MPEG-TS File size  : 769 MiB Duration  : 5mn 32s Overall bit rate  : 19.4 Mbps

Video ID  : 17 (0x11) Menu ID  : 1 (0x1) Format  : MPEG Video Format version  : Version 2 Format profile  : Main@High Format settings, BVOP  : Yes Format settings, Matrix  : Default Format settings, GOP  : M=3, N=15 Duration  : 5mn 31s Bit rate mode  : Constant Bit rate  : 18.4 Mbps Width  : 1 920 pixels Height  : 1 080 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16:9 Frame rate  : 29.970 fps Color space  : YUV Chroma subsampling  : 4:2:0 Bit depth  : 8 bits Scan type  : Interlaced Scan order  : Top Field First Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.296 Stream size  : 722 MiB (94%)

Audio ID  : 20 (0x14) Menu ID  : 1 (0x1) Format  : AC-3 Format/Info  : Audio Coding 3 Mode extension  : CM (complete main) Duration  : 5mn 32s Bit rate mode  : Constant Bit rate  : 192 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Channel positions  : Front: L R Sampling rate  : 48.0 KHz Bit depth  : 16 bits Stream size  : 7.61 MiB (1%)
Here is a screenshot without deinterlacing, from 3:13 in the video, with clear comb distortion on the woman's hand and body where she has moved between fields. Someone has been kind enough to upload this video to YouTube already, and it is here. This means that it has been deinterlaced and can be watched at resolutions up to 1080p on YouTube. Personally, I could not see anything wrong with the deinterlacing of this video on YouTube, and the woman's hand at 3:13 seemed fine and did not have noticeable ghosting or blurring, as suggested in this edit. Incidentally, I don't know how YouTube deinterlaces the videos, it would be necessary to ask them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you see a difference between "deinterlacing may cause artifacts like..." and "YouTube always fucks up your video, making it unwatchable"? Really. This is not about YouTube per se, and not about Flash. This is about deinterlacing IN PRINCIPLE and how in MAY affect interlaced video. Mikus (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This has become a bit of a puzzle. All YouTube says is that it prefers deinterlaced videos to be uploaded.[3] The details of deinterlacing have WP:TOPIC issues in YouTube, and are best left to Deinterlacing, which is wikilinked in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a version of the Colors of Miami video converted to progressive using HandBrake.[4]. MediaInfo for this file (82.7MB) is
Format  : MPEG-4

Format profile  : Base Media / Version 2 Codec ID  : mp42 File size  : 82.7 MiB Duration  : 5mn 32s Overall bit rate  : 2 088 Kbps Encoded date  : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02 Writing application  : HandBrake 0.9.4 2009112300

Video ID  : 1 Format  : AVC Format/Info  : Advanced Video Codec Format profile  : Baseline@L3.0 Format settings, CABAC  : No Format settings, ReFrames  : 2 frames Codec ID  : avc1 Codec ID/Info  : Advanced Video Coding Duration  : 5mn 31s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 1 735 Kbps Width  : 720 pixels Height  : 400 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16:9 Frame rate mode  : Variable Frame rate  : 29.970 fps Minimum frame rate  : 14.985 fps Maximum frame rate  : 29.970 fps Color space  : YUV Chroma subsampling  : 4:2:0 Bit depth  : 8 bits Scan type  : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.201 Stream size  : 68.7 MiB (83%) Writing library  : x264 core 79 Encoding settings  : cabac=0 / ref=2 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=umh / subme=6 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.0:0.0 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=3 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / wpredp=0 / keyint=300 / keyint_min=30 / scenecut=40 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=20.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00 Encoded date  : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02 Color primaries  : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4, SMPTE RP177 Transfer characteristics  : BT.709-5, BT.1361 Matrix coefficients  : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4 709, SMPTE RP177

Audio #1 ID  : 2 Format  : AAC Format/Info  : Advanced Audio Codec Format version  : Version 4 Format profile  : LC Format settings, SBR  : No Codec ID  : 40 Duration  : 5mn 32s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 159 Kbps Maximum bit rate  : 188 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Channel positions  : Front: L R Sampling rate  : 48.0 KHz Stream size  : 6.31 MiB (8%) Encoded date  : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

photo permission

When the original uploader inquired me about this photo, I informed her that my files were all licensed under a creative commons sharealike license and were free to be used in any way before she uploaded it.

I also attached a creative commons licensing tag and a proper description template to the image, and have sent a photo permission email to the address requested. Hopefully this is enough to end the questionable status of the image. --weev _{talk 2 me} G N A A™ 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weev (talk • contribs)

OK thanks, Wikipedia can seem fussy about copyrights, but it looks like this image will stay if you have sent in an e-mail giving permission.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pillage and plunder

Well, if it's a quote from something, I wouldn't know—I haven't watched Russian TV in ten years and don't really follow their trends and pop-culture. The search engine results suggest it's a popular slogan in multi-player games like WoW, but whether it's originally from there or was borrowed from elsewhere, I have no idea. You might want to post this question at WT:RUSSIA; maybe some real Russians will be able to answer it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 13:34 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube - Taiwan

Although YouTube uses the common name, I believe it's Wikipedia policy to generally use the official political name, Republic of China, see WP:NC-TW. Regards, --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main concern here was agreement with what the source says. YouTube describes the content location as Taiwan on the site interface at [5]. Incidentally, one of YouTube's founders, Steve Chen (YouTube) is Taiwanese. I'm not an expert on the Taiwan/ROC debate, but the article Foreign relations of the Republic of China points out that the ROC term lacks widespread diplomatic recognition. Also, the average English speaker tends to use Taiwan rather than ROC, but it is the description of the YouTube content location that was the main guide here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Most international organisations, as you said, do not recognise nor use the "Republic of China", instead using the "Taiwan" moniker, (if Wikipedia did that, we'd be using Taiwan instead of ROC, in the relevant areas, violating NPOV) however, in order to adhere to NPOV, and WP:NC-CHN, it is important to apply that term appropriately, when referring to the country. I thought Republic of China (Taiwan) would be the most appropriate usage, as it gives both the official and common name and, according to policy appropriate to use "when identifying the state in a general, non-specific way".--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why again???

Johnny!!! but your describing about Zimmer's article (your property) is not from reliable sources??? Let's talk together... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.15.156 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a busy person and cannot play games. Per WP:TPO, the comments of other users on talk pages should not be edited. I do not WP:OWN the article Hans Zimmer, and it was semi-protected by an administrator after WP:SOCK problems. Any edits to this or other articles should reflect Wikipedia policies, particularly the WP:FIVEPILLARS. These are non-negotiable, so any edits that go against these principles will be removed. I have tried to make the article Hans Zimmer read less like a rehash of his IMDb profile and more like a Wikipedia article. If you can find sourcing that improves the article, please feel free to add it. But please, no sockpuppets, one account, one user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just kidding Wikiman, do not be upset... what is your job? Are you musician? Are you playing any instrument? Whould you please tell me how to find that one source is reliable? I'm copyediting some musicians article... is there any list of this reliable sources about Art? I'm looking for but i found just a little info! ... buddy how is my english? is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.15.156 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You can listen to the harpsichord piece on my user page if you are bored:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Today I will listen only Symphony of Psalms (Stravinsky) and Orient&Occident (Arvo Part), thx dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.15.156 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Very nice music. NotIanmacm (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Instant

How do I change my user name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotIanmacm (talk • contribs) 09:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and have edited the article to avoid WP:ADVERT issues. Someone is playing games with multiple accounts on this article, and it is not very funny or clever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Smolensk plane crash wreck.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Smolensk plane crash wreck.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[6][7]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to get this right, see Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. The image may have unclear use tagging, since "Elcommendante" has made a hash of specifying how the image should be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Marx page

--KimEstlund (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Hello Ian. I work with Richard Marx and would love to give you an approved, owned-by-Richard, approved for editorial use image for his page. Just don't know how to go about sending you the pic! I am still trying to figure my way around wiki! :)