User talk:Nv8200pa
Image Restoration
I've modified the images and removed the PUI tag. Thanks. Chassisplans —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Image deleted due to "no modification" invalidating fair use license. I'm willing to modify that to conform to the license if you will restore the image.Chassisplans (talk)
Image deleted due to "no modification" invalidating fair use license. I'm willing to modify that to conform to the license if you will restore the image.Chassisplans (talk)
Image deleted due to "no modification" invalidating fair use license. I'm willing to modify that to conform to the license if you will restore the image.Chassisplans (talk)
I sort of get the feeling
that all images of sculpture are now considered possible copyright violations and thus should be removed, just in case. I have begun slashing out some of the hundreds of these shots that I have posted, but i must say that this new development is a disappointment to me. Carptrash (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a line of reasoning, legal reasoning, that feels that a well taken photo - regardless of the subject - is a work of art in its own right, but the wikipedia photo police have not chosen to go that route. So I'm pulling my contributions out before you, or someone else does. It is somehow, more satisfying that way. There is a nice symetery to it. Though, unlike you, I'm not looking for new subjects. I am a sculpture historian and was happy to share here, but sharing where I'm not wanted is . . . ....... silly at best. But thanks for your speedy reply. Carptrash (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the image discussion stating "Image deleted on Wikipedia." But the image still shows on the page. Am I missing something? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- (bear with me please) So if the pic is still in the article, in what practical way did you remove it from wikipedia? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- ok, then, do you have any recomendation on how I am supposed to get rid of the pic. I delete it from the article and another editor (or one of his sockpuppets) reverts it. It's only us two, so it's hard to get any sort of concensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
image = Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg
You removed this image in error, as it was originally uploaded with proper citation and with my permission as copyright holder. I had even stated so on the IfD page for this image. If you cannot return it, please let me know how I might get it returned. Thank you MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct in your quotation, and I apologize for suggesting you moved too hastily. In the quoted discussion, I explained that the image was not the copyright violation that had been claimed, but I was so angry about what I percieve to be a continued bad faith attack on myself and my carreer, that (in a nutshell) I said I would rather have everything about me deleted if I was going to be made a laughing stock subject to vandalism. Cooler heads prevailed and showed that such actions do not always have an unhappy result, so I recanted and agreed to stay. If you erred at all, it was on the side of caution. So... is there any way to get the images returned? Thank you for your courtesy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your professional courtesy. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
NHL and NRHP
Since all National Historic Landmarks are on the National Register of Historic Places (except for the White House), the NHL lists are sub-categories of the NRHP lists. Once the correct NHL category is put in the article, the NRHP category should be deleted, since it is redundant. For example, look at Category:Registered Historic Places in Rhode Island. The NHL sub-category is listed near the top of the page. That sub-list contains all of the NRHP that are also NHLs. The 51 pages below do not repeat the NHLs.--Appraiser (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Harry Binswanger image
In an edit summary to Harry Binswanger, you wrote "remove image per WP:IFD. So I looked at WP:IFD, expecting to find a discussion of whether to remove the image titled Image:hb0516.jpg . It isn't there. Where is the discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
User created watermarking in images
In a recent IFD discussion, a user asked if there was a policy concerning watermarking individual images they've uploaded. I tried looking for a policy on Wikimedia and in the MOS and couldn't find one, but I'm pretty sure I read that this practice was discouraged within the project. I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction, or correct me if I've misunderstood the policy. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Image:Human.jpg
Thanks for the heads up about the deletion of the image I posted.--Patrice58 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Chavez stamp
Please see Talk:César Chávez --AlanH (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Stamps
Larry, why all the stamp image deletions? What's the point of having discussions if after a unanimous bunch of "keep" comments you can close the discussion with "delete"? I thought the stamp fair use criteria were considerably more liberal than how you're interpreting it. Is there a clear directive that mandates these removals, or are you just one guy with an interpretation and an active delete button? Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Fair use stamp images says "Use of these images in philatelic articles is almost always legitimate." Isn't the article that lists people in stamps of the US a philatelic article? How else can you illustrate stamps honoring people if not by use of the stamp images? You can reply here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stamp collecting is a philatelic article. List of people on stamps of the United States is just what it says it says - a list. Fair use images are almost never allowed in lists as there is no critical commentary about the image in a list. The USPSStamp copyright tag states only that using the image to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) is fair use. The use of the image in a biographical article or a list of people appearing on the stamp is not fair use. -Nv8200p talk 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- See also item 3 here -Nv8200p talk 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- However, the César Chávez article would be a legit use of the stamp, ¿no? --AlanH (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. César Chávez is the subject appearing in the stamp's design. A separate article on the César Chávez stamp would be a legitimate fair use. For example Five cents John Kennedy. -Nv8200p talk 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- However, the César Chávez article would be a legit use of the stamp, ¿no? --AlanH (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Wrsc09.jpg on Holloway Field Article
Hi, i was just wondering what your reasoning for deleting this image was, i have the article page on my watch list but did'nt see any mention of its possible deletion on the talk page. --Dan027 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:RBS01b.jpg
The image was taken from else where on Wikipedia, and the copyright stuff was fine, I just didn't know how to translate it properly. But the pic isn't being used any more so feel free to axe it. ^_^ Livingston 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
help needed for configuring image copyright
dear nv8200p, the image at [1] is open for debate but no one seems to-so far-pay it much attention.can you please help us out as you did with robert ley's image approx 3 days ago??even admin delldot couldn't help me out here[2].i'm just surprised to see that a federal-origin image could be doubtful.thank you muchGrandia01 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Essex Fire Service images
Hi there, you deleted three images from the article on ESSEX COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE, and your reason was "per WP:PUI" Could you please explain what this means, and why the images were deleted? Many thanks!
Thanks for your reply. The images on this particular article are courtesy of the fire service itself, however their use according to their website is "permitted so long as it carries credit to Essex County Fire & Rescue Service". Could you please advise as to how I can re-post these images stating this, to avoid deletion in future? Many thanks.
Thanks for your reply. The images on this particular article are courtesy of the fire service itself, however their use according to their website is "permitted so long as it carries credit to Essex County Fire & Rescue Service". Could you please advise as to how I can re-post these images stating this, to avoid deletion in future? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JZQ301288 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Missouri
Hello, did Missouri get upset at us for using their images? I am not disputing anything or griping, just purely curious. Do you have a link to the discussion so I can see how it went? Thanks. Zab (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thank you
I would like to thank you for taking care of some of the images in WP:PUI.--Rockfang (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WarCry
Heyyyyy. why are you deleting the image Warcry????? Rockk3r (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read below!! what the other guy said. Hey why are you deleting all the images. instead yu should HELP!!!!!!!! to find the sources! Rockk3r (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You don't even know what you are doing. First you have to put a warning. And after a certain time you delete the image. You DO NOT just go and delete it!!!
Hello. I wasn't completely clear why you kept this (see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 January 6); as I said there, it's only public domain if it's cropped to the picture and if a source is provided showing it is indeed as early as claimed. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I'm still hoping someone will find a source for the illustration. Chick Bowen 03:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you delete the image from the article Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair?--MaxPride (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
SAGE image note
I noted you removed Image:Sagecontourplot.png from SAGE (computer algebra system), and substituted a free image I made. Then I read closer & saw the original image is more up in the air than I thought. Guess it comes from having made a lot of edits and dealt with a lot of junk ... well, if my image, Sage image x squared vs x cubed.gif has to go, so be it.
Just thought I'd clue 'ya on.
dino (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Personality Rights
That's a new one to me and I think I kinda understand it. I can tell you that all the images which I posted have the full permission of the artists to be there and that the management of the artists has also agreed to have the image there so that may satisfy you guidelines. The managements names is David Hull Promotions.. david@davidhullpromotions.com should you wish to cofirm, although you will see a copy email from him to another editor, on much the same subject, on all my image posts regarding N.I. artists. Austenlennon (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)austenlennon
Thanks - sorry to be a pest but should I add that to all my images? Austenlennon (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)austenlennon
Hello, I replied to your note at User_talk:ProteinBoxBot#Unspecified_source_for_Image:PBB_GE_NIPA1_gnf1h07157_at_fs.png. If you have a moment to take a look, it would be much appreciated... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Protesting deletion of B.J.S. Cahill photo
2008-02-12 Memo from Dr. Gene Keyes Esperanto41 to Calliopejen1
Hi Jen,
I'm a semi Harvard alumnus (Class of '63, dropout of '61), and even a former busboy at the Harvard Law School. ;-)
Esperanto41 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
This message is to say that I regret the overzealousness with which you deleted the B.J.S. Cahill image which I contributed to the article (of which I am the principal author so far) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_J.S._Cahill
Please see my Cahill Resource Page at http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html
The following is my exchange of correspondence with the Bancroft Library last summer:
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:43:46 -0700
From: Myrtis Cochran <mcochran [AT] library.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Bancroft Library credited for B.J.S. Cahill research results
To: Gene Keyes <key [AT] eastlink.ca>, fvanbure [AT] library.berkeley.edu
Cc: abliss [AT] library.berkeley.edu
Dear Mr. Keyes-
I am back from vacation and just receiving your message. Since I am not a member of the Bancroft Library staff, I am forwarding your message to Anthony Bliss, Curator, Rare Books and Literary Manuscripts, Bancroft Library. I am sure he will share your message with the appropriate individuals.
Congratulations on your web site publications.
Myrtis Cochran
Interim Head, Research and Collections
Humanities and Social Sciences
At 09:57 PM 6/5/2007, Gene Keyes wrote:
2007-06-06
To:
Myrtis Cochran, Interim Head, Research and Collections for Humanities and Social Sciences / Reference/Humanities Librarian
Fatemah Van Buren, Head & Map Cataloging Specialist
Dear friends,
In the pre-Internet era, twenty-four years ago, May and June 1983, I spent nine days doing research at the Bancroft Library's Bernard Joseph Stanislaus Cahill Papers (83/89) and his Butterfly Map manuscripts in the Doe Library Map Room. (On a trip from east-coast Canada.)
Now, after an unintended hiatus, some fruits of that research are beginning to appear on my website (and a Wikipedia article I authored), with credit to the Bancroft Library:
http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html
http://www.genekeyes.com/CAHILL_GALLERY/Cahill_Gallery_Thumb_Index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_J.S._Cahill
If you are not the most appropriate recipients of this heads-up, could you please forward my e-mail to whom it may concern? (I know there is also a Cahill collection at the Environmental Design Archives, but most of my research was among Cahill's maps, and at Bancroft.)
Sincerely,
Gene Keyes
(Former Asst. Prof., Political Science, Brandon and St. Thomas Universities)
____________________________________
Myrtis Cochran, Reference and Humanities Librarian
Interim Head, Research and Collections for the Humanities and Social Sciences
212 Doe Library University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
mcochran [AT] library.berkeley.edu, Ph: 510-643-2281, Fax: 510-643-0315
"Once you learn to read you will be forever free"-- Frederick Douglass
It's hard enough to rescue Cahill from oblivion, without having to worry about well-meaning Wiki-deletion patrols. So I'm putting the image back into the article.
Best regards,
Gene Keyes '63 Esperanto41
cc: Nv8200p
[Reply by Calliopejen1]
Hi there, I didn't delete the image, I just nominated it for deletion. Anyways you should not restore it unless you can resolve the underlying copyright issue. The problem is that normally a library doesn't own the copyright to the contents of papers it houses. Who took the photo? That person is the owner of the copyright. Just because the library owns the physical copy of the photo does not mean it can release the rights for using the photo. If you do not have permission from the copyright owner, it is impermissible to include the photo here. Because Cahill lived so long ago, we should be able to find a picture of him that is dated before 1923, which would mean that its copyright has expired. Hopefully this clears things up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would love for the image to be on Wikipedia, however, it is a copyright violation to have it posted. Please provide more information on the copyright status of the image. The library the image came from should be able to help you out. If the library holds the copyright , try requesting permiissin to use the image under a free license (See WP:COPYREQ). There is a good possibility the image is in the public domain and the library would possibly know. I deleted the image again. Please do not repost the image until copyright issues are resolved. -Regards Nv8200p talk 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2008-02-12 Reply by Esperanto41 to CalliopeJen1 and NV8200p:
This is not a photo worthy of copyright quicksand. It is of a deceased and nearly forgotten architect and cartographer. The picture has no ID as to date (1930s?) or photographer, who is likely as long dead as his subject If some copyright claimant (and who the hell would that be??) wishes to step forward and demand its removal from Wikipedia, then there would be reason to examine the matter. Meanwhile, of course, I derive no commercial or monetary benefit from the image; this is strictly an academic, fair-usage posting. (Which will now go onto my own website.)
As you see, I notified the maze of libraries at UC Berkeley about my use of some Cahill materials, providing an opportunity for any objections to be raised; none were. To engage in a prolonged copyright search in that bureaucracy would be a profound waste of their time and mine on a makework triviality.
I regret and resent the uncalled-for meddling by both of you in a subject you have no interest in. You have degraded a worthwhile Wikipedia page for no better reason than legaloid dog-in-the-mangerism.
I also resent the fork-tongued notion that Jen did not delete the picture; only requested someone else do it. Oh, please.
Gene Keyes Esperanto41
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ellen ripley.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ellen ripley.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 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you a Racist?
I noticed your actions alligned with Cumulus Clouds a while ago when you continued his racist actions by attacking a Latino actor. Do you agree with his racism or was your actions ignorance on your part? Don't play stupid this time like last time. It won't work. I am sure the local law enforcement is your area is interested in your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.241.190 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Question about derivative works
Image:Pbs-kids-girl-boy.png was created in photoshop from two copyrighted images (PBS uses the image of the boy and girl separately, the photoshopper put them together). I strongly suspect this is a copyright violation because it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, but was not able to find any Wikipedia policy to point to when explaining this to the image uploader. I found commons:Derivative works which addresses only photographs of copyrighted works, not computerized image modifications. I also found Template:Possibly-unfree-mural, which seems to address this subject but only specifically for graphitti art, not other copyrighted images. Do you have any suggestions on whether Image:Pbs-kids-girl-boy.png is a copyright violation, and if so, how to explain that to the image uploader? LyrlTalk C 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Mighty_ducks.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mighty_ducks.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) 17:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Iturriaga
Hi I know it's been a while since you posted on my talk, and it's been awhile since I checked it, but I looked at the image you were referring to and I did not upload it. Maybe my original was deleted and someone else uploaded another one with the same name. Anyhow since this issue is resolved I will take your comment off of my talk since it pertains to the wrong thing. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsiderdf (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
amboinensis Photos
I'am the copyright holder of this photos, so no need to deletion!