User talk:Kelly
 Archives |
|---|
Speedy deletion of Image:Eiffel.tower.cdmars.arp.jpg
I have just read your message on my Talk page, concerning the above picture, and can see no reason for its speedy deletion. It was taken from the Eiffel Tower and shows the Montparnasse Tower. This picture has a proper description on the Image Description Page, has a proper copyright notice (Public Domain) and works perfectly when I click on its thumbnail in the Tour Montparnasse article, so all seems normal. What's wrong? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the image is on the Commons, the only thing here on the en Wikipedia is a duplicate description. The image you're seeing is showing through from the Commons, the page here can be deleted. Kelly hi! 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Help with move to Commons
Hi Kelly. Yes, I would like a hand with having a look at the transferred images to see whether or not I've done things right. If you could help me out with that then that would be great. Manxruler (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Michael Peter Woroniecki Image
Kelly, I agree the photo should be cropped. Can an adminstrator replace this with the same image cropped to exclude the persecution in the photo? A released photo was very hard to come by. Otherwise I'll have to track down the non-wikipedian who donated and uploaded it, which would be very difficult. Sorry abbout the content, but the owner/uploader had the only photo of him in his element that provided the most up to date image of him for ID purposes. The original photo I installed in 2005 or 2006 when fair use was less strict was perfect, but it was deleted because of the recent tuning of fair use guidelines for images. Respond here and I'll check back.71.251.184.207 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
CG Images
In relation to 2 images which you have templated. In regards to This one I will offer up the copyright status of the images included which are copyrighted (some are not). - Is this what you are asking me to do? This is my own photograph, Thus it is not "fair use", and I am unsure what you are asking me to do? Thanks. 
Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- My personal image is not a derivative work as you have claimed. Would a picture someone takes of the Eiffel tower be a derivative work ? No. Public landmarks are allowed to be photographed and considered property of the photographer.
Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- My personal image is not a derivative work as you have claimed. Would a picture someone takes of the Eiffel tower be a derivative work ? No. Public landmarks are allowed to be photographed and considered property of the photographer.
Could you please explain what is going on here?
Please see my remarks at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_11#Template:GFDL-presumed-ast - Jmabel | Talk 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, if we are going over to Commons images, that's fine. Once I saw that these images had been removed from articles, I thought we were going to lose a bunch of images because of minor imperfections in the licensing trail. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kelly: as long as you've found appropriate images for all, OK. Most of these were not from the Catalan Wikipedia: they were from the Asturian Wikipedia (hence "ast" in the template) and were of comaraques of Asturias, not Catalonia. - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Contestmap.jpg
You're absolutely right, Kelly. I uploaded that image eons ago, and didn't really understand copyrights at the time. Still don't. Please go ahead and delete it. Savidan 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
'Redundant' images
Hi, I've just removed the 'redundant' tags from two images (Image:Corwin, Thomas.jpg and Image:David Herold-rare2.jpg) as the images you claim they are redundant to are actually slightly tighter crops. Maybe I'm just clutching at straws- I say send them to Commons, and see if they believe there should be two. I can see that this one would possibly be more useful than the other in one or two situations. Alternatively, IfD them, or find an admin who's a little more trigger-happy than me. As ever, keep up the good work! J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, just realised I've muddled you with someone else, so that's why my comments seem a little weird if they do. Anyway, basic gist still stands... J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism because you disagree?
Really I'm a vandal because you disagree? What happened to NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Repeatedly blanking article content against consensus is vandalism. You've been reverted by three different editors now. Kelly hi! 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've never blanked article content. I removed non-noteworthy content for an article and gave reasons in the discussion board. If you want to debate my edits that is the place for it, not accusations.