User talk:BlissfulGirl
I see that this image is offered on the basis that it was provided by the subject. Assuming he did not create the image himself (eg using a self timer on a camera) and that you did not create it (since he provided it to you), your assertion that it is licensed under creative commons is a concern because it lacks any indication of who created the photo and owns the rights to it. Could you clarify? Thanks --KenWalker | Talk 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I should have added, that the process for requesting permission from the person who created the image is available here. Permission from whoever that is would solve the concern I have raised. --KenWalker | Talk 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response - I'm not a regular Wikipedia user. The image in question was provided by Rex Weyler and is owned outright by him and he describes the image as "public domain" because he wants anyone who wishes to use it to feel free to use it. Is there a better license for me to be using than the one I chose? Any advice on this would be appreciated, but this photograph does not belong to anyone else but Rex weyler (according to Rex).
BlissfulGirl (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, thanks for the link about permission - just a couple of questions; would I have Rex fill out the permission form since he claims sole ownership? And, if yes, what license do I use so that I can follow Rex's wishes of leaving this image in the public domain? Thanks in advance for any help you can give - I read through the licensing information and thought I had selected the right option, but from what you're saying maybe I did not.
BlissfulGirl (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. What it all turns on is who created the work. Usually the person who has the rights to the photos (same thing applies to the two person photo) is the photographer. That is the person who has the right to make the photo public domain or claim copyright and add the sort of license you have tagged it with. So it isn't a matter of who owns the particular copy of the photo (which may very well be Mr Weyler) but who created it. Is it possible to find out who created these two photos and get their permission to use them here? If so, that person's permission should be requested in the manner specified above. Let me know if I can be of any help. --KenWalker | Talk 06:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing further heard, I have marked the images for deletion. --KenWalker | Talk 08:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you are located, but it is the weekend where I am and I can't get any of the information that I told you I would be securing until normal business hours on Monday, August 25th. I expect to have all the required information by August 29th, so if the images are deleted I simply just re-upload them immediately. BlissfulGirl (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at your responses here and in the article deletion log. If I have annoyed you, please accept my apologies, but copyright concerns are important for Wikipedia and can seem arcane. Re-uploading images that have been deleted for lack of an appropriate license for use here is not a solution unless, in the meantime, the required permission has been obtained. I hope I have made it clear what the issue is. Basically, Mr Weyler's permission for a picture that he is in or that he "owns" is not sufficient. It is the creator of the image, the photographer, whose permission is required. You say that you have responded. You have replied, that much is true, but up to this point you have not said who created these images or that you have their permission to publish them here and until now you have not said that you are attempting to obtain it. --KenWalker | Talk 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I understand the issue surrounding copyright and completely respect your position. The problem I have with you marking the images for deletion and asserting that I did not respond to you was that your last communication prior to marking them for deletion came on a Friday and provided me with the answers to my questions (you didn't ask me new question or ask for a response). You need to allow people a reasonable amount of time to actually use the information you provide. It is virutally impossible to secure any type of response from any professional over the weekend. It would be more appropriate to assume that this sort of information can really only be secured during normal business hours don't you think?BlissfulGirl (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, hope it works out. --KenWalker | Talk 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- It already is! Permission forms will be submitted by the end of the week. You've been quite helpful. I hope you can understand why you need to give people a bit of time to act when it requires sourcing info from the "real world". It's not safe to assume that everyone is operating in an instant edit world ;-) BlissfulGirl (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, hope it works out. --KenWalker | Talk 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I understand the issue surrounding copyright and completely respect your position. The problem I have with you marking the images for deletion and asserting that I did not respond to you was that your last communication prior to marking them for deletion came on a Friday and provided me with the answers to my questions (you didn't ask me new question or ask for a response). You need to allow people a reasonable amount of time to actually use the information you provide. It is virutally impossible to secure any type of response from any professional over the weekend. It would be more appropriate to assume that this sort of information can really only be secured during normal business hours don't you think?BlissfulGirl (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at your responses here and in the article deletion log. If I have annoyed you, please accept my apologies, but copyright concerns are important for Wikipedia and can seem arcane. Re-uploading images that have been deleted for lack of an appropriate license for use here is not a solution unless, in the meantime, the required permission has been obtained. I hope I have made it clear what the issue is. Basically, Mr Weyler's permission for a picture that he is in or that he "owns" is not sufficient. It is the creator of the image, the photographer, whose permission is required. You say that you have responded. You have replied, that much is true, but up to this point you have not said who created these images or that you have their permission to publish them here and until now you have not said that you are attempting to obtain it. --KenWalker | Talk 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you are located, but it is the weekend where I am and I can't get any of the information that I told you I would be securing until normal business hours on Monday, August 25th. I expect to have all the required information by August 29th, so if the images are deleted I simply just re-upload them immediately. BlissfulGirl (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing further heard, I have marked the images for deletion. --KenWalker | Talk 08:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. What it all turns on is who created the work. Usually the person who has the rights to the photos (same thing applies to the two person photo) is the photographer. That is the person who has the right to make the photo public domain or claim copyright and add the sort of license you have tagged it with. So it isn't a matter of who owns the particular copy of the photo (which may very well be Mr Weyler) but who created it. Is it possible to find out who created these two photos and get their permission to use them here? If so, that person's permission should be requested in the manner specified above. Let me know if I can be of any help. --KenWalker | Talk 06:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Rex Weyler3.jpg
[edit]An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rex Weyler3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KenWalker | Talk 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Permission forms have been submitted to OTRS. BlissfulGirl (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright tags in the article using these images has been removed as have the PUI tags in the images. --KenWalker | Talk 06:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Rex Weyler2.jpg
[edit]An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rex Weyler2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KenWalker | Talk 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Permission forms have been submitted to OTRS. BlissfulGirl (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright tags in the article using these images has been removed as have the PUI tags in the images. --KenWalker | Talk 06:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:Rex_Weyler.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Rex_Weyler.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
[edit]Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Covermed jesus.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Covermed jesus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(AfC) Requesting review for Draft:Moideen_Koya_K._K.
[edit]Ma'am. I believe I have brought this draft to a very acceptable state by following the comments from a few reviewers. I request you to please review the page and move it to the articles section. This is my first article and I am pretty keen on wanting to see it get accepted. Please let me know if it needs any more improvements. Thank you. Ubhasrk (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)